Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 2/9/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) PE Sales Rise in 2015
Feb 9, 2016 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Export markets helped boost polyethylene sales in the U.S. and Canada during 2015. -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Calls for 'Significant Statutory Reforms' to Prop 65
Feb 9, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) says that a statutory overhaul of California's Proposition 65 is needed, and has called on the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) to “revise or abandon”... -
Coalition of Advocacy Groups Weighs In on TSCA Bills' Reconciliation
Feb 9, 2016 | Chemical Watch
A coalition of more than 100 environmental, public health, business, labour and other advocacy groups has written to congressional leaders, urging them to avoid “unnecessary processes or rollbacks to federal... -
Unsafe Lead Levels in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint
Feb 9, 2016 | New York Times
By Michael Wines and John Schwartz
In Sebring, Ohio, routine laboratory tests last August found unsafe levels of lead in the town’s drinking water after workers stopped adding a chemical to keep lead water pipes from corroding. -
BPA Poised for Classification as Category 1 Reprotoxin
Feb 9, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
The classification of bisphenol A (BPA) as a category 1B substance, toxic for reproduction, now looks a formality after it received the backing of EU member state officials last week. -
Protecting U.S. Innovation From Cyberthreats
Feb 9, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By President Barack Obama
More than any other nation, America is defined by the spirit of innovation, and our dominance in the digital world gives us a competitive advantage in the global economy. -
Iowa Regulators Kick Off Crucial Hearing on Dakota Access
Feb 9, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
A three-member regulatory board in Iowa yesterday launched a broad look at a pipeline that would carry nearly half of North Dakota's daily output of Bakken Shale oil across the state. -
(ACC Mentioned) Water Crises Like Flint's Will Continue Until the EPA is Held Accountable
Feb 9, 2016 | The Guardian
By Marsha Coleman-Adebayo and Kevin Berends
The ultimate responsibility to safeguard public health rests with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), per the Clean Water Act. -
Lead in the Water, Way Beyond Flint
Feb 9, 2016 | Roll Call
By Stephanie Akin
A single serving of pasta cooked with North Carolina tap water in the home of a sick baby contained more lead than a dime-sized paint chip -
Budget Makes Climate Top Priority 'Cover to Cover'
Feb 9, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly and Sean Reilly
The Obama administration's final budget request places a top priority on climate change and seeks to boost clean energy programs across federal agencies, including U.S. EPA. -
Reid: GOP Should Support Aid Package for Flint
Feb 9, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Jordain Carney
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is pressuring Republicans to support an aid package addressing the drinking water crisis in Flint, Mich. -
Senate Bill's Fate up in the Air
Feb 9, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Geof Koss
Senators are huddling with their respective caucuses this afternoon to try to sort out a path for salvaging the chamber's bipartisan energy package, after overnight negotiations on aid for Flint, Mich... -
Focus Turns to State Agency Coordination on Carbon Rule
Feb 9, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
The first 2016 meeting of the "3N" members occurs Thursday and Friday in Washington, D.C., at the conclusion of the National Association of State Energy Officials' three-day Energy Policy Outlook Conference. -
Supreme Court Sets Argument On CWA 'Jurisdiction' Findings
Feb 9, 2016 | InsideEPA
The Supreme Court has set oral argument for March 30 in a pending case testing whether property owners can sue over determinations by EPA or the Army Corps of Engineers that certain waters are “jurisdictional”... -
EPA Edicts Hurt Rural America
Feb 9, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Rep. Bob Gibbs
Later this week, the House Agriculture Committee will have the opportunity to examine the regulatory agenda of the Environmental Protection Agency and its effects on Americans living in rural areas.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) PE Sales Rise in 2015
Feb 9, 2016 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Export markets helped boost polyethylene sales in the U.S. and Canada during 2015.
Regional sales of high density, low density and linear low density PE each were up vs. 2014, according to year-end totals from the American Chemistry Council in Washington. Export sales gains allowed HDPE and LDPE to overcome domestic sales losses and show overall year-on-year increases.
U.S./Canadian HDPE sales were up 7.5 percent in 2015 to more than 18.9 billion pounds. Domestic sales fell 1.5 percent, but they were propped up by explosive 57.5 percent growth in exports. Almost 78 percent of regional HDPE sales went into the domestic market, with the remainder sold as exports.
Domestic bright spots for regional HDPE sales came from non-food packaging film (up almost 29 percent) and trash bags/can liners (up more than 6 percent).
For LDPE, 2015 U.S./Canadian sales grew 2.8 percent to more than 7.1 billion pounds. As in HDPE, a domestic sales loss of 1.2 percent was counteracted by a gain of 16.4 percent in export sales. Domestic sales accounted for 74 percent of regional LDPE sales in 2015, with the rest coming from exports.
Sales strength for domestic LDPE in 2015 came from non-food packaging film, where sales were up 12.5 percent.
In LLDPE, U.S./Canadian sales grew 6.6 percent to more than 14.6 billion pounds in 2015. Domestic sales growth of 2.7 percent was enhanced by a 21.3 percent jump in export sales. More than 76 percent of regional LLDPE sales went into the domestic market in 2015, with exports accounting for the rest.
Film markets were a major driver for domestic LLDPE sales growth in 2015, with sales into non-food packaging film up more than 10 percent, shrink/stretch film up almost 8 percent and trash/can liners up 14.5 percent.
Taken as a whole, U.S./Canadian PE sales were up 6.3 percent to 40.6 billion pounds in 2015, with almost 77 percent of sales going into the domestic market.
David Barry, a PE market analyst with PetrochemWire in Houston, said it was unclear why demand for of some PE grades fell year-over-year. He added that the percentage of PE being exported from the U.S./Canada region in late 2015 was as high as it's been in several years.
"I can't predict if the domestic (PE) demand trends will continue next year," Barry said. "But it's reasonable to expect that producers will continue to rely more heavily on exports in 2016 to keep the market in balance, especially in the second half of the year when new production comes online."
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Calls for 'Significant Statutory Reforms' to Prop 65
Feb 9, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) says that a statutory overhaul of California's Proposition 65 is needed, and has called on the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) to “revise or abandon” its proposed reform of warning label requirements.
Oehha's proposed reform is aimed at improving the clarity and effectiveness of Prop 65 warnings.
But ACC's vice president of regulatory and technical affairs, Mike Walls, says that the trade group “believe[s] the proposed changes will lead to more consumer confusion, more uncertainty for business, and more private enforcement actions” instead.
“The only way to address the many problems with Proposition 65 is through significant statutory reforms to this 30-year-old law,” he adds.
According to Mr Walls, the ACC thinks that “significant changes to the statute” are needed to:
better inform customers whether or not products are safe to use;
modify how the current law treats all warnings as equally important and urgent;
address how Prop 65 forces warning disclosure “in many cases where it isn’t justified”; and
examine how the law deals with consumer products, as “the law was never intended to address” these.
The trade group also takes issue with how the existing Prop 65 statute allows private entities to enforce its provisions in courts, which “has created an entire lawsuit industry”, says Mr Walls.
Data collected by the ACC shows that between 2000 and 2011, there were 2,381 Prop 65 settlements that totalled more than $170m.
“There have been modest attempts at reform, but we see more bounty hunters than ever and the costs keep increasing,” says Mr Walls. “It’s time to understand that a piecemeal approach to 'fixing' this flawed statute hasn’t worked and is not going to achieve the goals of any of the affected parties: citizens, regulators and businesses.”
Legislative fixes fail
Under California law, amendments to Prop 65 must be passed by a two-thirds majority in the legislature. And in the 2015-16 legislative cycle, even relatively minor reform measures have failed.
A bill (AB 543) that would have exempted businesses from providing a warning statement, if they completed a “qualified exposure assessment” that demonstrated that the exposure to the chemical was below threshold levels requiring a warning, died in the Assembly in January.
A coalition of industry groups supported the measure, saying that it would reduce the ambiguity in the law around demonstrating exposure thresholds, which has led many companies to provide unnecessary warnings to avoid litigation.
But the Center for Environmental Health (CEH), a frequent Prop 65 plaintiff, said that the bill would allow exposure assessments to be done by private organisations, without oversight or opportunity for stakeholder review.
A separate bill (AB 1252) would have exempted businesses with fewer than 25 employees from being sued for a Prop 65 violation, provided that the business put it right and payed a civil penalty within 14 days.
The CEH also opposed the measure, on the grounds that it would “undermine the fundamental purpose of Proposition 65” and put employees working for small businesses “at particular risk of exposure to toxic materials”.
It, too, failed to clear the Assembly before the January legislative deadline, despite the backing of several industry groups.
The ACC did not take a formal stance on either measure. And Mr Walls says the ACC is not aware of any significant reform on the horizon that would address its concerns with existing law.
“There needs to be broad recognition that the statute is fundamentally flawed and cannot be fixed with modest statutory and regulatory changes,” says Mr Walls, “The 'guts' of the statute have to be changed.”
-
Coalition of Advocacy Groups Weighs In on TSCA Bills' Reconciliation
Feb 9, 2016 | Chemical Watch
A coalition of more than 100 environmental, public health, business, labour and other advocacy groups has written to congressional leaders, urging them to avoid “unnecessary processes or rollbacks to federal or state authority” as they work to reconcile House and Senate versions of bills to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The groups said they would support a final bill that has key elements from the House and Senate bills. That includes setting a mandatory schedule of at least 10 EPA initiated risk assessments per year. Calling for a limit on those initiated by industry, the groups said such assessments “should not be allowed to overwhelm the programme and should, therefore, be capped”.
The preservation of state authority in an updated TSCA is crucial to ensure that the public is protected, and that both the federal government and industry are held accountable, the groups wrote. They backed the recommendations made by state attorneys general ,last month, on how to reconcile the two bills in the area of state authority.
The final bill should also provide the EPA with additional resources, via industry fees, to meet risk assessment and rulemaking costs, the groups said. They preferred language in the Senate bill that “assures that fees will be at least $25m annually and can be used for the critical elements of the reformed law.”
-
Unsafe Lead Levels in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint
Feb 9, 2016 | New York Times
By Michael Wines and John Schwartz
In Sebring, Ohio, routine laboratory tests last August found unsafe levels of lead in the town’s drinking water after workers stopped adding a chemical to keep lead water pipes from corroding. Five months passed before the city told pregnant women and children not to drink the water, and shut down taps and fountains in schools.
In 2001, after Washington, D.C., changed how it disinfected drinking water, lead in tap water at thousands of homes spiked as much as 20 times the federally approved level. Residents did not find out for three years. When they did, officials ripped out lead water pipes feeding 17,600 homes — and discovered three years later that many of the repairs had only prolonged the contamination.
The crisis in Flint, Mich., where as many as 8,000 children under age 6 were exposed to unsafe levels of lead after a budget-cutting decision to switch drinking-water sources, may be the most serious contamination threat facing the country’s water supplies. But it is hardly the only one.Continue reading the main storyGraphic: High Lead Levels Were Detected in Nearly 400 Flint Homes, and There May Be More
Unsafe levels of lead have turned up in tap water in city after city — in Durham and Greenville, N.C., in 2006; in Columbia, S.C., in 2005; and last July in Jackson, Miss., where officials waited six months to disclose the contamination — as well as in scores of other places in recent years.
Federal officials and many scientists agree that most of the nation’s 53,000 community water systems provide safe drinking water. But such episodes are unsettling reminders of what experts say are holes in the safety net of rules and procedures intended to keep water not just lead-free, but free of all poisons.
The Environmental Protection Agency says streams tapped by water utilities serving a third of the population are not yet covered by clean-water laws that limit levels of toxic pollutants. Even purified water often travels to homes through pipes that are in stunning disrepair, potentially open to disease and pollutants.
Although Congress banned lead water pipes 30 years ago, between 3.3 million and 10 million older ones remain, primed to leach lead into tap water by forces as simple as jostling during repairs or a change in water chemistry.
“We have a lot of threats to the water supply,” said Dr. Jeffrey K. Griffiths, a professor of public health at Tufts University and a former chairman of the E.P.A.’s Drinking Water Committee. “And we have lots of really good professionals in the water industry who see themselves as protecting the public good. But it doesn’t take much for our aging infrastructure or an unprofessional actor to allow that protection to fall apart.”
Both researchers and industry officials say problems extend well beyond lead. Many potentially harmful contaminants have yet to be evaluated, much less regulated. Efforts to address shortcomings often encounter pushback from industries like agriculture and mining that fear cost increases, and from politicians ideologically opposed to regulation.
Rules and science are outdated. The E.P.A.’s trigger level for addressing lead in drinking water — 15 parts per billion — is not based on any health threat; rather, it reflects a calculation that water in at least nine in 10 homes susceptible to lead contamination will fall below that standard.
AdvertisementContinue reading the main story
And while political leaders upbraid the E.P.A. and state regulators for laggard responses to crises in Flint and elsewhere, they have themselves lagged in offering support. Adjusted for inflation, the $100 million annual budget of the E.P.A.’s drinking water office has fallen 15 percent since 2006, and the office has lost more than a tenth of its staff.
States are equally hard hit. In 2013, the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators said federal officials had slashed drinking-water grants, 17 states had cut drinking-water budgets by more than a fifth, and 27 had cut spending on full-time employees. “The cumulative effect of the resource gap has serious implications for states’ ability to protect public health,” the group stated.
As Flint’s water crisis surfaced last fall, Congress was considering the E.P.A.’s effort to clarify its regulatory powers over tributaries and wetlands — the streams that supply water to a third of Americans.
Both houses passed legislation to block a new Clean Water Act regulation, the Waters of the United States rule, that aims to assert authority over those waters, which the Supreme Court had questioned in 2001 and 2006 rulings.
And Senator James M. Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who is chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, denounced the rule as a federal power grab.
President Obama vetoed that legislation last month, but more than two dozen states have sued to block the rule. Among their arguments: It would hurt business.
An E.P.A. spokeswoman said Friday that the agency hoped to propose strengthened regulation of lead in drinking water in 2017, something the agency’s administrator, Gina McCarthy, said was needed in a speech this month in Flint. She pledged then to start “a national conversation about this country’s water infrastructure” and resources for states.
Ms. McCarthy has also issued a new policy calling for federal regulators to take a more active role in the face of public health crises.
A Core Problem: Old Lead Pipes
In 2011, the water authority in Brick Township, N.J., an oceanside settlement of 75,000 people, tested tap water in a small sample of homes for lead, as the E.P.A. requires be done periodically. It discovered two homes in which the level exceeded the agency’s limit of 15 parts per billion, well short of the number that required remedial steps.
But in the next mandated test, three years later, it found that 16 of 34 homes exceeded the limit — one of them by a dozen times. The growing use of road salt in recent winters, it turned out, had raised chloride levels in the river from which Brick drew its water. Undetected, the chloride corroded aged lead pipes running to older homes, leaching lead into tap water.
The town has since added an anti-corrosion agent to its water, but some residents remain wary.
“Why didn’t somebody in the water company realize with all the snow we’ve had in those years that something was going to affect the water?” asked Jeff Brown, 73, whose 1960s-era ranch home was built when lead was allowed in water lines and plumbing. “I hope they’ve learned a lesson.”
AdvertisementContinue reading the main story
The authorities in Brick say the water now meets federal standards. But that is cold comfort to Mr. Brown. “I’m never reassured when they tell you what’s in federal guidelines,” he said. “Who sets the standards?”
AdvertisementContinue reading the main story
Brick is but one example of how lead contamination can elude rules and authorities, potentially for years.
“We need an aggressive program to get rid of lead service lines, starting with an inventory so we know where they are,” said Lynn Thorp, the national campaigns director for Clean Water Action, an advocacy group. “Water systems need to up their game and take this problem more seriously.”
Both scientists and advocates say the rules governing contamination from lead pipes are ridden with loopholes. For example, the E.P.A.’s lead rule requires water systems to test in only a small number of homes with lead pipes — 50 to 100 for large systems — and intervals between testing can stretch to three years.
Water systems use various protocols for tap water tests, and rules allow ordinary homeowners to conduct them unsupervised, raising questions about their consistency. Officials must disclose contamination and take remedial action only if tests show more than 10 percent of sampled homes exceed the standard. Advocates say that lets utilities declare their water safe even if contamination is uncovered.
”Over the last decade we’ve learned that the testing routines did not detect true risk from lead, that there are forms of lead that we’re not testing for and that testing was too infrequent,” said Dr. Griffiths, the former chairman of the E.P.A.’s Drinking Water Committee. “It’s hard to see how the status quo in lead testing for water is adequately serving the public.”
In December, the Drinking Water Committee endorsed recommendations by an advisory group to strengthen the lead rule in several critical areas. The group said water systems should bolster their anti-corrosion efforts and test more often to ensure that they are working. It called for the E.P.A. to set a standard for lead in drinking water based on its effect on people’s health, likely below the current level, and to require water systems to tell homeowners and public-health officials whenever it is exceeded.
Yanna Lambrinidou, who was on the advisory panel, is an adjunct assistant professor of science and technology studies at Virginia Tech, whose experts first disclosed the scope of Flint’s lead problem. She dissented from the group’s recommendations, arguing that they did not go far enough.
A study for the American Water Works Association, she noted, found that samplings of water that had been sitting in lead pipes had unacceptable lead levels in as much as 70.5 percent of water systems.
The advisory group also urged the E.P.A. to require water systems to eventually replace all lead pipes, but it did not address the main obstacle to that goal: cost. At $5,000 per pipe, by one estimate, that would consume between $16.5 billion and $50 billion — and that is but a fraction of the $384 billion in deferred maintenance the E.P.A. says is needed by 2030 to keep drinking water safe.
AdvertisementContinue reading the main story
AdvertisementContinue reading the main story
Erik D. Olson, head of the health and environment program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said: “You think our roads and bridges aren’t being fixed? The stuff underground is just totally ignored. We’re mostly living off the investment of our parents and grandparents for our drinking water supply.”
Some systems have gone ahead despite the cost. In Lansing, Mich., not 60 miles from Flint, the Board of Water and Light has replaced 13,500 lead lines since 2004, part of a $42 million project that has only 650 pipes to go. Some residents used to fight the intrusion on their property, said Richard R. Peffley, the utility’s general manager.
Since the Flint crisis, he said, “there’s been no resistance.
”A Hidden Problem: Unregulated Chemicals
The biggest hole in the drinking-water safety net may be the least visible: the potential for water to be tainted by substances that scientists and officials have not even studied, much less regulated.
The E.P.A. has compiled a list of 100 potentially risky chemicals and 12 microbes that are known or expected to be found in public water systems, but are not yet regulated. In the last 15 years, it also has required water systems to test for 80 additional contaminants to see whether they merit regulation.
So far, it has decided to place limits on just one, perchlorate, a salt found in rocket propellants and explosives. And what an arduous decision it has been: The E.P.A. began tests for perchlorate in 2001 and resolved to regulate it in 2011, but does not expect to publish its proposed rule until March 2017.
There are thousands of other chemicals, viruses and microbes that scientists like Dr. Griffiths say the agency has not begun to assess. The scientists say they can make educated guesses about the potential for harm, and most are harmless or exist in vanishingly small amounts. But they also admit they can be blindsided.
“We just don’t have enough research to tell us,” said Rebecca D. Klaper, a professor of freshwater science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. “This suite of 100 things might be in the water, but you have to have methods and standards developed to measure these things. Unless you have a preconceived notion of what you’re looking for, you don’t know what’s there.”
Toledo, Ohio, shut down its drinking water for three days in 2014 after microcystin, an unregulated toxin produced by algae-like bacteria clogging Lake Erie, tainted its supplies. Microcystin and related toxins, which can cause liver damage and have killed animals, have since been added to the list of potentially dangerous contaminants.
Another example: Many water systems draw from rivers loaded with nitrates, the product of fertilizer runoff and sewage overflow. But researchers were long unaware that removing nitrates from finished water can leave behind a toxic byproduct, nitrosamines, the cancer-causing chemical found in cooked bacon.
The soup of contaminants in many water sources holds other possibilities for trouble. The E.P.A.’s latest list of potentially risky substances includes some variants of estrogen, compounds from birth-control pills and otherpharmaceuticals that are already linked to sexual changes in fish. Individually, they probably pose little risk to humans. Together, Dr. Klaper said, the risk may or may not be greater.
“How do you look at the long-term impact of these trace chemicals?” she asked. “That’s what we’re trying to wrap our heads around. The research that could determine whether anything is a problem is very complicated.”
Ultimately, water problems in Flint and elsewhere suggest a failing in society’s concept of water, said Henry L. Henderson, the Midwest program director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
“We see safe and sufficient water as a human right,” he said. “It needs to be approached as a public service matter, not a private commercial commodity.”
Cost considerations drove the decision to switch Flint from Lake Huron water to Flint River water, unleashing the lead problems. But water, Mr. Henderson said, has to be more than a matter of the bottom line.
“It doesn’t just come out of the wall,” he said.
Doris Burke and Alain Delaquérière contributed research.
-
BPA Poised for Classification as Category 1 Reprotoxin
Feb 9, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
The classification of bisphenol A (BPA) as a category 1B substance, toxic for reproduction, now looks a formality after it received the backing of EU member state officials last week.
Substances classified as category 1 carcinogens, mutagens or reprotoxicants are banned from use in consumer products in the EU.
They can also be nominated – according to REACH Article 57(a) – as a substance of very high concern (SVHC) and be added to the REACH candidate list.
However, it is possible that before that, or any other regulatory option is pursued, a member state may decide to first conduct a risk management option analysis (RMOA).
The proposed classification is included in the annex accompanying a draft Regulation setting out the ninth adaptation to technical progress (ATP) of the CLP Regulation. According to sources, last week’s meeting of the REACH Committee approved the draft with the BPA classification intact.
The European Commission will now send the draft Regulation to the European Parliament for scrutiny. This takes around three months. It will then return to the Commission for formal adoption and publication in the EU Official Journal.
The Regulation will enter into force 20 days after its publication. According to the draft text, it will apply 18 months after that date.
European Environmental Bureau (EEB) senior chemicals policy officer Tatiana Santos said the committee’s action was a “clear signal to take action to protect EU citizens from exposure to BPA”. Adding it to the candidate list would “rightly” make its phase-out a priority “given that it is a highly dangerous chemical that is impacting our health and that of future generations.”
BPA is manufactured in large volumes, primarily to produce polycarbonate and epoxy resins. According to Echa’s website, releases to the environment are “likely” from a wide range of products,
including:
flooring;
furniture;
toys;
construction materials;
footwear;
leather products;
paper and board; and
electronic equipment.
France has banned food contact materials containing BPA from its home market. The country's courts overtured a similar ban on the production and export of such materials last year
The REACH Committee is also due to consider a proposed restriction on the placing on the market of thermal paper containing BPA.
Among the registrants or suppliers of BPA listed on Echa’s website are major chemical companies 3M, BASF, DuPont, Henkel, Huntsman, Idemitsu, Kao, PPG, Sabic and Solvay.
-
Protecting U.S. Innovation From Cyberthreats
Feb 9, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By President Barack Obama
More than any other nation, America is defined by the spirit of innovation, and our dominance in the digital world gives us a competitive advantage in the global economy. However, our advantage is threatened by foreign governments, criminals and lone actors who are targeting our computer networks, stealing trade secrets from American companies and violating the privacy of the American people.
Networks that control critical infrastructure, like power grids and financial systems, are being probed for vulnerabilities. The federal government has been repeatedly targeted by cyber criminals, including the intrusion last year into the Office of Personnel Management in which millions of federal employees’ personal information was stolen. Hackers in China and Russia are going after U.S. defense contractors. North Korea’s cyberattack on Sony in 2014 destroyed data and disabled thousands of computers. With more than 100 million Americans’ personal data compromised in recent years—including credit-card information and medical records—it isn’t surprising that nine out of 10 Americans say they feel like they’ve lost control of their personal information.
These cyberthreats are among the most urgent dangers to America’s economic and national security. That’s why, over the past seven years, we have boosted cybersecurity in government—including integrating and quickly sharing intelligence about cyberthreats—so we can act on threats even faster. We’re sharing more information to help companies defend themselves. We’ve worked to strengthen protections for consumers and students, guard the safety of children online, and uphold privacy and civil liberties. And thanks to bipartisan support in Congress, I signed landmark legislation in December that will help bolster cooperation between government and industry.
Still, with the nation’s cyber adversaries getting more sophisticated every day—developing new botnets, spyware, malware and ransomware—we have to be even more nimble and resilient, and stay ahead of these threats. The federal government—which is obligated to protect the information provided to it by the American people—has a unique responsibility to lead. But the fact is we still don’t have in place all the tools we need, including ones many businesses rely on every day.
That’s why, today, I’m announcing our new Cybersecurity National Action Plan, backed by my proposal to increase federal cybersecurity funding by more than a third, to over $19 billion. This plan will address both short-term and long-term threats, with the goal of providing every American a basic level of online security.
First, I’m proposing a $3 billion fund to kick-start an overhaul of federal computer systems. It is no secret that too often government IT is like an Atari game in an Xbox world. The Social Security Administration uses systems and code from the 1960s. No successful business could operate this way. Going forward, we will require agencies to increase protections for their most valued information and make it easier for them to update their networks. And we’re creating a new federal position, Chief Information Security Officer—a position most major companies have already adopted—to drive these changes across government.
Second, we’re stepping up our efforts to build a corps of cyber professionals across government to push best practices at every level. We’ll do more—including offering scholarships and forgiving student loans—to recruit the best talent from Silicon Valley and across the private sector. We’ll even let them wear jeans to the office. I want this generation of innovators to know that if they really want to have an impact, they can help change how their government interacts with and serves the American people in the 21st century.
Third, we’re strengthening our partnerships with the private sector to deter, detect and disrupt threats, including to the nation’s critical infrastructure. Yesterday, we inaugurated a new cybersecurity Center of Excellence, which will bring together industry and government experts to research and develop new cutting-edge cyber technologies. We’re also establishing a national testing lab, where companies can test their systems’ security under simulated attacks. And because every enterprise is potentially vulnerable, the Small Business Administration is offering cybersecurity training to over 1.4 million small businesses and their workers.
Fourth, we’re doing more to help empower Americans to protect themselves online. In partnership with industry, we’re launching a new national awareness campaign to raise awareness of cyberthreats and encourage more Americans to move beyond passwords—adding an extra layer of security like a fingerprint or codes sent to your cellphone. At the same time, leading technology firms like Google, Facebook, Dropbox and Microsoft are making it easier for millions of users to secure their online accounts, while credit-card and payment companies such as Visa, MasterCard and PayPal are making transactions more secure.
Finally, because government doesn’t have all the answers to these complex challenges, we’re establishing a bipartisan Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity to focus on long-term solutions. Working together, my administration and congressional leaders will appoint top business, strategic and technology thinkers from outside government to provide specific recommendations for bolstering cybersecurity awareness and protections across the public and private sectors over the next decade.
As fast as our connected world is evolving, it is worth remembering that we’re still in the early days of this challenge. The first Web page came online in 1990. We’re only in the third decade of the Internet Age, and I believe we’ve only just scratched the surface of what’s possible—if we protect the innovation and privacy that we cherish as Americans.
These cyberthreats are a national-security risk few of my predecessors faced, but they will be ones my successors, regardless of party, must address. As long as I’m president, protecting America’s digital infrastructure is going to remain a top national-security priority. We won’t resolve all these challenges over the coming year, but we’re laying a strong foundation for the future. By taking these steps together, I’m confident we can unleash the full potential of American innovation, and ensure our prosperity and security online for the generations to come.
-
Iowa Regulators Kick Off Crucial Hearing on Dakota Access
Feb 9, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
A three-member regulatory board in Iowa yesterday launched a broad look at a pipeline that would carry nearly half of North Dakota's daily output of Bakken Shale oil across the state.
The proposed $3.8 billion Dakota Access project would carry up to 570,000 barrels a day from North Dakota and connect to refineries and other pipelines in Illinois (EnergyWire, Jan. 22).
It's already been approved by the other three states along its route, so the hearing in front of the Iowa Utilities Board is a crucial hurdle. The board spent the first day of the scheduled three-day hearing discussing big-picture issues, such as whether it can consider the pipeline's impact on global climate change and whether it can reject the project or impose additional permit restrictions to address environmental impacts or safety issues.
The pipeline's owner, Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners LP, has argued for a narrow ruling, according to testimony during a webcast of the hearing. But the Iowa board's general counsel, David Lynch, said the members can go beyond the minimum standards written into Iowa's pipeline safety law.
"If the case -- the issues presented to the board, the arguments made by the parties -- if those take us into areas that are beyond those rules, the board has the ability to consider those issues," Lynch said.
The question of climate change will be considered along with a host of other out-of-state costs and benefits, Lynch said.
The route will cross 18 counties in Iowa, and 347 of its more than 1,100 miles will be in the state, according to Energy Transfer's website. The line has sparked protests from landowners and conservation groups that worry about the potential for spills and other accidents. As of Jan. 25, 80 percent of landowners along the route had agreed to the pipeline, according to Energy Transfer.
Energy Transfer has said Dakota Access will provide hundreds of million in wages to local union workers.
The board didn't hear from Energy Transfer or any of the landowners and green groups that are parties to the case yesterday, because their testimony has already been presented. Instead, Lynch and other staffers outlined the legal issues for the board and answered technical questions.
The board is scheduled to consider the pipeline's route when the second day of the hearingconvenes at 2 p.m. EST today.
A decision may not come until days or weeks after the hearing ends, the Utilities Board said in a news release.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Water Crises Like Flint's Will Continue Until the EPA is Held Accountable
Feb 9, 2016 | The Guardian
By Marsha Coleman-Adebayo and Kevin Berends
The ultimate responsibility to safeguard public health rests with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), per the Clean Water Act. In fact, there are provisions of the Clean Water Act that provide for criminalprosecutions for violations that can result in fines and imprisonment.
The EPA has 200 fully authorized federal law enforcement agents who can carry firearms; 70 forensic scientists and technicians and 45 attorneys who specialize in environmental crimes enforcement. Yet the EPA, mandated as the public’s last, best line of defense, failed the people – yet again – when it came to the Flint water crisis.
The Flint atrocity could, with Congressional and presidential resolve, be the last one — agency administrators and political appointees serve at the pleasure of the president, and Congress is responsible for doling out funding to them.
But for that resolve to crystallize, the horrors of the poisoning of Flint need to be seen within the historical contexts that show the crimes committed against the people of Flint fit a toxic template with deep roots in the managerial culture of the EPA that has repeatedly created sacrifice zones in poor, predominantly black and brown communities of America, often backed by congressional and presidential inaction.
Congress, acting on behalf of the people, must break this cycle and hold all public officials who were complicit in the tragedy in Flint to account.
Ten years ago, municipal water quality expert Marc Edwards, a Virginia Tech professor who is now part of the group investigating Flint, took on the EPA and the CDC about lead poisoning in Washington, DC. It took six years and tens of thousands of his own dollars fighting two federal agencies charged with protecting the public. After six years, by virtue of wresting Foia request information that both agencies had withheld from the public – and surviving both agency’s efforts to discredit him as an unreliable rogue – the agencies finally had to admit they had misled the public, and that a disproportionate number of Washington’s children of color suffered lead poisoning.
In 2005, the EPA used $2.1m provided by the American Chemical Council to study the effects of pesticides on infants and babies, the Children’s Environmental Exposure Research Study, or Cheers. It offered $970, a free camcorder, a bib and a T-shirt to parents whose infants were exposed to pesticides in Duval County, Florida, if the parents completed a two-year study, which included “spraying pesticides inside your home routinely”.
California Senator Barbara Boxer decried the program as “appalling, unethical and immoral,” saying it “is the worst kind of thing; it’s environmental injustice where children are the victims.” The acting EPA administrator moved decisively and halted the program — because Boxer vowed to hold up his confirmation until the study was shut down.
When asked about his experience witnessing the most recent effects of contaminated water, Marc Edwards almost came out of his chair at a congressional hearing on Flint water last week, which we both attended. ‘There was plenty enough evidence in the corrosive material found in the water samples to merit immediate action,’ he said. “They didn’t need to wait for levels of lead to spike in the children’s blood before they did anything. But the [Department of Environmental Quality] and the EPA were perfectly content to have their way with the children of Flint.”
He stopped himself, struggling for composure. He lowered his eyes.
At the same time another, muffled breathing grew behind him a few rows, at the back of the room. Then a choking sound. And then a wail. A black woman in a red dress stood up, bent sharply at the waist with her hands clasped in fists against her lips. She tried and failed to hold back her cries. She turned and rushed toward the aisle.
The members noticed. Heads turned. The woman in red left, her sobs filling the chamber as she trailed through the heavy wooden doors. The EPA representatives didn’t even look in her direction.
Today we need to ask: what did EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy know about Flint, and when did she know it? Representative Jason Chaffetz, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee chairman, has authorized US Marshals to “hunt him down”, referring to Flint Emergency Manager Darnell Earley and “serve him that subpoena”. McCarthy also needs to be subpoenaed. The agency’s track record of collateral damage must be stopped.
But given the EPA’s repeated history of burying its actions, we cannot entrust it to investigate itself. There needs to be an independent, transparent and comprehensive investigation of the underlying culture that prevents those conducting good science and best practices from fulfilling the agency’s mission.
Marsha Coleman-Adebayo is an EPA whistleblower who worked at the agency for 18 years. She is the author of 'No Fear: A Whistleblowers Triumph over Corruption and Retaliation at the EPA'.
Kevin Berends is the Director of Communication for the No Fear Institute.
-
Lead in the Water, Way Beyond Flint
Feb 9, 2016 | Roll Call
By Stephanie Akin
A single serving of pasta cooked with North Carolina tap water in the home of a sick baby contained more lead than a dime-sized paint chip. An increase in spontaneous abortions and miscarriages was tied to undisclosed lead in the Washington, D.C.’s drinking water. And tap water at an Ohio mobile home community was found to have three times the allowable lead levels for months before residents were informed.
As members of Congress scramble to address the lead-tainted water in Flint, Mich., the nation’s sprawling and aging water delivery system faces broader problems than one community’s crisis. Deteriorating infrastructure, combined with outdated government regulations, have left many places vulnerable to contaminated drinking water.
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates it will cost $384 billion over the next 20 years to address the country’s “drinking water and infrastructure needs,” according to a statement from an agency spokesperson. The task is complicated by the small size of most water utilities, which are tasked with treating water from a variety of sources with shrinking budgets, aging equipment and frequent staff turnover. Climate change and newly identified pollutants pose additional challenges, the spokesperson said.
Recognizing the scope of the problem, lawmakers have developed a range of proposals and funding requests. “Clean water for American citizens is not a political issue,” Rep. Steve Russell, R-Okla., said in an interview. “It’s a government responsibility.” But costs and philosophical differences about Congress’ role in fixing state and local matters could thwart any such efforts.
Russell, who is pushing for better regulation by the EPA, was one of several members of Congress to draw comparisons between Flint’s crisis and those in DC, Greensboro, N.C. and Mercer County, Ohio, during a House Committee on Government Reform hearing last week.
Other lawmakers said they were working on bills that would address infrastructure problems, in addition to proposed measures that would pay for health care and education for as many as 9,000 young children exposed to lead in Flint’s water. The House expects to bring up a bill Wednesday that would require the Environmental Protection Agency to inform communities about contamination, while House Democrats host a hearing that day exploring the impact of lead poisoning on young children.
The Senate is working on a plan to help Flint fix its corroded pipes and support families affected by the contamination. In the presidential campaign, Democrat Hillary Clinton left New Hampshire just ahead of Tuesday’s primary for a news conference Sunday in Flint.
Even as the Flint crisis grabs national headlines, the EPA is dealing with other ongoing water issues.
“There are drinking water issues across the country that we are monitoring actively and working with our state partners to address,” EPA administrator Joel Beauvais testified at last week’s hearing. As he spoke, EPA officials were distributing bottled water and informing residents in Ohio, where a cluster of villages had allowed lead contamination to continue unchecked for months.
EPA officials did not supply a list of communities the agency is monitoring despite repeated requests from Roll Call last week and Monday.
Water quality is controlled at the source for a variety of pollutants — using guidelines that haven’t been updated in two decades. The water then snakes through hundreds of miles of pipes made of lead, copper and even wood, each of which can introduce a new set of contaminants before entering residents’ homes.
Problems in Flint, for example, arose when the city switched water suppliers and stopped adding an anti-corrosion agent, in violation of federal law. That allowed acidic water to eat through iron and lead pipes, leaching contaminants into the water. Other recent problems elsewhere have been spurred by changes in the chemicals used to disinfect drinking water.
The Government Accountability Office has been asked to review the issue, focusing on themes that were raised in a report published in 2006, after elevated lead levels were found in the District’s tap water, Natural Resources and Environment Director J. Alfredo Gomez said in an email. The 2006 report, the result of a year-long investigation, found that the EPA was missing significant data to support its claim that lead levels in drinking water systems had dropped in the previous decade.
Scientists and water quality activists said, however, that the most egregious recent outbreaks — including the situation in Flint — could have been avoided if government officials had followed laws already in place.
“Water quality is well regulated — very well regulated,” said Rich Valentine, a civil and environmental engineering professor at the University or Iowa who focuses on water quality. “The particular problem at hand is when treatment systems are modified and not properly monitored as required by the law, and that’s when trouble can happen.”
Marc Edwards, a Virginia Tech scientist credited with helping to expose the lead contamination in Flint, D.C., and North Carolina, said that in each of those situations, officials were found to have been using testing methods that masked the true level of lead in the water. In the D.C., Flint and Ohio cases, the damage was exacerbated by officials who failed to inform the public.
“The public health agencies empowered and entrusted to protect our children from lead and water have proven themselves unworthy of the task,” Edwards said. “What’s so unusual about Flint is that they got caught.”
Edwards has appeared before three Congressional hearings — including the one last week — to urge Congress to close loopholes in federal drinking water regulations. The Safe Drinking Water Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency to revise its regulations on lead and copper in water every seven years. But the rule has not been updated since 2007, and it has not be substantially revised in 25 years.
Several House members seized on the delay during the Government Oversight Hearing last week.
“I don’t know, Mr. Chairman, that there’s been more of a catastrophe in government handling of an issue since Hurricane Katrina,” said Jodie Hice, R-Ga. “This is absolutely a train wreck in every way. And the EPA is so far behind.”
Beauvais, the EPA’s Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water testified last week that the agency expects to release substantial updates by 2017.
Russell, the Oklahoma Republican, suggested Congress “insist” that the Environmental Protection Agency revise its outdated requirements on how and when local water suppliers test for lead and copper in their water.
Rep Paul Tonko, D-N.Y., said he planned to introduce a bill in the coming weeks that would provide federal money to help states, water suppliers and disadvantages communities upgrade their water infrastructure and improve the management of their existing delivery systems, and to strengthen the EPA’s ability to enforce the Safe Drinking Water Act.
He acknowledged that the proposal would likely meet resistance because of its expense, but added, “The cost of doing nothing here will overwhelm the cost of doing something,” he said.
Two Michigan House members, Democrat Dan Kildee and Republican Fred Upton, proposed a bill that would require the EPA to disclose to the public any data that shows elevated lead levels in drinking water. That bill is set to come up on the House floor on Wednesday. A similar measure was presented in the Senate by Michigan Democrats Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters. The two senators are also seeking $600 million in federal dollars for Flint, a proposal tied up in negotiations over a broad energy bill.
Beyond the hearing on lead exposure Wednesday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee announced a hearing in March to “gain a comprehensive understanding of the short-and long-term implications of this crisis to the public health and environment.”
-
Budget Makes Climate Top Priority 'Cover to Cover'
Feb 9, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly and Sean Reilly
The Obama administration's final budget request places a top priority on climate change and seeks to boost clean energy programs across federal agencies, including U.S. EPA.
A photo of Alaska's Denali mountain adorns the printed version of the document. President Obama visited the famed site last year to promote action to address climate change.
On Twitter this morning, the White House Office of Management and Budget said the president's commitment to action against a warming world was "evident throughout his budget, cover to cover."
The Obama administration’s budget request features a photo of Denali on the front cover. Administration officials say the photo signifies the president’s commitment to climate change.Photo courtesy of the White House.
Among the administration's climate-related requests in the fiscal 2017 budget: a new 10-year fund at EPA to help build up climate infrastructure and money for a U.N. fund to help developing nations address climate change.
EPA would receive a total $8.267 billion in discretionary funding, an increase from current enacted levels but a decrease from the $8.6 billion that the Obama administration requested for the agency last year. EPA is currently operating under an $8.1 billion budget provided by Congress last year in its omnibus spending bill.
Obama's spending blueprint asked for a modest increase in funding for the agency's core regulatory programs but would cut state and tribal assistance grants.
Last week, the administration unveiled proposals to levy a $10-per-barrel tax on U.S. oil to provide $32 billion a year for clean vehicle development, public transit and urban planning. Obama is also seeking to double clean energy research spending over the next five years (E&E Daily, Feb. 8).
Many of the requests in the budget are unlikely to receive support from congressional Republicans. GOP members have already slammed the oil tax as dead on arrival.
Still, observers say the president may be trying to exert his influence on the next president, whether Republican or Democrat, and to show the international community that the United States would keep up its part of the recent Paris climate change deal.
Paul Bledsoe, a former climate official in the Clinton administration, said the holistic approach Obama's budget request takes on climate may also signal that he's willing to bargain with Republicans.
"I think actually the very emphasis that the administration is putting on climate protection in the budget may indicate that they will compromise with Republicans on other things to get some of their priorities," Bledsoe said.Climate funding
Overall, EPA's budget would provide about $2.85 billion for agency environmental programs and management in fiscal 2017, an increase of more than $200 million compared with the $2.6 billion lawmakers approved for this year.
The blueprint would give EPA a total of $479 million for Clean Air Act and climate change regulatory activities, up about 8 percent from the current $442 million level. The administration proposed similar boosts last year. Congress instead left funding largely flat.
Within the budget, $235 million would support "EPA efforts to address climate change through commonsense standards, guidelines and voluntary programs."
The budget would provide $25 million for states to implement the Clean Power Plan, EPA's program for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants.
The request renews similar proposals from fiscal 2015 and 2016 to give states more Clean Air Act grant money to help them implement the program, the centerpiece of the Obama administration's climate agenda.
"The EPA will work closely with states as they develop strategies to reduce carbon pollution from the U.S. power sector," the administration budget documents said.
EPA said it would also work this year to identify air quality benefits associated with climate mitigation to better shape domestic climate policies.
The agency will continue to seek both regulatory and nonregulatory programs to reduce greenhouse gases, including through voluntary methane reduction programs, the administration said.
The Obama administration today also proposed a new climate infrastructure fund for retrofitting, replacing and repowering diesel equipment, with a focus on upgrading school buses. The fleet of existing cars, truck and buses is "contributing to climate change and putting our children's health at risk," EPA's budget summary says.
Obama wants Congress to give the fund $1.65 billion over the next 10 years in mandatory government funding, keeping it separate from EPA's proposed discretionary budget.
As part of the fund, EPA would provide up to $300 million in fiscal 2017 to the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act program, which is set to expire this year and typically enjoys bipartisan support in Congress.
At the same time, however, EPA is proposing to fund the traditional discretionary DERA program at $10 million in fiscal 2017, a reduction from its current funding levels of $50 million.
The president proposed funding to help the United States meet its pledges to the international community. In the runup to the Paris climate talks last year, the administration promised $3 billion over four years to the Green Climate Fund, a U.N. fund to help poor countries address climate change.
The president's budget request proposes to put $750 million toward the GCF in fiscal 2017, an increase over the administration's request of $500 million last fiscal year. Of the fiscal 2017 request, $500 million would come from the State Department's spending allocation and the rest from the Treasury Department.
The full amount is included in a larger request for $1.3 billion for the Global Climate Change Initiative.
GCF spending "will not only help preserve stability and security in fragile regions that are of strategic importance to the United States," the administration said, "but will also open these regions to U.S. businesses and investment."
The funding to help developing nations will likely be a tough ask from Congress, where Republican critics have vowed to use the power of the purse to slow the international agreement to limit warming.
But Democrats last December were successful in warding off GOP riders that would have explicitly prohibited Obama from providing funding to GCF (Greenwire, Dec. 16, 2015).
Other climate provisions are scattered throughout the budget request. They include $100 million for NASA to develop low-carbon aircraft and $311 million for the National Flood Insurance Program mapping efforts to help communities prepare for flood risks from climate change.
Obama last year visited Alaska to promote action to address climate change, and the request includes several items that will help carry out promises that the president made during that trip, including increased investments in the Denali Commission.Air and water
Along with greenhouse gas reduction activities, EPA funding would go toward the agency's continuing development and implementation of national ambient air quality standards and the regional haze program.
Domestically and internationally, EPA plans to focus on ensuring that "ozone-depleting substance production and import caps," both under the Clean Air Act and Montreal Protocol, "continue to be met."
Possibly in response to the ongoing drinking water lead contamination in Flint, Mich., EPA is also proposing to help communities "address environmental concerns and to take advantage of advances in technology to detect pollution in their air and water," an agency fact sheet says. As part of that effort, the agency plans to fund "circuit riders" to furnish "direct community outreach and technical assistance," it adds.
The budget would trim state and tribal assistance grants from about $3.5 billion to $3.3 billion. In the fact sheet, however, the White House highlighted a plan to increase state categorical grants by some $77 million; it also touted efforts to improve coordination and joint planning in how grant money is spent.
The budget draft includes increases in funding for programs to clean up contaminated areas. It would provide about $1.1 billion through the Hazardous Substance Superfund account, almost a 4 percent increase over this year's level. In spending that money, the administration would -- among other goals -- prioritize sustainable development and community cleanups.
In another proposal recycled from last year, the administration seeks to zero out funding for EPA's water quality program for beaches. Lawmakers instead appropriated $10 million for this year.
Under the new budget, EPA would set aside close to $2 billion for Clean Water and Drinking Water state revolving funds, money that is passed on to states for water infrastructure projects.
The president's proposal requests $1.02 billion for loans to repair drinking water infrastructure, a $166 million cut from last year's $1.186 billion request.
This is still more than Congress' $863 million appropriation for fiscal 2016. The Flint crisis and renewed attention to crumbling water infrastructure is likely responsible for the bump.
The Clean Water SRF, which funds wastewater systems, would get $979.5 million under the proposed budget, a 12 percent drop from the $1.116 billion the administration asked for last year and only three-quarters of what Congress set aside in the fiscal 2016 omnibus.
Though wastewater systems are typically more expensive than drinking water systems, this is the second year in a row the president has asked for more money to go into the tap water program.
Lawmakers expressed outrage last week when news broke of the cut to the Clean Water SRFs. Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) called it a "dangerous game" to play with needed funds (E&E Daily, Feb. 9).
The budget requests would also make $15 million available for loans under the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, a pilot loan program created under the 2014 water resources law. The administration proposed $42 million for technical assistance to states, roughly level with its $50 million request last year.
For the third year in a row, the Obama administration made cuts to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, proposing $250 million. This is level to the fiscal 2016 request and $50 million under what was agreed to in Congress last year.
Reporter Tiffany Stecker contributed.
-
Reid: GOP Should Support Aid Package for Flint
Feb 9, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Jordain Carney
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is pressuring Republicans to support an aid package addressing the drinking water crisis in Flint, Mich.
The Democratic leader said Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.) had been working through the weekend on an aid package, but suggested that Republicans hadn't formally signed off on the potential deal.
"For weeks now, we have called on Republicans to work with us to provide assistance to the people of Flint," Reid said. "Now we are once again waiting on the Republicans to step forward and support the chair of the Environmental and Public Works Committee. It's incumbent upon the Republican majority to get to yes."
The Democratic leader — who frequently uses the Senate floor to try to pressure Republicans —didn't go into details of the potential agreement.
His remarks come after senators and staffers have been negotiating for roughly a week to try to get a deal on aid for Flint, Mich., where the water supply is now contaminated with lead. The fight over the aid package has bogged down a larger bipartisan energy reform bill.
Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) suggested on Monday that a deal remained elusive after Democrats blocked the energy bill last week over the funding fight.
Reid added on Tuesday that he hopes that Republicans "will choose to help us pass legislation to resolve this crisis, sending emergency funds to the people of Flint." Senate Democrats are asking for up to $600 million in funding, with most of it going toward repairing and replacing old pipes in Flint.
-
Senate Bill's Fate up in the Air
Feb 9, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Geof Koss
Senators are huddling with their respective caucuses this afternoon to try to sort out a path for salvaging the chamber's bipartisan energy package, after overnight negotiations on aid for Flint, Mich., appear to have failed to clear the chief hurdle to finishing the bill.
Aides from both parties said this morning it was unclear what's next for the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's package (S. 2012), which remains stalled over Democratic demands for assistance to help Flint residents cope with their lead-contaminated drinking water
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) this morning did not reference the energy bill or the Flint standoff in his opening remarks, but he noted that the chamber will move to North Korea sanctions legislation tomorrow morning.
In his own opening comments, Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) noted that 9,000 children under the age of 6 in Flint have been exposed to lead, and he mentioned that the American Academy of Pediatrics yesterday sent a "long letter" to him and McConnell urging help for the town.
"We need help from the Republicans," Reid said. "Nothing's happened because we haven't had enough Republican support. In the meantime, the people of Flint, Michigan, are using bottled water to bathe, to drink, to brush their teeth, to cook with. That's really too bad."
However, Reid noted ongoing negotiations with Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who yesterday said he was working on identifying new offsets for his proposal to steer grants and loans to Flint (E&E Daily, Feb. 9).
"Now we are once again waiting on Republicans to step forward and support the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee," Reid said.
"It's incumbent upon the Republican majority to get to 'yes,' help the people of Flint [and] end this man-made emergency that's simply beyond their control," he added.
While the Senate is scheduled to vote on a pending nomination this afternoon, it's unclear what will happen next on energy.
Democrats last week filibustered two procedural votes on the energy bill, and McConnell reserves the right to bring up both for a vote at any time.
The chamber could also move to the North Korea bill tomorrow and return to the energy package later, should McConnell be willing to commit additional floor time to energy, which has already consumed a week and a half of floor action.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) said she is awaiting a Congressional Budget Office score on a compromise Flint amendment that has bipartisan support. However, she said it was unclear if there is sufficient support within the Senate for adoption.
-
Focus Turns to State Agency Coordination on Carbon Rule
Feb 9, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
The first 2016 meeting of the "3N" members occurs Thursday and Friday in Washington, D.C., at the conclusion of the National Association of State Energy Officials' three-day Energy Policy Outlook Conference.
Each Monday, Power Plays previews upcoming moves on the way to Clean Power Plan compliance and recaps the week's developments.
NASEO is hosting the workshop on how state agencies are working together on the U.S. EPA Clean Power Plan, including members of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and National Association of Clean Air Agencies. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy will deliver a keynote address on Thursday afternoon. E&E reporters will be there.
Today, Minnesota regulators will host a webinar on "leakage" under mass-based compliance strategies for the Clean Power Plan. The state has not determined whether it will use a mass- or rate-based compliance strategy, but officials say the topic is ripe for discussion. Presenters include Chris Van Atten of M.J. Bradley & Associates, Anthony Paul of Resources for the Future, and Michael Schnitzer from NorthBridge Group.
Minnesota also begins its series of community listening sessions on the Clean Power Plan in St. Cloud tomorrow. Additional meetings are scheduled later this month for Marshall, Bemidji and Duluth. ClimateWire reporter Daniel Cusick will be following these and other events from the Twin Cities.
On Wednesday, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality will hold in Phoenix its 13thstakeholder meeting on the Clean Power Plan. The discussion will include the evaluation of potential compliance options based on 10 principles.
On Thursday, the Electric Power Research Institute and Resources for the Future plan a seminar in Washington, D.C., on modeling compliance pathways for states. ClimateWire's Elizabeth Harball will be reporting.
On Friday in Richmond, Va., the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality will convene another meeting of its Clean Power Plan to look at elements that could be included in the state compliance plan. ClimateWire's Emily Holden will be reporting.
In case you missed it:
Georgia is the latest state to weigh an interstate power compact to insulate itself from U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan (EnergyWire, Feb. 5).
In Missouri, utilities and other parties unanimously favor a "mass-based" plan to cap power plant carbon dioxide emissions and trading of emissions allowances. But there is far less agreement about other key decisions facing state air regulators (EnergyWire, Feb 5).
EPA tells the Supreme Court that halting the Clean Power Plan would delay critical greenhouse gas reductions and undermine a global effort to address climate change (EnergyWire, Feb. 5).
Despite the heavy litigation surrounding the Clean Power Plan, state regulators and industries are hustling to comply, a top U.S. EPA air attorney said (Greenwire, Feb. 4).
Idaho is inclined to submit to EPA in September a compliance plan for the agency's controversial carbon rule and ask for a two-year extension to work out the details of coordinating compliance with adjoining states, according to state officials (EnergyWire, Feb. 4).
The nine-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is continuing to weigh linking its cap-and-trade system with other states that will use carbon markets to comply with federal climate change regulations (ClimateWire, Feb. 3).
Reporter Danny Cusick contributed.
-
Supreme Court Sets Argument On CWA 'Jurisdiction' Findings
Feb 9, 2016 | InsideEPA
The Supreme Court has set oral argument for March 30 in a pending case testing whether property owners can sue over determinations by EPA or the Army Corps of Engineers that certain waters are “jurisdictional” under the Clean Water Act (CWA) even before regulators take enforcement or permitting action based on their findings.
An argument in early spring sets the stage for the high court to issue its decision in Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., et al., before its current term ends on June 30, potentially resolving nationwide the question of when regulators' CWA jurisdictional determinations (JDs) are subject to suit.
The Corps is appealing a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit that allowed the peat mining company Hawkes Co.'s suit to move forward despite the government's objections that a JD is not “final action” subject to challenge. The unanimous three-judge panel found that even without direct legal consequences the findings create new hurdles for property owners.
Since the 8th Circuit only addressed the threshold question of whether the findings can be subject to litigation, the high court will not address whether regulators' view of CWA jurisdiction is lawful -- which is itself a heavily litigated topic, including the many ongoing challenges to the joint EPA-Corps rule defining the reach of the water law.
In its Jan. 22 opening brief the Department of Justice (DOJ) on the Corps' behalf argued that the JDs are similar to non-binding agency guidance documents that courts have generally found to be exempt from judicial review. DOJ says that if the 8th Circuit's decision stands, it risks allowing suits over EPA and other agencies' guidances, because every such guide is meant to influence regulated parties' actions to some degree.
However, Hawkes is hoping to convince the justices to expand their test for which environmental orders are final action after the landmark unanimous 2013 decision Sackett v. EPA. That decision required pre-enforcement review of some environmental compliance orders on the basis that recipients faced enhanced fines when enforcement would eventually begin. But parties on both sides of JD cases have cited Sackett as supporting their positions, meaning it will be up to the justices to clarify the impact of their 2013 ruling.
-
Feb 9, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Rep. Bob Gibbs
Later this week, the House Agriculture Committee will have the opportunity to examine the regulatory agenda of the Environmental Protection Agency and its effects on Americans living in rural areas. Administrator Gina McCarthy will be testifying and I look forward to a lively back-and-forth with the administrator, as I am certain the committee will have questions regarding the effects of their regulations on farmers and ranchers. Much of the district that I represent is rural America. We work hard, love our families and love our country. We care deeply about the environment; it is how we make a living. In rural areas like Holmes County, Ohio conservation and environmental stewardship start early in life. 4-H programs help teach our youth what it means to be a responsible citizen. Since 1925, FFA has been providing middle and high-school students with an education program focused on agriculture.
America has been the “breadbasket of the world” for decades and can continue to be. Despite shrinking farmlands, American agriculture is producing higher yields through innovation, harnessing cutting edge technology and being responsible stewards of our planet. Advancements in energy extraction have led to an energy renaissance in areas of the country hardest hit by the recession. These new technologies allow for better and more efficient extraction while leaving a smaller environmental footprint.
Students, farmers, and entrepreneurs now have opportunities to make a fulfilling and fruitful life for themselves and their families that generations of Americans struggled to access. So what are government agencies like the EPA doing? Making it harder to reach those opportunities.
The most obvious and dangerous example of the EPA’s effect on the rural economy is the Waters of the United States rule (WOTUS). This rule is a federal power grab that expands the EPA’s jurisdiction well beyond “navigable waters”. It encroaches on private property rights and creates confusion and uncertainty regarding what does and does not fall under EPA jurisdiction as prescribed in the Clean Water Act. Since it was written and signed into law, the Clean Water Act has been a compact intended to strengthen and empower the federal-state partnership in protecting our natural resources. The new WOTUS rule breaks this partnership, encroaching upon state jurisdiction. Which is why thirty-two states are suing the EPA to stop the rule, including Ohio.
I have argued on the House floor that creating more red tape, mandating unnecessary permits, and requiring higher compliance costs risks the drastic improvements we have made in water quality since 1972. Farmers have an economic interest in having access to a safe and clean water supply, too. They need it to water their crops and feed their livestock. In fact, they and their families are often the first ones to drink it. Making it costlier and more onerous to comply could discourage farmers from making necessary improvements like buffer strips and grass waterways.
It’s not just states that are fighting this harmful rule. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, the American Farm Bureau Federation and several state or regional groups filed a lawsuit to stop the EPA. In 2014, dozens of associations and agriculture advocates sent a letter to Congress to warn of the economic impact of the rule. Additionally, the text of the rule is not the only problem. The way in which it was crafted and promoted also raises questions. Recently, the Government Accountability Office concluded that the EPA broke the law in promoting WOTUS. By using social media to encourage the public to comment in favor of the rule without acknowledging the message originated from the EPA, the GAO found that they used “covert propaganda”. This is illegal and violated laws that prevent federal agencies from grassroots advocacy and lobbying. One would think that the EPA official responsible would be fired. Sadly, that person has been promoted and now works in the White House.
Since the EPA proposed these changes several years ago, the House has been fighting to stop it and to make the agency go back to the drawing board to craft a rule that will treat the states as partners rather than adversaries, that will provide clarity of the Clean Water Act, and will protect the rights of farmers, homebuilders and private property owners.
Farmers depend on a fair regulatory system that protects the environment and does not force them to raise prices on consumers. Those consumers, often on an inflexible budget with little room to spare, rely on an agriculture industry to supply them with affordable food to feed their children. So when heavy-handed regulations like WOTUS are created, farmers, ranchers and those in agriculture are right to be skeptical of a rule that has the potential to increase the cost of food. I hope the administration has an answer for why, because of their regulations, a struggling single mother can no longer afford fresh produce.
Gibbs represents Ohio’s 7th Congressional District and has served in the House since 2011. He sits on the Agriculture and the Transportation committees.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested