ACC PM 9/20/16

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) U.S. Specialty Chemicals Market Rises Again

   Sep 20, 2016 | Powder & Bulk Solids

   The American Chemistry Council (ACC) reported that U.S. specialty chemicals market volumes rose 0.3 percent in August. This follows a 0.4 percent gain in July and a 0.3 percent decline in June.
2. (ACC Mentioned) Machine Vision Helps Adhesive Trend Stick in Auto Industry

   Sep 20, 2016 |

   By James Schlett
   
   
   Business has been getting stickier for Ron Weber, president of USS Vision, a Livonia, Mich., machine vision integration and automated inspection system firm.

LCSA News

3. (ACC Mentioned) Stakeholders Square Off on Codifying Science Criteria Under TSCA

   Sep 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch

   By Kelly Franklin
   
   
   The extent to which the EPA codifies, in rules, the scientific criteria it will use to make prioritisation and risk evaluation decisions has divided stakeholders.

Chemical Management News

4. (ACC Mentioned) The Cancer-Causing Chemical Erin Brockovich Fought Against is Still in Our Water

   Sep 20, 2016 | The Verge

   By Angela Chen
   
   
   Erin Brockovich may have made this cancer-causing chemical famous, but data from nationwide tests show it’s still in our water — and at potentially dangerous levels.
5. 'Erin Brockovich' Chemical In Drinking Water Of More Than 200 Million Americans

   Sep 20, 2016 | Environmental Working Group

   By Bill Walker and David Andrews
   
   
   Drinking water supplies for two-thirds of Americans are contaminated with the carcinogenic chemical made notorious by the film "Erin Brockovich," which was based on the real-life poisoning of tap water in a California desert town. But there are no national regulations for the compound – and the chemical industry is trying to keep it that way.
6. Denmark's Environment Minister: Why the Commission's EDCs Criteria Falls Short

   Sep 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch

   By Esben Lunde Larsen
   
   
   Twenty five years ago, a multidisciplinary group of experts gathered in Wingspread, US, to assess – what was known at the time – the consequences of introducing chemicals, capable of disrupting endocrine systems, into the environment.
7. Hazardous Chemicals: The New Carbon?

   Sep 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch

   By Guillaume Krepper
   
   
   Professionalised carbon tracking and reporting allows investors to evaluate companies’ efforts in tackling climate change and fulfilling their fiduciary duty.
8. Echa Gives Update on Completeness Check Activities

   Sep 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch

   Earlier this year, Echa announced that it was going to reopen hundreds of REACH registration dossiers for new completeness checks, after a Decision by its Board of Appeal (BoA), related to dossiers for the substance charcoal.

Energy News

9. 10 Things to Know About the 'Most Difficult Ticket in Town'

   Sep 20, 2016 | E&E Greenwire

   By Amanda Reilly
   
   
   One week from today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear highly anticipated arguments in the unpredictable litigation over the Obama administration's signature climate change rule.
10. Conventional Oil Discoveries at Lowest in Decades

    Sep 20, 2016 | Fuel Fix

    By David Hunn
    
    
    Companies have never discovered as little conventional oil and gas as they did last year, according to a new report from energy research firm Wood Mackenzie.
11. Brown Signs Bill to Limit 'Superpollutants'

    Sep 20, 2016 | E&E Climatewire

    By Debra Kahn
    
    
    California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) yesterday signed a bill setting reduction targets for some of the world's most powerful global warming substances.
12. Cautionary Tale for Mexico on Oil and Gas Climate Pollution

    Sep 20, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund

    By Daniel Zavala-Araiza
    
    
    New findings by NASA scientists attributing a giant, invisible cloud of methane – nearly 5 times the size of Mexico City – over the southwestern U.S. to the region’s sprawling web of oil and gas facilities raise important new concerns not just on this side of the border, but for Mexico as well.
13. Texas Ports Pick Up Steam as Oil and LNG Exports Ramp Up

    Sep 20, 2016 | E&E Energywire

    By Mike Lee
    
    
    Texas ports are getting ready to see an increase in cargo, but they need a big infusion of money to keep operating.

Chemical Security News

14. (ACC Mentioned) Two-Thirds of U.S. Drinking Hexavalent Chromium — Report

    Sep 20, 2016 | E&E Greenwire

    By Gabriel Dunsmith
    
    
    Over 200 million Americans are exposed to the toxic compound hexavalent chromium through their drinking water, according to a report released today by the Environmental Working Group.
15. (ACC Mentioned) Elevated Levels of Chromium Found in Kentucky Drinking Water, Report Says

    Sep 20, 2016 | WKMS

    By Lisa Gillespie
    
    
    A new report says some Kentuckians could be drinking a cancer-causing chemical called chromium-6.
16. Tips Welcome as FBI Sleuths Keep a Finger on Cyberthreats

    Sep 20, 2016 | E&E Energywire

    By Blake Sobczak
    
    
    For the past two decades, the FBI has dispatched eyes and ears to conference rooms across the United States.

Transportation News

17. Telecom Alert: September 19, 2016– IoT Workshop; TerreStar 1.4 GHz Buildout; PTC Spectrum; E-Rate Eligible Services; USF Contribution Factor; FCC Open Meeting

    Sep 19, 2016 | National Law Review

    By C. Douglas, Jarrett Gregory, E. Kunkle, Thomas B. Magee, Tracy P. Marshall, Jack Richards, and Wesley K. Wright
    
    
    The U.S. Department of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration is convening a series of multi-stakeholder meetings concerning Internet of Things (IoT) Security Upgradability and Patching.

Environment News

18. New U.N. Climate Chief Eyes a 'Complex Situation' Under Trump

    Sep 20, 2016 | E&E Climatewire

    By Jean Chemnick
    
    
    The woman tasked with guiding the aftermath of the Paris climate deal said yesterday that concerns abound about what a Donald Trump presidency could mean for the global agreement.
19. Does Cap and Trade Increase Air Pollution? It May Be Too Soon to Tell

    Sep 20, 2016 | E&E Climatewire

    By Debra Kahn
    
    
    As California contemplates how to reduce greenhouse gases through 2030, major questions still surround the state's choice of policies to get it there.

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) U.S. Specialty Chemicals Market Rises Again

   Sep 20, 2016 | Powder & Bulk Solids

   The American Chemistry Council (ACC) reported that U.S. specialty chemicals market volumes rose 0.3 percent in August. This follows a 0.4 percent gain in July and a 0.3 percent decline in June. All changes in the data are reported on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis. Of the 28 specialty chemical segments we monitor, seventeen expanded in August with the largest gains (1.0 percent and over) in adhesives and sealants, lubricant additives, and mining chemicals.
   
   The overall specialty chemicals volume index was off 0.8 percent year-over-year (Y/Y) on a 3MMA basis. The index stood at 105.0 percent of its average 2012 levels. This is equivalent to 7.24 billion pounds (3.28 million metric tons). During 2014, Y/Y comparisons were generally in the 4.0 percent to 6.8 percent range but since February 2015, they have fallen well below that range as the downturn in the oil and gas sector has affected headline volumes. Weakness spread to other segments as well and year-earlier comparisons have been negative since second quarter 2015. Lately, the year-earlier declines have been moderating. On a Y/Y basis, there were gains among market and functional specialty chemical segments.
   
   Specialty chemicals are materials manufactured on the basis of the unique performance or function and provide a wide variety of effects on which many other sectors and end-use products rely. They can be individual molecules or mixtures of molecules, known as formulations. The physical and chemical characteristics of the single molecule or mixtures along with the composition of the mixtures influence the performance end product. Individual market sectors that rely on such products include automobile, aerospace, agriculture, cosmetics and food, among others.
   
   Specialty chemicals differ from commodity chemicals. They may only have one or two uses, while commodities may have multiple or different applications for each chemical. Commodity chemicals make up most of the production volume in the global marketplace, while specialty chemicals make up most of the diversity in commerce at any given time, and are relatively high value with greater market growth rates. Some areas where specialty chemicals are used include adhesives, cleaning materials, cosmetic additives, construction materials, food additives, fragrances and detergents.
   
   This data is the only timely source of market trends for twenty-eight market and functional specialty chemical segments. Chemistry directly touches over ninety-six percent of all manufactured goods, and trends in these specialty chemical segments provide a detailed view of trends in manufacturing. The data also sheds light on how various consumer end-use markets are performing compared to others in the marketplace.

   http://www.powderbulksolids.com/news/U-S-Specialty-Chemicals-Market-Rises-Again-09-20-2016
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

2. (ACC Mentioned) Machine Vision Helps Adhesive Trend Stick in Auto Industry

   Sep 20, 2016 |

   By James Schlett

   Business has been getting stickier for Ron Weber, president of USS Vision, a Livonia, Mich., machine vision integration and automated inspection system firm. As automakers race to meet federal regulations that call for higher fuel-efficiency standards — 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 — his firm is seeing more vehicles with body parts joined with adhesives. In recent years, that trend has translated into 11 percent annual increases in the adhesive bead inspection business offered by USS Vision, whose customers include GM, Ford Motor, Chrysler and Toyota. “They’re using more of it because it [adhesive material] is superior than doing things the old way with rivets and bolts,” said Weber. To ensure that adhesives are placed on a part’s surface in the precise location, without missing sections, and that each bead is the appropriate width and height, USS Vision uses a variety of machine vision cameras that are supported by its own proprietary software. Automakers’ increased use of adhesives has spurred USS Vision to buy more cameras, and recent years have seen several machine vision equipment manufacturers roll out systems specifically geared for bead inspection. But this inspection process is complicated by a host of factors such as bead shape and color, substrate color and reflectiveness, changes in factory lighting conditions and demand for higher throughput speeds. “It’s not just a camera looking at a bead. There are a lot of variables,” said Weber. 
   Stronger adhesive, more composites 
   Between 2004 and 2014, the value of adhesives and sealant content in a North American light vehicles jumped 52 percent to $94, according to the American Chemistry Council1. Adhesives’ increased strength is one factor that is making this joining technology more appealing to automotive and aerospace manufacturers. For example, Düsseldorf, Germany-based Henkel claims its Teroson line of adhesives is 20 times more resistant to fatigue than riveting or welding. 

   Another factor driving the increased use of adhesives is the increased use of carbon-fiber reinforced polymers (CFRPs), which are 70 percent lighter than steel and 40 percent lighter than aluminum, according to Plasan Carbon Composites, the leading U.S. Tier 1 supplier of CFRP parts and assemblies. Examples of Plasan’s CFRP body parts include the hood and roof for GM’s Corvette Stingray and the hood, roof and liftgate for Chrysler’s SRT Viper. Between 2004 and 2014, the value of plastic and polymer composite content in a North American light vehicle rose 50 percent to $430 (Figure 1)2. 
   Adhesives played an even more important role in enabling Munich-based BMW to develop its first mass-produced, all-electric vehicle — the i3 (Figure 2). Released in 2013, the i3 was the first consumer vehicle to feature a predominately CFRP body that was bonded with cutting-edge adhesives to structural mounts connected to an aluminum frame3. To accommodate for the i3’s mass production, BMW needed adhesives with accelerated hardening properties, meaning the glue had to be workable for only 90 seconds after being dispensed on a part and fully hardened within an hour and a half. The i3 featured 160 meters of bonded joints4. 
   

   Growing pains 
   Long before U.S. automakers felt pressure from the looming corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards set by the Obama administration and the pinch of higher gas prices, the aerospace industry in the late 1980s and 1990s had emerged as a pioneer in the lightweighting trend. Following the lead of the U.S. Air Force, which used CFRPs for its fighter planes, aerospace manufacturers began using these ultralightweight materials for tail sections and other primary or load-bearing sections5. In 2011, Boeing launched the 787 Dreamliner, the world’s first large commercial airliner with a predominately composite fuselage. Two years later, Airbus debuted its own commercial airliner with a predominately CFRP fuselage, the A350 XWB (Figure 3). 

   “The overall designs are being modified to reduce the number of fasteners where they can and replace with adhesive bonding as an overall weight savings,” said Ray Cornwell, a technical service manager for Henkel North America. Henkel’s adhesives are used by aircraft manufacturers such as Boeing, Airbus, Bombadier and Embraer. 
   Through its heavy reliance on composites, the aerospace industry has grown accustomed to using adhesives. But automakers, with the exception of some in Europe such as BMW, are less comfortable with adhesives, and it is up to machine vision to help build their confidence in this joining method, said Selamawit Belli, a marketing manager for Dow Automotive Systems. She pointed out that welding and mechanical fasteners have been with the automotive industry since its inception, and adhesives remain relatively new to it. Dow Automotive’s structural adhesives have been used in pioneering lightweight vehicles such as the i3 and Ford’s all-aluminum body F-150 pickup (see sidebar: “Laser Patterning Promises to Give Photonics a Role in Adhesive Composite Joining”). 
   “Welds and machine fasteners have gone through the growing pains that adhesives are going through,” said Belli. 
   Although Belli does not foresee U.S. automakers giving up steel entirely in car bodies, she said there are growth opportunities for adhesives. And just how much growth is dependent on the effectiveness of vision systems and their ability to inform OEMs of the presence, location and performance of the glue. However, she believes the machine vision systems currently available could do a better job at adhesive bead inspection. 
   “Quality is critical in the automotive industry, and in-line process control is an important element of many quality control programs. Although adhesives are used extensively today, the ability to verify proper surface preparation and adhesive application prior to joining could help enable further growth,” said Marc Benevento, managing director of Industrial Market Insight, a Columbus, Ohio, business improvement consulting firm. He is working with the Adhesive and Sealant Council on its automotive market development. Cornwell said adhesive inspection with machine vision systems is currently “not a big issue” in the aerospace industry, but it will become more important as line speeds and part throughputs increase. 
   Adhesive bead inspection basics 
   Adhesives are predominately used for what is referred to as the body in white (BIW), or the assemblage of the vehicle’s body before it is painted. They’re also used in the “power train,” which encompasses the transmission and engine assembly. Pre-bonding bead inspection is critical because manufacturers currently cannot check the presence of an adhesive — or its strength — after the parts are bonded, though efforts are underway to develop or commercialize technology with such capabilities (see sidebar: “Lasers May Hold Key to Post-Bonding Adhesive Inspection”). 

   Each manufacturer has their own quality philosophy that indicates when in-line inspection is required. Generally, safety critical parts, such as the white body and suspension, receive the most attention. Performing a vision check would be no different than using a torque wrench to make sure bolts are properly tightened,” Benevento said. 
   Generally, vision-based bead inspection is a two-step process. The first step is training, or the operator’s selection of the bead path, and the second is measurement. After a bead course is set, the operator marks the bead’s inner and outer edges and defines its target width and permissible tolerance (Figure 4). The part with the bead must appear under the camera in the same position, making proper illumination crucial, according to Johannes Hiltner, HALCON product manager for machine vision software company MVTec Software GmbH. Reflective of the growing use of adhesives in the automotive industry, MVTec in 2014 added an adhesive bead inspection feature to its HALCON 12 software. 
   The biggest challenge for a software library like HALCON is the applicability to a huge variety of adhesive bead inspection tasks, taking place in various setups,” Hiltner said. 
   Inspections can either occur post-process, meaning after a robot dispenses the adhesive, or in-process, meaning while the glue is being dispensed. For post-process inspections, the dispensing robot usually moves away from the part. Then, if the part is stationary, it may be inspected by an array of fixed cameras, by pivoting or titling cameras that sequentially inspect checkpoints, or by a camera moved by a robot over the part. Robots can also be used to move the part, which is inspected by one or more cameras6. While relatively easy to develop, requiring a camera, a housing, cables and software, post-process systems add to cycle time, said Michael Mai, a research and development group leader for Darmstadt, Germany-based Isra Vision AG. 
   The inspecting happens after the adhesive beads are applied. Depending on the handling of the part, you will lose at least one second. If you need to move your part in some position, it is even more. In the automotive industry, this is a big issue,” Mai said. 
   In contrast to 2D post-process inspection, an in-process system, such as Coherix’s Predator3D, is directly mounted around the dispensing nozzle providing 360-degree bead verification. Dwight Carlson, president and CEO of Coherix in Ann Arbor, Mich., was critical of 2D vision cameras, which commonly are used in post-process inspections, as being “temperamental” because of their sensitivity to changes in factory lighting conditions, and changes in part color requiring frequent adjustment. But system integrators who use 2D systems said they can adapt to those variables. 
   In the end you’re getting the same result,” said Starke Farley, a senior sales engineer for Integro Technologies Inc., which has used 2D inspection systems for transmission housings, engine assemblies, fuel pump assemblies, and steel door and truck panels. The company has also used a 3D system for power train inspections. 
   2D vs. 3D 
   Adhesive bead inspection specifications vary between automakers and for the parts being joined. Basic inspections achievable with 2D sensors include verification of adhesive presence, location, skips (gaps) and width. For many BIW applications, in which round beads are used, this 2D inspection approach can be used, even though their volume can only be estimated, said Mai. Integro, for example, uses an area scan camera by Cognex Corp. to conduct “there/not there” inspections on adhesive beads. For these tests, software compares a scan of a part without the adhesive to one with it (Figure 5). However, Mai said, for other BIW applications, such as the inspection of triangular beads for windshields and sunroofs, 3D sensors are needed for volumetric bead measurements. 

   To conduct adhesive bead inspections, vision-based systems rely on contrast between the glue and substrate. While adhesive manufacturers can supply OEMs with glues that meet certain color specifications, such as red or green, there is a cost penalty to enhance the capabilities of 2D vision cameras. CFRP body parts are usually black, making the use of black adhesives challenging, if not impractical. According to Coherix, this no-contrast inspection is impossible for temperamental 2D vision systems to function. 
   

   “It does add a challenge because any vision system, whether it is 2D or 3D, relies on contrast,” said Farley at Integro. To better achieve contrast, regardless of the adhesive’s or substrate’s color, Isra Vision earlier this year introduced a 2D adhesive bead inspection system called the BeadMaster. Whereas an earlier version of this technology had a monochromatic sensor, the BeadMaster has a color sensor. It provides red, green and other channels that contrast to the glue, depending on its color (Figure 6). 
   Laser sensors 
   To avoid the hurdles posed by the need for clear contrast, some vision companies have started to incorporate lasers into their in-process adhesive bead inspection systems. Examples of such systems include Isra Vision’s SeamStar3D, Coherix’s Predator3D and Mannheim, Germany-based VMT Vision Machine Technic’s SpinTop 3D. 
   Our customers are demanding they know what volume is being dispensed at any time,” said Carlson, who, in addition to founding Coherix in 2003, founded Perceptron in 1981. The Predator3D features four 3D sensors incorporating both lasers and imagers (Figure 7). Isra Vision’s SeamStar3D similarly features a multi-camera-laser sensor, and VMT’s SpinTop 3D uses only two infrared lasers. Pointing out that a gallon of structural adhesives can cost up to $500, Carlson stressed that it is important for manufacturers to monitor how much adhesive is being dispensed throughout the joining process. 
   

   While these in-process inspection technologies instantaneously determine bead volume and location, processing speed remains a challenge for companies such as Coherix. Carlson said his customers want to be able to dispense up to 1500 mm per second. However, Predator3D currently takes measurements on all four sensors at 400 times per second. Therefore, if the dispenser was moving at 400 mm per second, Predator 3D would deliver a 3D measurement every millimeter. However, if the dispenser was moving at 800 mm per second, Predator3D would be delivering a 3D measurement every 2 millimeters. 
   “To make the most of these technological advances, we also see a strong desire on the part of the composites industry to move these inspection systems from the end of the line, where they have traditionally been placed, back in-line with the process so that the information [that] machine vision supplies can be used to make process decisions that effect composite manufacturing production quality and speed,” Vanderbilt University mechanical engineering professor Douglas E. Adams said of machine vision systems for adhesive bead inspection in general.
   

   http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=61129
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

3. (ACC Mentioned) Stakeholders Square Off on Codifying Science Criteria Under TSCA

   Sep 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch

   By Kelly Franklin

   The extent to which the EPA codifies, in rules, the scientific criteria it will use to make prioritisation and risk evaluation decisions has divided stakeholders.

   As amended by the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (LCSA), the new TSCA requires the EPA to establish – within one year of the law’s passage – rules governing the process for prioritising substances for risk evaluation, and how these evaluations will be conducted.

   Section 6 of the law stipulates that this risk-based screening rule must include “criteria for designating substances as high or low priority for risk evaluations”.

   But comments submitted to the EPA on these rules question whether the details of the criteria should be laid out in guidance documents, rather than in formal rulemakings. The latter are subject to the mandatory notice and comment requirements.

   NGO push for ‘nimble’ guidance documents

   A coalition of close to 40 NGOs pointed out that the new TSCA directs EPA to establish, by rule, “a risk-based screening process” and “a process to conduct risk evaluations” [its italics].

   But it says that outside of these processes, the details around the best available science policy and risk assessment methodology are appropriate for guidance documents, which can be updated as science continues to advance.

   “This approach will be more nimble than a full regulatory overhaul and will allow the agency to more readily strengthen health protection over time," said the coalition.

   In separate comments, NGO the Environmental Defense Fund added: “Rulemakings, which are developed through time- and resource-intensive processes, are not appropriate vehicles for tackling significant science policy issues.”

   With regard to science policy, the EDF says that the terms "weight of evidence" and "best available science" should not be explicitly defined in the rule.

   Doing so would “overly prescribe these science policy issues that are far broader in applicability than just TSCA, are under active debate, and evolve over time as the underlying science changes in a manner that could require frequent updating of the rule to keep pace with the science.”

   The Environmental Working Group echoed in its comments: “If the rule is too detailed on specific scientific considerations, EPA may be bogged down by undue administrative burdens.”

   But the American Chemistry Council’s position is that the science criteria, described in section 26 of TSCA, are, in fact, legal requirements applicable to the prioritisation rule. Therefore, the EPA must incorporate these requirements into the rule, rather than solely in guidance, it said in comments.

   “If Congress had intended the scientific standard of 'best available science' or 'weight of the scientific evidence' to be incorporated into guidance alone, it would have included them only in section 26(l) on ‘policies, procedures and guidance,’” said the trade group.

   The fragrance industry group, Ifra North America, added in its comments: “Importantly, the statute does not instruct EPA to implement these directions by guidance; rather, it requires EPA to follow them.”

   The trade group said that while the agency is “free to flesh out these concepts in guidance”, both rules need to “state clearly” how the EPA will implement the statutorily required scientific standards and weight-of-evidence considerations.

   Implications to regulated community

   Speaking at a Keller & Heckman seminar, firm partner David Sarvadi said that for industry,  it will be “increasingly important to understand that kind of detail in EPA’s process”.

   “If you don’t know how EPA is going to judge whether or not your chemical has a certain toxicity characteristic, and you don’t know how they’re going to evaluate the data that you’re supplying, you really are in the position to spend the money to get the data, only to find out later that you’re not going to get the chemical approved for the kind of use that you want.”

   Added Keller & Heckman partner Martha Marrapese: “Rules are enforceable, guidance is not”. And, she said, “the ability to administer programmes through guidance needs to be balanced against due process requirements.”

   https://chemicalwatch.com/49717/stakeholders-square-off-on-codifying-science-criteria-under-tsca
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

4. (ACC Mentioned) The Cancer-Causing Chemical Erin Brockovich Fought Against is Still in Our Water

   Sep 20, 2016 | The Verge

   By Angela Chen

   Erin Brockovich may have made this cancer-causing chemical famous, but data from nationwide tests show it’s still in our water — and at potentially dangerous levels. The US Environmental Protection Agency should have enforced stricter standards on the chemical years ago, advocates say.

   The chemical, called chromium-6 or hexavalent chromium, was featured in the movie Erin Brockovich, in which Julia Roberts plays an activist leading a lawsuit against Pacific Gas & Electric for contaminating water with it. Chromium-6 can be produced from industrial activities like producing stainless steel or manufacturing textiles.

   Today’s report, published by the Environmental Working Group, analyzes data from 60,000 water samples collected by the EPA itself. It concludes that 218 million people are drinking tap water at levels higher than those recommended by some scientists. The highest concentrations were in Phoenix, St. Louis County, and Houston. And, over time, this could lead to 12,000 additional cases of cancer, the group claims.

   In 2008, the National Toxicology Program confirmed that chromium-6 causes cancerous tumors in mice, and the chemical is included in the 13th Report on Carcinogens. Despite this, the EPA only has a single guideline for total chromium that combines chromium-6 and a safe version called chromium-3, according to David Andrews, a senior scientist with the Environmental Working Group.

   At the state level, California has the strictest safety recommendation for chromium-6. Its “public health goal” of 0.02 parts per billion is based off the 2008 study, according to Elaine Khan, a senior toxicologist at California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

   This is the baseline that the EWG report uses for water to be considered “safe”; the 218 million number is the number of people across the country who are drinking water above that level. (California’s public health goal is now due for a required five-year update. The team is going through new research to see if there’s anything significant enough to warrant an adjustment.)

   To understand the true risk, let’s look at the numbers: at California’s recommended level of chromium-6, one out of 1 million people is likely to get cancer after drinking that water for 70 years. But this is not legally enforced, says Sam Delson, deputy director for external and legislative affairs for OEHHA. “We consider only health in making these goals and other organizations have to factor in feasibility, which includes cost prohibitions,” he added.

   In fact, California’s legal standard — which isn’t strict enough, the EWG argues — is 10 parts per billion. At this level, about 500 people out of a million will get cancer if they drink the water for 70 years. The EPA’s legal standard for total chromium is looser still. The federal number is 100 parts per billion. This applies whether it’s 90 parts of dangerous chromium-6 and 10 parts of safe chromium-3, or 10 parts of chromium-6 and 90 parts of chromium-3.

   Fewer than 2 percent of the water systems reported chromium-6 levels higher than California’s legal limit, the EPA said in a statement. The agency added that ensuring safe drinking water “is a top priority” and that it is working on a risk assessment of chromium-6 specifically. It hopes to release a draft for public comment next year.

   That risk report would have been released years ago if it weren’t for pressures from the chemical industry, according to EWG managing editor Bill Walker. According to Walker, the EPA was taking steps to regulate the chemical after the 2008 report. But then, the American Chemistry Council objected to the NTP study and instead funded outside studies by a consulting firm named ToxStrategies.

   The ACC argued in a statement that chromium-6 is found “at low levels” that are not only below the EPA’s legal guideline but can be attributed to “geologic formations, such as rocks.” Accordingly, the group hired an outside organization “because of the limited scientific data available” to show how low environmental levels of chromium could impact human health. (ToxStrategies could not be reached for comment.)

   Some reports suggest that higher chromium-6 limits are okay because our stomachs process some chromium-6 into its harmless cousin, chromium-3. More research needs to be done, but Khan notes that the amount left over could still be enough to cause cancer. She added that since stomach acidity affects how much chromium-6 can be converted, people with higher acidity — like newborns or those taking gastric reflux medications — would be especially vulnerable to higher limits.

   In the meanwhile, there are ways to remove chromium-6 from water. This can be done withspecial filters out of water at home, or it can be done at the water utilities site. Still, says Andrews, the EWG senior scientist, this is an issue that requires a national drinking water standard and further investigation. “This raises a red flag in terms of questioning how adequate are our public drinking water,“ he added.

   http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/20/12988838/erin-brockovich-chemical-water-epa-cancer-report
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

5. 'Erin Brockovich' Chemical In Drinking Water Of More Than 200 Million Americans

   Sep 20, 2016 | Environmental Working Group

   By Bill Walker and David Andrews

   Drinking water supplies for two-thirds of Americans are contaminated with the carcinogenic chemical made notorious by the film "Erin Brockovich," which was based on the real-life poisoning of tap water in a California desert town. But there are no national regulations for the compound – and the chemical industry is trying to keep it that way.

   Today EWG released an analysis of more than 60,000 tap water tests conducted nationwide, finding that chromium-6, or hexavalent chromium, is in the tap water of more than 218 million Americans. Use EWG's interactive map to see the level of chromium-6 in your water supply, as reported by the EPA from tests by local water utilities. That's two-thirds of the U.S. being served water with chromium-6 at, or above, the level that California state scientists consider safe. The California public health goal allows a chromium-6 level expected to cause no more than one case of cancer in 1 million people who drink it for lifetime.

   Though far more permissive than its public health goal, California is the only state that has set an enforceable legal limit for chromium-6 in drinking water. Federal chromium regulations, set in 1991, do not specifically address chromium-6 and do not consider current science showing that drinking water contaminated with the chemical can cause cancer.

   Chromium is a naturally occurring element but can also be manufactured. The two main types are chromium-3, an essential human nutrient considered to be mostly harmless, and chromium-6, which has long been known to cause lung cancer when airborne particles are inhaled. Recent science has also shown that, when ingested, it can cause stomach cancer. Chromium-6 is used in chrome plating, wood and leather treatments, dyes and pigments, and the water in cooling towers of electrical power plants.

   A 2008 study by the National Toxicology Program found chromium-6 in drinking water caused cancer in rats and mice. California state scientists drew on that study to determine its public health goal, which is unenforceable, but guided state regulators in setting a legal limit. Although EWG believes the legal limit is far too high to protect public health, it is the only enforceable regulation on chromium-6 in the U.S.

   The National Toxicology Program study was also used by the Environmental Protection Agency to draft a health assessment for a safe exposure level. The draft was completed in 2011, but not formally released because the chemical and electric power industries pressured the EPA to wait for the results of other, industry-funded studies. Five years later, we're still waiting for the industry studies, which are expected to argue that the EPA doesn't need to set a national standard at all. They're also expected to fundamentally challenge the way the EPA calculates the risk of all carcinogenic chemicals.

   Will the EPA stand up to industry pressure? The agency's record is not good. Since landmark amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1996, the EPA has not set any new drinking water regulations for previously unregulated contaminants. The EPA has ordered tests on 81 contaminants, but moved forward on setting regulations for just one – and those regulations are two years behind schedule.

   California's public health goal is 0.02 parts per billion of chromium-6 in drinking water, yet the state's legal limit is 500 times higher. A home water filter can remove chromium-6 and most other chemicals of concern, but can be expensive. (See EWG's guide to finding the right water filter for your home.) Ultimately, the better solution is for federal regulators to set drinking water standards that keep up with advances in science and prevent dangerous contaminants from getting into tap water in the first place.

   http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/09/erin-brockovich-chemical-drinking-water-more-200-million-americans
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

6. Denmark's Environment Minister: Why the Commission's EDCs Criteria Falls Short

   Sep 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch

   By Esben Lunde Larsen

   Twenty five years ago, a multidisciplinary group of experts gathered in Wingspread, US, to assess – what was known at the time – the consequences of introducing chemicals, capable of disrupting endocrine systems, into the environment.

   They were pioneers in a new scientific field and they laid the foundation for science-based policy decisions on substances known as endocrine disruptors. Now, 25 years down the line, we need to act on years of scientific advances and establish appropriate regulatory measures to sufficiently protect human health and the environment from the risks they pose.

   For over five years, several EU member states, stakeholders and the European Commission have put tremendous effort into establishing the right criteria for identification of endocrine disruptors. And finally, on 15 June, after an unsightly process that included a court case, the Commission tabled draft acts for pesticides and biocides, with the legally required and long awaited criteria. This, in itself, was really good news.

   Disappointing proposal

   But when it comes to its substance, the proposal is quite disappointing, for three reasons:

   it requires an unprecedented, and scientifically unjustified, level of evidence for identification of endocrine disrupting properties;

   it is inconsistent with corresponding legislation; and

   it lacks a precautionary aspect.

   Rather than being the intended supplement to the existing regulation, which excludes substances giving rise to cancer, mutations or adversely harming our reproduction and unborn children, the proposed criteria for endocrine disruptors require much more evidence and, at the same time, have less rigorous rules for their use.

   The Commission proposals are not in line with the globally accepted approach for identification of substances of high concern, nor with the WHO definition of an endocrine disruptor. I am particularly worried about the fact that the criteria only apply to substances that are known to cause an adverse effect relevant for human health and that evidence has to be extensively documented. This goes far beyond the requirements that we apply to other substances of high concern.

   By changing the regulations on biocidal products and plant protection products and limiting the identification of endocrine disruptors to those that are known to cause adverse effects, the Commission’s proposal disregards one of the fundamental principles of the Treaty and environment legislation: the precautionary principle.

   Later life effects

   Endocrine disruptors disturb the balance of endogenous hormones, to which the foetus and children are most vulnerable during certain sensitive windows of development. Therefore, exposure can – in contrast to many other chemicals – lead to severe effects that may only become evident later in life or even in the next generation.

   The bottom line is that the Commission’s approach will not deliver adequate protection of human health and the environment. Even well-known endocrine disruptors are unlikely to be identified, using the proposed criteria. The approach will also create legal uncertainty regarding the evidence required for a substance to be identified as such.

   Ignoring current knowledge on suspected endocrine disrupting substances will not only make it difficult for industry to prepare and facilitate substitution of problematic chemicals, but also delay regulation. These shortcomings and lack of progress may also lead to the creation of unauthorised lists of suspected and potential endocrine disruptors.

   And even if identification of suspected endocrine disruptors is not required by the regulations on biocidal products and plant protection products, it would be much more efficient, and ensure better consistency, to have a two-category approach.

   Identifying confirmed EDCs

   This would allow us to identify confirmed endocrine disruptors as well as those substances suspected of the properties, for which there is substantial evidence. This would also improve our ability to address the urgent problem of combination effects.

   As a global frontrunner, the EU can make a difference by setting scientifically well-founded criteria for the identification of endocrine disruptors that will protect human health and the environment.

   We need to join forces and work on a solution that is in line with the globally accepted approach for identifying other substances of high concern, fully respects the WHO-definition and clearly states which evidence would qualify.

   Such criteria could apply to all relevant EU legislation and appropriate risk management should be established according to the needs of the different sectors. If it is considered necessary, legislation must be adapted through the correct formal procedures.

   Citizen concern

   As policy makers, we cannot ignore the state of the science and European citizen’s concerns over these chemicals.

   It is in the long-term interest of industry and agriculture to ensure that products are trusted by consumers.

   And it is enormously costly for society to pay for increased healthcare and remedial actions that may be needed if we do not take appropriate action now.

   If we miss this obvious opportunity to act responsibly today, our descendants may rightly, in 25 years, blame us for having let down the next generation, and, a new sad chapter can be added to the “late lessons, early warnings”.

   https://chemicalwatch.com/49735/denmarks-environment-minister-why-the-commissions-edcs-criteria-falls-short
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

7. Hazardous Chemicals: The New Carbon?

   Sep 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch

   By Guillaume Krepper

   Professionalised carbon tracking and reporting allows investors to evaluate companies’ efforts in tackling climate change and fulfilling their fiduciary duty. When it comes to chemicals, however, grasping financial risks or investing in progressive leaders is far from easy, despite the growing need for a clear understanding of companies’ chemical footprint.

   Over the last few decades, the scientific community has built up a substantial body of evidence, pertaining to the adverse health consequences and negative environmental impact of some chemical components, such as phthalates and perfluorinated compounds (PFCs). According to a study commissioned by the United Nations Environmental Programme (Unep Global Chemicals Outlook 2013) industrial and agricultural chemicals are, indeed, among the top five leading causes of death globally. Regulation has evolved in response, and some controversial chemicals have been banned by various national bodies.

   In the face of growing public awareness and concern, embodied in initiatives such as the detox outdoor campaign and supported by specialised NGO’s like ChemSec, the European Union took a key step in 2007 by launching REACH. The process has gone a long way since then and has been inspirational for many ongoing regulatory developments around the world, from the US to Asia. As with the carbon topic in recent years, momentum around chemical safety is building and the material implications for companies getting clearer.

   Beyond potential operational constraints linked to the handling of hazardous chemicals, such regulatory progress has a direct business impact for chemicals companies manufacturing the targeted components, known as substances of very high concern or SVHCs. Since chemicals are universally present in everyday consumer products – from treatments enhancing plastic flexibility and fabric resistance, to flame retardants in mattresses and couches through to soaps, shampoos, food and packaging – this further affects a wide range of consumer goods and industrial companies whose products contain the chemicals.

   In 2011, for example, SIGG USA, the company selling the Swiss-made aluminium drinking bottles, failed to disclose bisphenol A content in its products. Over 300,000 bottles were returned by customers. The US distributor had to file for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, saying they had lost millions of dollars in decreased sales.

   Likewise in 2013, the ILVA steel plant, Europe’s largest, was put under court administration, and magistrates ordered assets worth €8.1bn to be seized from holding company Riva Fire on suspicion of criminal association to commit environmental offences. Hazardous emissions from ILVA were linked to abnormally high rates of cancers.

   At J Safra Sarasin, a Swiss-based sustainable asset management bank, the assessment of exposure and management of chemical safety issues is integral to companys’ sustainability rating, thereby helping them to avoid major business and operational risks as well as reducing negative impacts on human health and the environment. On the other hand, companies fostering change and providing alternatives to SVHCs are likely to benefit from strong business opportunities, and are identified along the investment process.

   Beyond integrating chemical safety issues in the research and investment process, the bank engages with corporates and supports initiatives that help to raise awareness and transparency around chemical safety, while fostering the development of strong practices within companies. It recently became a signatory of theChemical Footprint Project (CFP). Launched in 2015, the CFP fosters and measures corporate progress towards safer chemicals, helping business leaders to move ahead of regulations and to avoid chemicals of high concern to human health or the environment in their products and supply chains.

   To the benefit of investors, the project also helps to close the gap in sustainability data on chemical safety, covering broad terrain which includes the environmental (pollution, spills and product stewardship) and social (worker health and safety, and consumer exposures) dimensions along the value chain. The CFP is a great tool, therefore, to help companies and investors embrace change and become more sustainable.

   https://chemicalwatch.com/49732/hazardous-chemicals-the-new-carbon
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

8. Echa Gives Update on Completeness Check Activities

   Sep 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch

   Earlier this year, Echa announced that it was going to reopen hundreds of REACH registration dossiers for new completeness checks, after a Decision by its Board of Appeal (BoA), related to dossiers for the substance charcoal. 

   This upheld the "one substance, one registration" (Osor) principle – in line with the European Commission’s Implementing Regulation on joint submission of data and data sharing – and clarified that the agency can request further information through the checks, and revoke registrations that have missing information not provided within a set deadline.

   Since then, it has been checking the 118 individual charcoal dossiers, directly related to the BoA's Decision.

   It has also been preparing to check retroactively approximately 700 individual registrations it has identified as possibly in breach of Osor. These represent 1.5% of the total.

   At the same time, it is rechecking whether the dossiers include meaningful information, and verifying manually the completeness of certain data elements that cannot easily be checked automatically. This concerns, in particular, the identification of the substance and justifications for deviating from standard information requirements.

   Further to the BoA Decision, says Echa, “similar verifications were done on registration dossiers already in the database, including a check that the registrants have registered the same substance together. On these grounds, a first set of requests for missing meaningful information in existing registrations were sent out in June to the companies involved.”

   The companies have until the end of November to respond.

   “If the companies do not update their dossier,” says Echa, “their registration will be revoked and at that time the enforcement authorities will be informed.”

   The focus in the first batch was on registrations, where companies had indicated that they would submit study information but have not done so. Echa says it sent out 39 letters addressing 24 substances, and that the companies include Sief members which were “informed of the information missing in the lead dossier they are relying on”.

   Further batches of letters are being prepared, “focusing on clear shortcomings in substance identity and endpoint related data waivers”, says Echa.

   https://chemicalwatch.com/49695/echa-gives-update-on-completeness-check-activities
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

9. 10 Things to Know About the 'Most Difficult Ticket in Town'

   Sep 20, 2016 | E&E Greenwire

   By Amanda Reilly

   One week from today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear highly anticipated arguments in the unpredictable litigation over the Obama administration's signature climate change rule.

   U.S. EPA's foes have raised a host of legal challenges to the Clean Power Plan, which requires states to develop and put in place plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants.

   Twenty-seven states — not including Nevada, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of state challengers — and dozens of industries and labor groups are challenging the rule. EPA's allies include another 18 states, cities, greens and industry groups.

   All the arguments will be boiled down to 218 minutes next Tuesday, Sept. 27.

   "It's the most difficult ticket in town. ... Maybe StubHub will be able to sell those tickets," Republican Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt joked last week at an event previewing the arguments.

   Here's what you should know ahead of the action:

   1. Why care so much about the oral arguments?

   Next Tuesday will present an opportunity to see where D.C. Circuit judges may come down on the legality of the Clean Power Plan. The questions they ask and the issues they bear down on could signal how they'll rule. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is particularly important given the unknowns in the Supreme Court. The vacancy that was created when Justice Antonin Scalia died earlier this year changed the high court's dynamics, and observers are unsure the eight-member panel would have enough votes to take the Clean Power Plan case on appeal. That decision could hinge on the strength of dissent in the D.C. Circuit. If the Supreme Court does agree to take up the case, a 4-4 split decision would uphold the D.C. Circuit's ruling. In the meantime, EPA remains blocked from implementing the rule until the litigation is resolved.

   2. Who is hearing the case?

   A three-judge panel typically hears oral arguments in the appeals court. But in an unexpected move this spring, the D.C. Circuit said the Clean Power Plan case would be heard en banc, or in front of the entire active court. Granting the case en banc review likely speeds up its resolution. Nine judges of the D.C. Circuit will hear the case: Karen LeCraft Henderson, Judith Rogers, David Tatel, Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas Griffith, Brett Kavanaugh, Sri Srinivasan, Patricia Millett and Robert Wilkins. Two Democratic appointees, Chief Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama's nominee for the vacant Supreme Court seat, and Judge Cornelia Pillard, are sitting out the case. Even without Garland and Pillard, the panel tilts left, with five Democratic appointees to four Republican appointees. But while backers of the Clean Power Plan are hesitant to say a judge's vote on the rule can be predicted by party affiliation, they believe they have an advantage in that D.C. Circuit judges are well versed in Clean Air Act issues.

   3. What's the schedule for arguments?

   Oral arguments will kick off at 9:30 a.m. EDT in Courtroom 20 in the D.C. Circuit. The court has granted attorneys a total of 218 minutes to argue the various challenges, but arguments could extend beyond the allotted time at the judges' behest. Sixteen attorneys will appear throughout the day to argue for and against the legality of the rule. Arguing the case for the Obama administration are Department of Justice attorneys Eric Hostetler, Amanda Berman, Norman Rave and Brian Lynk. The court will begin by hearing 70 minutes of arguments and rebuttal on statutory issues, followed by 44 minutes on opponents' claims that EPA cannot regulate power plant emissions under two different sections of the Clean Air Act; 24 minutes on constitutional issues; 20 minutes on procedural issues; and 60 minutes on technical challenges, including that the rule's objectives aren't achievable.

   4. Will there be a lunch break?

   Yes.

   5. Which issues matter most?

   The court says not to take the final schedule in front of the en banc panel as a judgment of the merits of any of the issues in the case. Tuesday's schedule comes out of requests made by the parties in the litigation. The 150-plus challengers to the rule had requested five hours of oral argument spread out over two days in front of a three-judge panel, while EPA requested a little more than three hours. The court may feel that parties' briefs more fully covered some issues than others and therefore do not require as much time during oral arguments. Still, the decision to hear the case in front of the full court signals that judges view the case as a whole as important.

   6. What's a BSER?

   Judges will consider several claims tied to EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act and how transformative the rule is compared to past agency regulations. A key question the D.C. Circuit will have to answer is whether EPA's best system of emission reduction, or BSER, in the Clean Power Plan fits within the constraints of the air pollution law's Section 111. When shaping a BSER, EPA must consider emissions reductions, costs, environmental effects, energy requirements and whether the system has been "adequately demonstrated." EPA is also supposed to issue standards of performance for sources of pollution and give states flexibility to account for the remaining useful life of existing sources.

   Challengers argue EPA violated the law by issuing a BSER that's impossible for an individual regulated source to achieve. Instead, the rule relies on the electricity sector switching to natural-gas-fired power and renewable energy. If the Clean Power Plan is upheld, challengers argue, "Section 111(d) would be transformed from a limited provision into the most powerful part of the Clean Air Act, making the agency a central planner for every single industry that emits carbon dioxide." EPA, for its part, argues that power plants operate within an interconnected electric grid and that they've already been using generation-shifting to reduce CO2 emissions. Congress gave the agency the authority to consider a wide range of measures to reduce emissions from sources, EPA says.

   7. How do recent court cases factor into the arguments?

   The Supreme Court's decision last year to not toss out EPA's mercury and air toxics standards for power plants, even though it found EPA should have better considered the costs of the rule, helped keep alive a key argument that challengers have raised to the Clean Power Plan. Industry and state attorneys argue EPA cannot regulate power plant emissions under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act because the agency is already regulating emissions from those sources under Section 112 through the mercury rule. The issue arose because the House and the Senate passed two different versions of Section 111(d) into law in the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. Critics argue that the House version bars EPA from issuing standards under the section for sources of pollution covered by other regulations. The Obama administration, on the other hand, argues that the Senate version said only that EPA couldn't redundantly regulate a pollutant.

   In recent weeks, challengers and EPA have wrangled over the impacts of other court decisions on the Clean Power Plan litigation. Opponents have claimed that federal court rulings in cases over a retroactive permit veto for a mountaintop-removal mine and a regional haze plan for Texas and Oklahoma support their concerns that EPA did not adequately consider the costs of the Clean Power Plan and its effect on grid reliability. EPA has downplayed the significance of the rulings. The agency has pointed to a separate case upholding the Obama administration's social cost of carbon as boosting its own arguments on the Clean Power Plan.

   8. What about market forces?

   In the years since the Clean Power Plan was proposed, the market has been shifting away from coal-fired electricity to natural gas, solar power and wind energy. In the days leading up to the oral arguments, EPA's allies have pointed to the changes as proof that the Clean Power Plan won't result in catastrophic consequences for the country, as argued by EPA's challengers. But supporters still contend that Clean Air Act regulation is needed to keep the transition going, to push laggard states into making changes and to deal with the negative externalities of pollution. Those transitions, and how administration officials have framed the rule as a game changer, could come up at Tuesday's oral arguments.

   9. Has there ever been anything like this before?

   Not exactly. Oral arguments in the D.C. Circuit typically last anywhere from 20 to 40 minutes. But in 2012, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit heard more than five hours of oral arguments spread over two days in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, massive litigation over other major Obama administration climate policies. The lawsuits challenged EPA's Clean Air Act finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, EPA's tailpipe rule setting greenhouse gas standards for cars and light-duty trucks, and rules over when and how stationary sources could be regulated. The panel heard arguments from 11 attorneys over the two days — including some of the same attorneys who are scheduled to argue the Clean Power Plan next Tuesday. The panel — made up of two Democratic appointees and one Republican &mdsh; issued a unanimous opinion upholding the regulations and denied petitioners the chance for en banc review of the decision. Sean Donahue, an attorney representing environmental interests in both the 2012 case and the Clean Power Plan litigation, said a difference between the two cases is that there are more business interests supporting the Clean Power Plan in friends-of-the-court briefs.

   10. When will the court decide?

   The court's decision is likely to come after the November elections, but the timing is still up in the air. Judges could issue a ruling sometime in the winter. Once a decision comes out, parties will likely ask the Supreme Court to take up the case. If a decision comes out early enough, the Supreme Court could make a decision on whether to take up the case next spring. But the high court may not decide until the fall. In the meantime, the country will be under the leadership of a new administration. If Democrat Hillary Clinton is elected president, she'll likely attempt to stay the course under the Clean Power Plan; Republican candidate Donald Trump, on the other hand, has vowed to get rid of the rule. Courts have ruled, however, that federal agencies must provide a reasonable explanation for why they are overturning the policies of a previous administration.

   http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/09/20/stories/1060043104
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

10. Conventional Oil Discoveries at Lowest in Decades

    Sep 20, 2016 | Fuel Fix

    By David Hunn

    Companies have never discovered as little conventional oil and gas as they did last year, according to a new report from energy research firm Wood Mackenzie.

    Globally, the industry last year found 11.6 billion barrels of oil and gas that it could access via traditional vertical drilling, as opposed to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. That’s 3 billion barrels or 21 percent less than it did in 1994, the next-lowest year on the list.

    “It’s quite worrying that oil volumes have dropped so low,” said WoodMac global exploration research director Julie Wilson. Conventional drilling found enough new gas fields last year to replace what the world consumed, she noted. But it only found 3 billion barrels of oil, or one-tenth of enough to replenish annual usage.

    That doesn’t necessarily mean the world is going without, however. As conventional finds are dropping, America’s shale plays are, in part, replacing them.

    WoodMac’s report found that the majors discovered about 6 billion barrels of conventional oil last year, and about 4 billion barrels of unconventional shale.

    “There’s no doubt that conventional has had to compete somewhat for funding with unconventional plays,” Wilson said.

    In addition, the world’s integrated oil companies like Exxon, Chevron, BP and Shell have retooled exploration practices during the ongoing oil price downturn and are “poised to emerge from the slump leaner, more efficient and more profitable,” the WoodMac report said.

    As companies slashed exploration budgets, they stopped pursuing “high-cost, high-risk exploration strategies,” Andrew Latham, WoodMac’s vice president of exploration research, said in the report. He called such work “elephant hunting in the Arctic.”

    The big integrating majors are now choosing only their best prospects for drilling, including more wells close to existing fields, Latham said.

    The majors invested $169 billion in exploration from 2006 to 2015 and added 72 billion barrels of oil and gas to their reserves. Fracking made up one-third of that, or 25 billion barrels.

    “There has been a shift in ambition,” Latham said. The majors, once reliant on major finds, are now looking to acquisitions, existing wells and U.S. shale to replace production.

    http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/09/20/conventional-oil-discoveries-at-lowest-in-decades/
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

11. Brown Signs Bill to Limit 'Superpollutants'

    Sep 20, 2016 | E&E Climatewire

    By Debra Kahn

    California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) yesterday signed a bill setting reduction targets for some of the world's most powerful global warming substances.

    S.B. 1383, by state Sen. Ricardo Lara (D), sets targets for reducing methane, hydrofluorocarbons and man-made "black carbon" emissions by 2030. The so-called short-lived climate pollutants, which spend less time in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide but trap far more heat during their lifetimes, accounted for 42 percent of California's greenhouse gas emissions in 2013 but were left out of the state's first set of climate regulations.

    The bill codifies targets that the state Air Resources Board set last year: a 40 percent reduction in methane and fluorinated gases and a 50 percent reduction in non-forest black carbon emissions by 2030, below 2013 levels. It requires ARB to start enforcing the targets by January 2018.

    The state has already begun writing regulations to control methane leaks at oil and gas sites. ARB released a proposed strategy in April that details other areas of potential regulation, including incentives to replace residential wood stoves and fireplaces and rules on capturing methane from dairy cows (ClimateWire, Jan. 11).

    At a signing ceremony in Long Beach, Calif., Brown cited research that found such reductions, if implemented worldwide, could halve the expected rate of climate change by 2050. He also pointed out that some of the pollutants, like particulate matter from fires, directly affect public health.

    "Cutting black carbon and other superpollutants is the critical next step in our program to combat climate change," he said. "This bill curbs these dangerous pollutants and thereby protects public health and slows climate change."

    A Republican state senator issued a statement criticizing Lara's bill and another bill, S.B. 32, that Brown signed earlier this month extending the state's overall carbon caps to 2030.

    "I can appreciate the goals of SB 1383 and SB 32; however, the reality of both bills is that their impacts on climate change will be next to nothing, and at great costs," said state Sen. John Moorlach (R).

    http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/09/20/stories/1060043095
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

12. Cautionary Tale for Mexico on Oil and Gas Climate Pollution

    Sep 20, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund

    By Daniel Zavala-Araiza

    New findings by NASA scientists attributing a giant, invisible cloud of methane – nearly 5 times the size of Mexico City – over the southwestern U.S. to the region’s sprawling web of oil and gas facilities raise important new concerns not just on this side of the border, but for Mexico as well.

    Methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas, with more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over a 20-year timeframe. Scientists estimate that methane contributes to about 25 percent of today’s warming. Cleaning up methane also reduces other pollutants: both ozone precursors that affect air quality and air toxics that erode human health.

    The recent NASA paper linking the methane cloud to production, processing and distribution of oil and natural gas also notes that just a small portion of these sites, about 10%, were responsible for more than half the emissions. This is just the most recent example of a long list of scientific studies that have found that subset of sites or facilities disproportionately account for the majority of emissions. Scientists have called this subset of sites super-emitters.

    Why it Matters to Mexico

    Methane emissions have rapidly become a high profile challenge for U.S. oil and gas companies and their regulators. Thanks to extensive research, we now have a much fuller picture of the problem – and the opportunities to fix it – than we did just a few years ago. But most other countries, including Mexico, are just starting to peel pack the curtain.

    According to a report that compiled oil and gas methane emissions across the world, Mexico is the world’s fifth largest oil and gas methane emitter. The latest version of the national inventory shows that one fourth of Mexico’s total methane emissions come from the oil and gas sector.

    Improving Visibility

    One of the most promising new ways to measure methane from the oil and gas sector is satellites. The NASA hotspot study is a good example of the big-picture data satellites can provide over a vast region. Analysis of satellite data to learn more about Mexico’s methane emissions is currently underway.

    As part of a research project conducted by Harvard University, methane emissions data collected using satellites will be retrieved and compared to the Mexican inventory. By zooming in on the Mexican oil and gas sources, their emissions and locations, we will be able to get a clearer picture about the magnitude of emissions and the accuracy of the inventory. Reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas system requires that we have certainty about how much methane is being emitted and where.

    Plugging the Leaks

    Plenty of solutions for fixing the oil and gas industry’s methane problem are readily available, and at a very low cost. One recent analysis, for example, showed the country could achieve a 45% reduction in oil and gas methane pollution, while saving about 40 million pesos a year.

    The positive climate impact of these low-cost reductions is partially why PEMEX has joined the UN’s Oil and Gas Methane Partnership to measure and reduce its emissions. It’s also why Mexico’s federal government stepped upin June, announcing a 45% national methane reduction goal by 2025 (matching a similar target made by Canada and the United States). This step not only showed significant climate leadership, but once rules are fully implemented, Mexico could meet about 10 percent of its international climate pledge.

    Now is the time for Mexico to deliver on strong methane regulations that will require foreign oil and gas companies to operate at the same standard as they will in the U.S.  If this doesn’t happen, growth in this sector catalyzed by historic energy reform could usher in untold amounts of methane pollution that could ultimately undercut Mexico’s ability to meet its climate goals and protect the air quality of its citizens.

    http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2016/09/19/cautionary-tale-for-mexico-on-oil-and-gas-climate-pollution/
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. Texas Ports Pick Up Steam as Oil and LNG Exports Ramp Up

    Sep 20, 2016 | E&E Energywire

    By Mike Lee

    Texas ports are getting ready to see an increase in cargo, but they need a big infusion of money to keep operating.

    And beyond just maintenance, a lot of them will need to be widened and deepened in order to accommodate the bigger ships coming through the recently expanded Panama Canal.

    "It is important for Texas to strengthen its infrastructure in order to take maximum advantage of the Panama Canal expansion," Juan Sosa, Panama's ambassador to the United States, told the Texas Senate Select Committee on Ports last week.

    The canal expansion will allow bigger ships to pass from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. That could be a boon to the 12 deepwater ports in Texas, the biggest oil-and-gas-producing state and a major hub for plastics and other manufacturing.

    When Congress lifted the 40-year-old ban on exporting crude oil, the first shipment left from Corpus Christi. And though the first cargo of liquefied natural gas exported from the United States was loaded onto a ship in Louisiana, it steamed into the Gulf of Mexico through the Sabine River Navigation Channel, which is maintained by a special government district in Texas.

    There's a hitch, though. The new Panama Canal will allow ships with a draft of 50 feet to shuttle between the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. Yet the deepest ports in Texas are only 45 feet.

    What's more, port officials from the length of the coast said they're struggling to get funding from the Army Corps of Engineers to pay for maintenance. The Port of Houston, which ranks third among U.S. ports in the value of cargo, requires $55 million to $60 million worth of dredging to maintain the depth of its ship channel, but the most recent appropriation from Congress included only $42 million, according to Robert Shearon, presiding officer of the Houston Pilots Association.

    He estimated that shippers in Houston contribute $75 million to $100 million to the federal Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.

    "We would like Texas and her ports to get their fair share of the maintenance funding," Shearon said.

    Houston, like a lot of other Texas ports, is essentially an artificial harbor. The 50-mile-long Houston Ship Channel, which stretches from Galveston Bay to the outskirts of downtown Houston, was constructed between 1912 and 1914 by widening and deepening a bayou. Without near-constant dredging, it would fill back up with silt and become unnavigable for deep-draft ships.

    It wasn't clear whether the funding will improve anytime soon. The Army Corps of Engineers' Galveston District is spending $155 million on navigation improvements in 2016, more than double what it spent in 2007, a corps spokeswoman said in an email.

    But the Galveston District has to spread that funding over the entire 367-mile Texas coast, along with rivers and the Intracoastal Waterway.

    Unlike some coastal states, though, Texas doesn't spend significant funds on its ports,according to the state Transportation Department. Instead, most the ports are managed by independent port authorities, which pay for their operations through user fees and, in a few cases, local property taxes.

    The state Senate committee didn't discuss any funding options, but some of its members said they're interested in finding ways to pay for port construction, especially if the ports can make a case that the money will expand the state's economy.

    "I hate being third in anything," Sen. Jose Menendez (D) said, playing off Texas' reputation as the Third Coast. "I'd like to see us be the First Coast or the Second Coast."

    http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/09/20/stories/1060043086
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

14. (ACC Mentioned) Two-Thirds of U.S. Drinking Hexavalent Chromium — Report

    Sep 20, 2016 | E&E Greenwire

    By Gabriel Dunsmith

    Over 200 million Americans are exposed to the toxic compound hexavalent chromium through their drinking water, according to a report released today by the Environmental Working Group.

    EWG compiled federal data to show that hexavalent chromium — a suspected carcinogen and the prime contaminant featured in the popular 2000 film "Erin Brockovich" — is widespread in water supplies across all 50 U.S. states.

    No federal standard has been established for hexavalent chromium in drinking water, despite its prevalence and toxicity, the group said. The chemical industry, EWG asserts, intervened in federal rulemaking to effectively block any regulation.

    "Houston, we have a problem," said Brockovich in a statement. "More than 20 years ago, we learned that this dangerous chemical poisoned the tap water of California communities, and now these tests and EWG's report show that roughly 218 million Americans are being served drinking water polluted with potentially dangerous levels of this known carcinogen."

    Brockovich was referring to her successful 1996 effort to hold utility giant Pacific Gas and Electric Co. accountable for pollution in Hinkley, Calif.

    Hexavalent chromium, also known as chromium VI or chromium-6, is an industrial compound used for steelmaking, chrome plating and power generation. It is added to cooling towers of power plants in order to prevent rust and is emitted into the atmosphere from those towers. It is likewise found in coal ash.

    The compound also occurs naturally in certain areas. It is distinct from trivalent chromium, an essential nutrient.

    According to co-author David Andrews, the report "raises important questions about our drinking water infrastructure as well as federal regulations on contaminants in our drinking water."

    In light of recent lead contamination cases across the United States, he said, the prevalence of hexavalent chromium shows "how far behind the ball our federal agencies have gotten in regulating our water."

    But U.S. EPA pushed back against the report's conclusions.

    "Ensuring safe drinking water for all Americans is a top priority for EPA," said an agency spokesperson in an emailed statement. "The agency has taken many actions to improve information on chromium and its potential health risks in drinking water."

    And Bryan Goodman, spokesman with the American Chemistry Council — the chemical industry's largest trade lobby — said the report "does not provide any new information about hexavalent chromium in the water supply."

    'Flawed analysis' harms public health

    The EWG paper points to the National Toxicology Program's 2008 study that determined hexavalent chromium in drinking water caused cancer in rats and mice. Studies already showed the chemical was a potent carcinogen when inhaled.

    Based on the NTP study, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment labeled hexavalent chromium a human carcinogen in 2010 and moved to restrict it in tap water.

    The office set a drinking water goal of 0.02 parts per billion for the substance, though state officials later set an enforceable limit of 10 ppb.

    The state's looser regulation was based on "a flawed analysis," EWG charges in its report.

    But it notes that California's is the only limit in the United States on hexavalent chromium in drinking water.

    EPA does regulate total chromium, which includes all forms of the chemical, including hexavalent and trivalent chromium. Its current drinking water standard is 100 ppb for total chromium.

    "EPA and states are responsible for ensuring that public water systems are in compliance with the current standard for total chromium," the agency said over email.

    But EWG said a separate standard is needed for the hexavalent variant due to its toxicity. The environmental organization found hexavalent chromium exceeding the California standard in the drinking water of over 7 million residents.

    The highest results came from Cleveland County, Okla., which tested at an average of 29.59 ppb. One test showed levels above 97 ppb.

    Among urban areas, Phoenix is the most at risk, said EWG. It tested at nearly 7.9 ppb.

    Most major cities in the country tested above the California office's initial 0.02 goal, EWG said, including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston.

    Nearly 90 percent of tests revealed some amount of hexavalent chromium in drinking water.

    An interactive map compiled by EWG shows test results by county.

    EWG stopped short of calling the situation a public health crisis but indicated that all Americans ought to be concerned.

    The ACC, meanwhile, sought to dampen EWG's analysis.

    "EPA's data show that when hexavalent chromium is found in the groundwater, it's present at low levels that are well below the national drinking water standard set by EPA," said Goodman. "EPA and U.S. Geological Survey attribute these low levels to geologic formations, such as rocks."

    He said there is "limited scientific data" on how the compound affects public health.

    'Spur the EPA'

    EWG said it was looking to mobilize awareness around the dangers of hexavalent chromium.

    "We're looking to spur the EPA to take action and set a drinking water standard," Andrews said of the report.

    He noted that no drinking water standards have been set under the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act.

    The report chronicles how state scientists in New Jersey and North Carolina followed California's lead and named hexavalent chromium a carcinogen, but efforts to regulate it fell flat.

    On the national front, EPA classified the compound as a likely human carcinogen in 2010, in a study EWG says was completed but never released due to intervention from the American Chemistry Council.

    "The chemical industry has largely been successful" in blocking EPA's draft assessment, said Andrews.

    The federal agency now expects its draft analysis to be complete in 2017, a seven-year delay since its initial 2010 draft.

    "In the best-case scenario," Andrews added, "it will be many years down the road before [EPA sets] a drinking water standard."

    The EWG report questions the efficacy of U.S. water and chemical regulations mere months after President Obama signed a bill to reform the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act.

    "The EPA ... has been bogged down in terms of getting to the finish line," Andrews said. "It is up to the agency to get on the ball and set a federal drinking water standard."

    Brockovich added in a statement, "This is an abject failure by the EPA ... and every American should be outraged by this inaction."

    But Goodman defended the process and said the chemicals industry is committed to ensuring public health.

    "ACC supported a third-party research organization to undertake a large, multiple-institution research study [of the chemical]," he said. "This is a positive example of industry supporting independent, peer-reviewed research to inform regulatory decisions about hexavalent chromium and drinking water."

    http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/09/20/stories/1060043109
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. (ACC Mentioned) Elevated Levels of Chromium Found in Kentucky Drinking Water, Report Says

    Sep 20, 2016 | WKMS

    By Lisa Gillespie

    A new report says some Kentuckians could be drinking a cancer-causing chemical called chromium-6.

    The Environmental Working Group, a public health advocacy group, analyzed data collected from samples of drinking water from all 50 states by the Environmental Protection Agency. Of the 85 Kentucky counties tested, the highest levels of chromium-6 were found in the samples from Daviess County.

    The average level of chromium-6 found in Daviess County was 1.12 parts per billion, which according to Bill Walker, EWG managing editor, equates to a drop of water in an Olympic-sized swimming pool.

    The EPA has imposed a limit for chromium of 100 parts per billion. But that includes both chromium-6 and chromium-3. The latter is an essential element for human function. However, too much can cause skin rashes.

    Walker said the EPA bases its limit on the toxicity of chromium-3, not the more dangerous chromium-6.

    “It’s two things mixed together and dumped into drinking water, and EPA says we have a standard to cover the combination of these things,” Walker said. “But don’t have a standard for the individual one, which happens to be more dangerous.

    Chromium-6 is the carcinogen that was mentioned in the movie “Erin Brockovich.” It is used in coal-burning power plants, in leather tanning, in the production of materials like chrome plating, and to help cool power plant water. Animal and limited human studies have shown that the chemical causes tumors to grow in the stomach and intestines.

    “The population is drinking a lower concentration, so these are affects that might accumulate over a lifetime,” said Walker. “There are elevated levels of stomach cancer in communities that have bigger exposures.”

    Chromium-6 when inhaled is also known to cause asthma, pneumonia, decreased respiratory functioning, and long-term exposure can produce effects on the liver, kidneys, gastrointestinal and immune systems.

    Lanny Brannock, spokesman for the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, said since chromium-6 is an unregulated containment, the state does not monitor for it.

    “We’re following the guidelines the EPA puts forth and we monitor for total chromium, which is what is required,” Brannock said.

    In 2011, the EPA was moving forward to impose restrictions on how much chromium-6 could be present in drinking water. But industry groups like the American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical companies, appealed seeking to delay the rules. Now, the EPA is studying the health effects of chromium-6 in drinking water. The agency cannot take action on imposing restrictions until the studies are finished, sometime this year or in 2017.

    Owensboro Municipal Utilities is the main supplier of drinkable water in Daviess County. Other water suppliers, including SE Daviess Co. Water District, West Daviess Co. Water District and East Daviess Co. Water Association, Inc., buy their water from OMU.

    Public Relations Manager Sonya Dixon said if acceptable levels of chromium-6 were adjusted by the EPA, the company would work to meet the new requirements.

    “When you look at it relative to current acceptable levels — 100 parts per billion compared to 1.2 parts per billion — we have to keep it in perspective,” she said.

    The Green River District Health Department covers seven counties including Hancock, Henderson and Daviess counties. Environmental Director Clayton Horton said chromium-6 hasn’t been on their radar. He said they take action when agencies like the EPA or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issue guidance to public health departments on how to educate public.

    “We want to make sure our actions are based on stuff that can be backed up,” Horton said.

    If the EPA were to eventually impose a legal limit for chromium-6 specifically, changes to levels in drinking water wouldn’t happen overnight. The agency usually gives states and companies time to develop processes to remove a chemical once it’s deemed unsafe at a certain level.

    Clay Kelly, an engineer with Strand Associates, a civil engineering firm that works with local governments on waste water, said it would still be up to Kentucky to implement the standard. He said that could go beyond a mandate that water companies filter out the chemical. He said coal burning power plants and other producers of chromium-6 could be directed to pre-treat their water before it’s discharged back into streams and lakes.

    “Instead of those facilities being able to discharge whatever out of their process, they have to have a pre-treatment to remove something particularly difficult before it enters the public wastewater system,” Kelly said. “They [the government] could at least monitor it before it’s diluted with everything else.”

    Elevated levels of chromium were also found in Jefferson, Shelby, Spencer, Bullitt and Hardin counties. The counties with the lowest levels were Henry, Washington, Jessamine, Carter and Calloway.

    The EWP recommends buying a reverse osmosis water filter. Online, they cost approximately $170.

    http://wkms.org/post/elevated-levels-chromium-found-kentucky-drinking-water-report-says
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

16. Tips Welcome as FBI Sleuths Keep a Finger on Cyberthreats

    Sep 20, 2016 | E&E Energywire

    By Blake Sobczak

    For the past two decades, the FBI has dispatched eyes and ears to conference rooms across the United States.

    The agents aren't undercover; they're invited. And instead of meeting in a boardroom or in secret, almost anyone can listen in.

    These FBI representatives are part of InfraGard, a widespread but seldomly publicized U.S. government-sponsored program to keep private-sector operators of critical infrastructure, such as ports and power plants, apprised of the latest threats to their systems.

    "There's been some press that we're some sort of FBI secret thing, but we're not secret at all," said Kristina Tanasichuk, president of the National Capital Region chapter of InfraGard, which encompasses Virginia, parts of Maryland and Washington, D.C.

    The InfraGard model relies heavily on private-sector input, with individual, not-for-profit chapters distributed around each of the nation's FBI field offices. At first, companies may be attracted by the promise of learning the FBI's thinking on matters ranging from computer viruses to active shooters. But in practice, the FBI representatives often take a back seat and let the companies share information and learn from one another, according to multiple InfraGard participants and organizers interviewed by EnergyWire.

    Tanasichuk is CEO of the Government Technology & Services Coalition, a Virginia-based advocacy group for small security companies, when she's not volunteering her time with the FBI.

    "InfraGard started before 9/11, but the real pressing demand for information sharing came after, because everyone said, 'Why didn't we put these pieces together?'" she said. "InfraGard tries to do that, so that the utility grid does not get attacked, and we stop that shooter from killing kids at the mall. That's the point of the program."

    That casual approach is deliberate: InfraGard meetings are as much about sharing intelligence as they are about breaking the ice among people who normally keep a low profile but who would be first in line to respond to a cyber or physical strike on the nation's infrastructure.

    FBI special agent Kara Sidener, who works as InfraGard coordinator for the National Capital Region chapter, said the emphasis on individual relationships sets the program apart from other quasi-governmental, information-sharing efforts. "Institutions don't normally trust institutions; people trust people. So by bringing it down to that individual level, sometimes a lot more can get done," she said.

    Sidener pointed out that the vast majority of U.S. critical infrastructure, from the power grid to manufacturing plants, is controlled by the private sector. "In order for us to be effective at doing our job, we need to have strong partnerships with those owners and operators so that when bad things happen, it's not the first time that we're speaking," she said.

    Each FBI field office assigns an agent to the local InfraGard chapter, with some, like Sidener, working full-time on outreach. She said most of InfraGard's new members hear about the program via word of mouth. Prospective members must sign a waiver to get access to a secure FBI portal, in addition to agreeing to undergo a basic "security risk assessment" to take part in all InfraGard has to offer.

    Sidener said that in her experience, Edward Snowden's sweeping 2013 disclosures of domestic spying programs run by the National Security Agency haven't chilled participation in InfraGard, despite its open affiliation with the U.S. intelligence community.

    "Folks that come into this program already get the importance of information sharing," she said. "Members are very willing to help us. ... Somebody's not going to volunteer to have the FBI do record checks on them if they don't want to help."

    Cyber roots

    InfraGard chapters are divided along the lines of the 16 federally designated critical infrastructure sectors, allowing for groups to meet and discuss specific vulnerabilities. Companies typically donate office space for periodic meetings, sometimes allowing sponsors to bring in coffee and refreshments.

    Martin Kessler, chief of staff to the CIO at AES Corp. and energy sector lead for the National Capital Region's InfraGard chapter, said his company came to be involved in the FBI program "as an additional channel for sharing information and networking with both government and private sector peers responsible for protecting critical infrastructure."

    He called public-private partnerships "an integral part" of AES's strategy for guarding its electric power assets amid a "constantly changing threat landscape." Joining InfraGard helped the company learn about the programs and capabilities of the FBI, Kessler explained in email, adding that the resources have since been incorporated into the utility's incident response plans.

    Most InfraGard events and resources cover cybersecurity in some form, owing to the program's genesis as a way to support FBI cyber investigations out of the agency's Cleveland office. Once vetted, InfraGard members can tap into the FBI's Malware Investigator tool, which compares samples of suspicious code against hundreds of thousands of previous malware submissions.

    The National Capital Region chapter, based as it is around D.C., often discusses cybersecurity for government facilities. Houston's InfraGard chapter has a huge oil and gas industry presence, while Idaho's is more concerned with threats to agriculture.

    Minnesota's InfraGard chapter counts members from the utility, medical device and retail industries, among others.

    Eran Kahana, who sits on the board of directors for the Minnesota chapter of InfraGard and serves as its general counsel, said the bulk of the group's activities are "weighted toward cyber."

    "Everything can be attacked these days by cyber [means] — it's the easiest vector of attack, and one that we are definitely paying attention to," said Kahana, whose day job sees him advise companies on intellectual property and technology matters as counsel for the law firm Maslon LLP.

    That's not to say other risks are off the table. Kahana pointed to a recent stabbing rampage at a mall in St. Cloud, Minn., in which an attacker with reported links to the Islamic State group injured nine people before being killed by an off-duty police officer. Past InfraGard meetings in the region have addressed homegrown violent extremism, "active shooter" scenarios and threats to landmark retail destinations like the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minn.

    "You wouldn't think Minnesota would be attracting anything, but here we are finding ourselves in the forefront with [threats] related to terrorism and infrastructure security," he said.

    Kahana cast InfraGard participation as a means for companies to show they're serious about managing risk and engaging in information sharing. But it cannot just be "a one-time thing," he cautioned; rather, "you need to do it systematically."

    Threats and secrets

    Parts of InfraGard are hidden from public view, a practice InfraGard's backers defend as necessary for an organization aimed at addressing weak spots in U.S. infrastructure.

    An upcoming National Capital Region Members Alliance talk on lessons from the utility industry's GridEx III exercise, which pitted grid operators against simulated hackers, drones and physical attackers, is closed to the press. GridEx took place in a private but unclassified setting last year.

    Privacy advocates have raised skepticism about what, from the outside, can appear to be little more than a huge web of FBI tipsters. The program's secrecy has also drawn unwelcome attention from hackers and conspiracy theorists who paint InfraGard's true purpose in apocalyptic terms.

    In 2011, InfraGard's Atlanta chapter saw its website defaced and its members' sensitive personal information spilled online following an attack by hackers affiliated with the LulzSec group.

    Hector Monsegur, one of the hackers responsible for that episode, said he had not been familiar with InfraGard beforehand but rather targeted the FBI-affiliated organization as "low-hanging fruit."

    He now says he regrets that decision, among others that ultimately landed him in FBI custody. He has since switched sides and now works as a security researcher, helping companies find and patch their cyber vulnerabilities.

    The 2011 hack "led directly to my arrest, actually," he told EnergyWire in a Twitter message, noting that the FBI is "very proactive when it comes down to InfraGard."

    A more prosaic challenge for InfraGard chapters stems from their members who may lack security clearances to interact with FBI at all levels.

    The FBI's partners run up against some of the same information-sharing barriers that other public-private partnerships at the Department of Homeland Security have faced.

    "Who to share, what to share, with whom? ... Those questions are still a bit vexing to the community," said Tanasichuk of the InfraGard National Capital Region Members Alliance. "You don't want information getting into the wrong hands, [but] you want the people who need to know to know as soon as possible."

    At public InfraGard webinars and meetings, it's not unusual for the thorniest questions from the audience to go unanswered. During a recent teleconference addressing the threat from "ransomware" — malicious software that encrypts user data and holds the key hostage — the speakers declined to identify victims by name in a public forum.

    Tanasichuk, who is wrapping up the first year of her three-year tenure as chapter president, said she has steered the group to focus on grid physical and cybersecurity, hosting briefings on a Dec. 23, 2015, cyberattack on Ukraine's power distribution network that left hundreds of thousands of that country's citizens without electricity.

    "Critical infrastructure owners and operators, they stay up at night; they're on the cutting edge" with cybersecurity, she said, adding that generally, "I don't think people understand the impact [cyber] can have on the country."

    http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/09/20/stories/1060043093
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News

17. Telecom Alert: September 19, 2016– IoT Workshop; TerreStar 1.4 GHz Buildout; PTC Spectrum; E-Rate Eligible Services; USF Contribution Factor; FCC Open Meeting

    Sep 19, 2016 | National Law Review

    By C. Douglas, Jarrett Gregory, E. Kunkle, Thomas B. Magee, Tracy P. Marshall, Jack Richards, and Wesley K. Wright

    NTIA Announces Internet of Things Workshop

    The U.S. Department of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration is convening a series of multi-stakeholder meetings concerning Internet of Things (IoT) Security Upgradability and Patching. The initial meeting will be held on October 19, 2016.  An associated Federal Register notice describes the short-term goal of the multi-stakeholder process as to "develop a broad, shared definition or set of definitions around security upgradability for consumer IoT, as well as strategies for communicating the security of IoT devices to consumers."  For a more detailed summary, click here.

    1.4 GHz Band Buildout Waiver Request

    Last week, the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issued a Public Notice seeking comment on TerreStar Corporation’s Request for Temporary Waiver of its Substantial Service Requirements for its commercial wireless licenses in the 1.4 GHz band.  TerreStar is the sole nationwide licensee in the commercial wireless 1.4 GHz band and is required to demonstrate substantial service for each of its sixty-four licenses by April 23, 2017.  The company originally intended to deploy a high-power WiMAX network for smart grid applications, but opted for commercial medical telemetry operations due to interference concerns with the nearby medical telemetry band.  TerreStar asked the Commission to temporarily waive the substantial service requirement for its licenses until April 23, 2020, arguing a need to implement wireless medical telemetry services through leasing arrangements with health care providers and wireless medical telemetry equipment manufacturers.  Comments are due by October 4, 2016 and Reply Comments are due by October 14, 2016.

    Positive Train Control Spectrum Transfer

    The Mobility Division of the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issued an Order approving an assignment application of 220 MHz AMTS spectrum from Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, Debtor-in-Possession to Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA).  The Bureau also granted SCCRA’s waiver request to modify the regulatory status of the 220 MHz AMTS spectrum for private positive Train Control (PTC) use for the Metrolink commuter railroad.

    E-Rate 2017 Eligible Services

    The Wireline Competition Bureau issued an Order last week adopting the eligible services list for the 2017 E-rate program.  In particular, the Bureau altered the description of eligible leased dark fiber to read “Leased Dark Fiber.”  The revision clarifies the distinction between leased dark fiber and self-provisioned fiber under E-rate program rules.  The Bureau also provided an explanation of how to classify connections between multiple buildings of an individual school district when requesting Category One (data transmission services, internet access and voice services) or Category Two (related to on-premise WiFi connectivity) ) support. The annual application filing window for funding year 2017 will begin no earlier than November 11, 2016.

    Universal Service Contribution Factor

    The FCC’s Office of Managing Director (OMD) issued a Public Notice announcing the proposed universal service contribution factor for the fourth quarter of 2016 will be 0.174 or 17.4%.  The contribution factor is derived from projected total collected interstate and international end-user telecommunications revenues, revenues and the revenue requirements of the four (4) programs supported by the Federal Universal Service Fund.  The proposed contribution factor will become final unless the FCC disapproves within fourteen (14) days of this Public Notice; disapproval is highly unlikely. 

    FCC Open Meeting

    Early last week, the Commission published the agenda for its next Open Commission Meeting, scheduled for Thursday, September 29.  The tentative schedule includes a Report and Order on improving Wireless Emergency Alerts, a review of the Commission’s foreign ownership policies for television and radio broadcast stations, and a Report and Order that will significantly revise the rules governing cable set top boxes.  The FCC’s proposed rules and an “app-based” alternative developed by Comcast and supported by the major cable operators and DirecTV elicited substantial opposition.  Content providers have identified significant copyright issues with the FCC’s proposed rules. Smaller cable operators may be exempt from some or all of the proposed rules. 

    http://www.natlawreview.com/article/telecom-alert-september-19-2016-iot-workshop-terrestar-14-ghz-buildout-ptc-spectrum
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

18. New U.N. Climate Chief Eyes a 'Complex Situation' Under Trump

    Sep 20, 2016 | E&E Climatewire

    By Jean Chemnick

    The woman tasked with guiding the aftermath of the Paris climate deal said yesterday that concerns abound about what a Donald Trump presidency could mean for the global agreement.

    In an interview with ClimateWire at the start of her first annual high-level climate change discussions here, U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Patricia Espinosa said the GOP nominee's pledge to "cancel" the Paris deal is a major topic of discussion in global climate circles.

    "I think everybody's aware of that possibility and just concerned about it," she said. But Espinosa also added that the way countries respond to any bid by Trump to withdraw the United States from the deal inked by 195 countries would determine whether its consequences would be far-reaching.

    "What would happen? What would be the reaction of the international community? What would be the reaction in the U.S., where today most U.S. citizens believe climate change is real and something has to be done about it?" Espinosa asked. "It's important that we're aware that it would be a very, very complex situation."

    Espinosa spoke as diplomats gathered for the start of a new U.N. General Assembly meeting — and for a ceremony tomorrow hosted by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon aimed at encouraging countries to ratify the Paris Agreement early to ensure that it takes effect this year. Approximately 30 countries are expected to deposit their instruments of ratification during a one-hour gathering at U.N. headquarters.

    The 2016 timeline would secure Ban's climate legacy as he prepares to step down in December after years of prioritizing the climate negotiations process. It would serve a similar function for President Obama, for whom Paris is also a crowning international achievement.

    The United States formally joined the Paris Agreement last month alongside China. Now that it has done so, it cannot withdraw for at least four years — provided the agreement is in effect when the next administration takes office.

    Espinosa said yesterday that it is "possible" that tomorrow's gathering will see enough countries ratify Paris to allow it to take effect. The deal enters force when 55 countries totaling 55 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions are parties to it. Both thresholds are within reach — though it seems likely that the emissions requirement will take a few more weeks to fulfill. Large emitters including Japan and Canada are expected to join very soon, while India and the European Union haven't made promises but are weighing their options for swift ratification.

    Espinosa's native Mexico will join the Paris deal tomorrow after legislative approval. The former foreign minister recorded a personal video message to the Senate ahead of its vote, imploring it to act quickly.

    A 'crash course' in climate change

    Since taking the helm of the U.N. climate body two months ago, Espinosa and her secretariat have been planning for the possibility that Paris will be in force before the next round of U.N. negotiations. That November meeting in Marrakech, Morocco, could become the first conference of the parties to Paris, kicking off negotiations on a host of rulemakings for the deal's implementation years before its framers expected.

    This first meeting would be "procedural," Espinosa said, but parties would likely move to buy other countries time to ratify the deal and weigh in on its implementation.

    One way to do that would be for countries that have already ratified Paris, including the United States, China and Mexico, to agree to entrust the basic rulemaking work to the full Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in early years — allowing non-parties time to act. There might be some deadline by which time decisionmaking would revert back to the countries that had ratified, she said.

    "Of course we want a universal agreement, and we want a universal application," she said. "So it would be important that we have a very inclusive process."

    Espinosa said she learned the value of inclusiveness when she traveled to Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2009 with Mexico's then-president, Felipe Calderón, to attend the climate talks there. The summit that year was marred by a closed process and rumors that the Danish conference presidency was circulating a secret text to some parties but not others. The talks went into extra innings and then broke down completely without producing the looked-for agreement. The entire negotiations process was in doubt as Mexico prepared to take its turn presiding over the next round of talks in Cancun, Mexico, the following year.

    "When the time came that we had to start preparing for [Cancun], and trying to rebuild trust and trying to set the stage so that everybody would be comfortable and we'd be able to deliver some kind of result, I was very involved from the beginning talking to my colleagues in the different countries," Espinosa said.

    Because of Espinosa's past experience in multilateral processes and because the climate talks were now such a delicate diplomatic process, Calderón made the unprecedented move of tapping his foreign minister to preside over the talks rather than an environment minister.

    "So that was like a crash course into climate change," she said.

    Observers call Espinosa 'tough' but 'trusted'

    Espinosa got high marks for her performance in Cancun, which among other things established the $10 billion Green Climate Fund to help poor countries cope with warming. Many analysts say that conference went a long way toward re-establishing countries' trust in the U.N. climate process.

    "We innovated a lot in the way of negotiation, in the way of making consultations," she said. "We made a very open process that had not been the case before.

    "If I would need to say in two words what was the reason for success, it was 'inclusiveness and transparency,'" she said.

    Those principles, Espinosa said, have generally guided the talks ever since; she advocated them to former French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius when he was preparing to preside over the Paris summit. And she said they will now guide her work at the helm of the UNFCCC.

    "I think she's exactly the right person for the moment," said Rachel Kyte, CEO of Sustainable Energy for All.

    Kyte remembered the Mexican delegation engaging with countries well in advance of Cancun, with everyone feeling they had their "three minutes" with Espinosa and then-UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres, she said.

    The extra work paid dividends, Kyte said. "She was trusted."

    Espinosa was also "tough," Kyte recalled, gaveling down the agreement at the close of Cancun despite objections from Bolivia that might have prevented it.

    This year, the world's attention pivots from celebrating the deal 195 countries reached last year in Paris to implementing it, and Espinosa has a to-do list for Marrakech that goes beyond writing ground rules for the agreement. Another focus will be helping developing countries gain the capacity to deliver on their pledges toward Paris, she said, including with financial assistance from developed countries. It's also important to better integrate the actions being taken by non-state actors like cities, subnational governments and the private sector — known collectively as the Global Climate Action Agenda — into the more formal nationally determined contributions of Paris, she said.

    "We want to bring all the action that is happening on the ground closer to the intergovernmental negotiating process," she said.

    http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/09/20/stories/1060043099
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

19. Does Cap and Trade Increase Air Pollution? It May Be Too Soon to Tell

    Sep 20, 2016 | E&E Climatewire

    By Debra Kahn

    As California contemplates how to reduce greenhouse gases through 2030, major questions still surround the state's choice of policies to get it there.

    One is whether cap and trade, the market-based system that California uses to ensure that it reaches its existing target of cutting CO2 to 1990 levels by 2020, allows emissions of other pollutants to increase.

    It's a theory that environmental justice groups have been raising for at least five years. But an initial look at whether California's system is in fact increasing emissions of conventional pollution is inconclusive.

    The report, released last week by academics and activists, examines the hard data underlying the theory that market-based emissions programs can increase local air pollutants by allowing businesses to buy carbon credits and offsets rather than reducing emissions on-site. The cap-and-trade program has been operating for four years, and the state has released data for two of them.

    The report finds that out of 314 industrial facilities covered by cap and trade, roughly half have increased their direct greenhouse gas emissions since the start of cap and trade in 2013. Meanwhile about 65 — mostly refineries and cogeneration plants — decreased emissions. Electricity, cement manufacturing, hydrogen plants, and oil and gas production all saw an average increase per facility. One of the largest was a Cemex cement plant in San Bernardino County that increased its CO2 emissions more than 834,000 tons in 2013-14 relative to 2011-12.

    The report also finds a correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and emissions of fine particulate matter, which causes asthma. It points out that the largest emitters of both pollutants are likely to be situated in neighborhoods with a majority of residents of color. It finds that the highest-emitting facilities were more likely to use large amounts of carbon offsets and that 76 percent of the offsets used were from out-of-state projects.

    But it stops short of finding that net conventional air pollution has increased at all, let alone as a result of cap and trade.

    That's due to differences in the quality of state data on greenhouse gases and conventional air pollutants. While facilities are required to report their greenhouse gas emissions annually, their conventional pollutants only have to be reported every several years, so it was impossible for researchers to draw a direct link between any given year's increase in greenhouse gases and an accompanying increase in the type of emissions that contribute to asthma and other respiratory ailments.

    "What we did was take a cross-section from 2014 and show a pretty tight correlation," said report co-author Manuel Pastor, director of the Program for Environmental and Regional Equity at the University of Southern California.

    "Of course our working assumption is the cross-sectional correlation would hold over time," he said. More research and better data are needed, he said, while also cautioning that the report only covers the first two years of the program, which were particularly heavy on reductions from out-of-state electricity imports.

    'Hot spot' suspicions

    The report comes at a pivotal time. Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed a bill earlier this month setting a 2030 target of 40 percent below 1990 emissions levels, and his Air Resources Board is already plotting a course to get there. On Thursday, the agency will hold a hearing in Sacramento on its proposal to extend cap and trade past 2020. Environmental justice groups, led by the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, are planning a "#YesCapNoTrade" rally beforehand.

    "Pollution trading, or cap-and-trade, is not working; it is a mechanism that allows polluters to avoid taking responsibility for their own emissions," CRPE said in a release promoting the rally. "Under cap and trade, industry has actually increased greenhouse gas emissions in California."

    Other academics have studied the issue and found no evidence of increased local pollution from cap and trade.

    "In principle, a cap-and-trade system can have the effect of resulting in a higher level of some correlated local pollutant than would be in the absence of the cap-and-trade system, but any trade that would result in the violation of ambient air quality standards would not be permissible," said Robert Stavins, director of the environmental economics program at Harvard University. "Furthermore, although there has frequently been concern expressed about localized 'hot spots' when cap-and-trade systems have been considered, I am aware of no empirical evidence of such hot spots having been created by any implemented system anywhere in the world."

    Stavins co-authored a paper last year that examined seven existing emissions markets, some of them for conventional pollutants and some for CO2, and found no evidence of hot spots.

    While critics point to the Regional Clean Air Incentives Market in Southern California as an example of a poorly administered market system for nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxide — precursors to smog formation — it hasn't been found to have increased local pollution.
    

    "The hot spots question was never really able to be studied," said report co-author Rachel Morello-Frosch, an environmental science and policy professor at the University of California, Berkeley, because other problems with the market overshadowed the issue.

    Environmental justice groups are now pivoting from the argument that cap and trade is actively harmful to the argument that cap and trade should be more beneficial. Another report released last week by professors at UC Berkeley and the University of Southern California makes the argument that economic inequality and health problems stemming from conventional air pollutants cannot be ignored as California pursues its 2030 target.

    "While we still don't know whether cap and trade is creating hot spots, we know hot spots already exist," said Amy Vanderwarker, co-director of the California Environmental Justice Alliance. "Hot spots are clearly not getting any better with cap and trade."

    The report lays out a number of ways that climate policies can take better account of poor and disadvantaged communities, including better data collection and monitoring, labor standards for publicly funded renewable energy and energy efficiency projects, and protections for workers from emissions-heavy industries that are expected to decline.

    More specific to cap and trade are reforms like "no-trading zones" or price increases for allowances tied to areas that are overburdened by pollution, Pastor said.

    "You could pick up some public health benefits along the way without a whole lot of extra work," he said.

    Activist movement flexing its muscles

    Environmental justice groups' clout has been steadily growing in Sacramento over the past four years as their interests have dovetailed with those of lawmakers seeking to put their stamp on climate policies.

    Their latest major victory came Sept. 8 with the signing not only of S.B. 32, the bill that sets the 2030 target, but an accompanying bill, A.B. 197, that specifies ARB must "prioritize" regulations that reduce direct emissions from stationary and mobile sources. The practical effect of that provision is unclear, but it is viewed at the least as a new restriction on ARB's authority to implement cap and trade.

    "The passage of the two bills is a huge victory for the governor and will continue the state's global leadership on climate change," UCLA environmental law professor Ann Carlson wrote in a blog post last month. "A.B. 197 does, however, have the potential to alter fairly significantly the path the state has been on to reduce its emissions."

    The author of A.B. 197 is Assemblymember Eduardo Garcia (D), who represents the Coachella Valley, an arid region east of Los Angeles. He said that the linked bills "indicate a turning of the page as it relates to focusing on people."

    "I care about climate change," he said. "I have not ever considered myself a climate change advocate, but I know that advocating for the Imperial Valley and the Coachella Valley is my primary responsibility, a place where a child born today is already predetermined to have asthma. Six of 10 children have asthma in our community. A district that has sometimes as high as 28 percent unemployment, prone to economic challenges, that is my priority."

    Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D) said Garcia represents the rise of "East-side environmentalists, who will play an increasing role in shaping the state's environmental policy."

    "The successful effort behind these two bills is the latest sign of a growing consensus that protecting the environment and improving public health are inextricably linked and that maintaining that link is key to advancing future environmental actions," Rendon added.

    Not everyone agrees. The tensions are exemplified by an ongoing debate in California that centers on whether to allow businesses to finance forest preservation efforts in tropical countries as a way of complying with the cap-and-trade program. It's a proposal that environmental justice groups view as a worst-case scenario because it would send any associated health benefits even further afield, as well as pose difficulties in ensuring that the emission reductions actually occur and the payments go to worthy recipients.

    "To me as a mom, why would I want offsets somewhere else and not in the communities where my kids were being poisoned?" Mari Rose Taruc, co-chairwoman of ARB's Environmental Justice Advisory Committee and former state organizing director for the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, asked in a debate at Yale University last week.

    At the Yale debate, Daniel Nepstad, the executive director of the nonprofit Earth Innovations Institute, acknowledged that California's air pollution is a "huge issue that needs to be fixed." But scientifically, allowing international offsets shouldn't affect it, he said.

    "We don't see the evidence that the international offset program would exacerbate that problem," he said. "This is not a greenhouse gas issue, local pollution. ... There are policies and regulations designed to address those issues."

    But in California, the tide is turning.

    In 2012, Sen. Kevin de León (D) passed a bill to give a quarter of the cap-and-trade proceeds to the top 25 percent of census tracts defined as "disadvantaged," which led to a pioneering evaluation system known as EnviroScreen and hundreds of millions of dollars for low-income housing and rooftop solar, among other expenditures so far. De León, now president of the Senate, has begun fundraising for a potential run for lieutenant governor in 2018, a post seen as a steppingstone to the governorship.

    Environmental justice advocates have also won seats on ARB, and the agency is seeking applications for a new assistant executive officer to focus on environmental justice considerations. Meanwhile, four new bills signed into law last week address the link between tackling climate change and helping disadvantaged communities.

    "Now, our families will benefit from solutions that reduce fossil fuel pollution, improve the air our children breathe, and secure critical investments for our neighborhoods most deeply impacted by the climate and economic crisis," said Miya Yoshitani, executive director of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network. "We applaud the legislature and the governor for lifting up community-led solutions that bring shared prosperity and a healthier climate."

    http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/09/20/stories/1060043097
    

    Return to headline | Return to top