Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 1/5/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Department of Energy Launches REMADE Institute to Boost Material Reuse
Jan 4, 2017 | Waste Dive
By Cole Rosengren
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has announced plans for a new Reducing Embodied-energy and Decreasing Emissions (REMADE) Institute in Rochester, NY. This is part of the agency's Manufacturing USA initiative and will be led by the Sustainable Manufacturing Innovation Alliance. -
(ACC Mentioned) 9 Reasons The Stock Market Is Optimistic About 2017
Jan 5, 2017 | Market Watch
By Jeff Reeves
A turn of the calendar means it’s time to do away with the old and bring in the new. And many Americans are all too happy to say goodbye to 2016 and face 2017 with optimism. -
House Passes Bill to Overturn Slew of Obama Regulations
Jan 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Cheryl Bolen
The House passed by a vote of 238-184 a bill (H.R. 21) that would allow Congress to repeal at once a slew of regulations issued by the Obama administration in the last half of 2016. -
Rule-Slashing On The March; 4 Dems Back 'Midnight Rules' Bill
Jan 5, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
Two days into the 115th Congress, House Republicans are well on their way to slashing federal regulations that they say are antiquated, costly and curtail economic growth. -
(ACC Mentioned) Outlook 2017: Amended Chemicals Law Implementation Top Priority
Jan 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Engaging with the Environmental Protection Agency to shape the development of chemical rules and policies in 2017 is a top priority for a host of industry and environmental groups, their representatives told Bloomberg BNA. -
NAS Poised To Release Report On Using New Tox Methods
Jan 4, 2017 | Inside EPA
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) will release Jan. 5 a new report requested by EPA and the Defense Department (DOD) on how best to use information gleaned from the myriad new toxicity testing methodologies -- methods other than traditional animal toxicology approaches. -
NGOs File Suit Against FDA For Formaldehyde Inaction
Jan 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Two NGOs have filed suit against the FDA over its failure to act on a citizen’s petition that requested it investigate and regulate formaldehyde-containing hair straighteners. -
Outlook 2017: New Restrictions Expected From International Chemical Conventions
Jan 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bryce Baschuk
Parties to the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm international chemical conventions are planning to stake new ground in their effort to curb the global proliferation of harmful substances. -
Outlook 2017: Uncertainty the Theme of 2017 for Pesticides and Biotech
Jan 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
When it comes to environmental regulation of the agriculture industry, the theme for 2017, at least at the outset of the new year, is uncertainty. -
OECD Has Not Shown Test Guidelines Are Suitable For Nanomaterials
Jan 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
Researchers in Denmark and the US have criticised the OECD's Sponsorship Testing Programme for Nanomaterials and called for follow-up work to confirm the conclusions. -
Outlook 2017: OECD to Work on Climate Policy, Chemical Safety
Jan 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rick Mitchell
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development this year plans policy work on the fight against climate change, on biosafety, and on testing chemicals for safety, OECD environmental officials told Bloomberg BNA. -
Outlook 2017: Major Review of EU's REACH Chemical Regulation on Tap
Jan 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Union's REACH chemicals regulation will chalk up its 10th year of implementation in 2017, a milestone that will be marked by a review that could trigger amendments to the law. -
(ACC Mentioned) US Ports Prime Themselves For Expected Uptick In Petchem Exports
Jan 5, 2017 | Platts
By Kristen Hays
The world’s second-largest petrochemical port in Houston may command 75% of all US polyethylene exports, but expected growth in international shipments as a slew of new ethane crackers and associated derivative units start coming online this year has US ports a thousand miles or more away gearing up to nab a piece of the action. -
(ACC Mentioned) Anxiety Is Building As Canada And U.S. Energy Policies Head In Opposite Directions
Jan 4, 2017 | Financial Post
By Claudia Cattaneo
Canada and the United States have highly integrated oil and gas markets, but their governments will pursue opposite energy policies starting this year: Canada is taxing and restricting oil and gas activity and infrastructure to meet international climate change commitments, while the U.S. under Donald Trump will be liberalizing it and pushing its energy renaissance to the next level. -
API's Gerard Eager For Trump Regime, Worries About Tax Reform
Jan 4, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
Jack Gerard, the nation's top oil and gas lobbyist, bemoaned the over-politicization of federal pipeline reviews today and said he was hoping for big changes under the incoming Trump administration. -
Oil Lobby Bullish On Trump, GOP Congress
Jan 4, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The oil industry’s top lobbyist said companies are looking forward to a pro-oil, anti-regulation agenda from President-elect Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress. -
Tiny Group of Tesla Skeptics Emerges as Trump Energy Powerhouse
Jan 5, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Jennifer A Dlouhy
An obscure Washington policy group that opposes almost any government aid for renewable energy has emerged as an influential force in shaping Donald Trump’s plans to dismantle Obama administration climate initiatives. -
Forget Latin America, Asia Is the Biggest U.S. LNG Buyer Now
Jan 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ryan Collins
Asia's finally becoming a prime destination for U.S. shale gas cargoes. Nine of the 12 tankers that have left Cheniere Energy Inc.’s Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana—the only one sending U.S. shale gas overseas—since the beginning of December are headed for Asian countries, shipping data compiled by Bloomberg show. -
Fracking Debate Heats Up in Maryland Legislature
Jan 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kathy Lundy Springuel
The approaching end of a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in Maryland has lawmakers queuing up bills that either would extend the moratorium, allow the practice under some of the nation's strictest rules or ban it altogether. -
Extra Briefing Time Denied in Power Plant Carbon Rule Lawsuit
Jan 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The incoming Trump administration will not get additional time to review federal carbon dioxide limits for new power plants before briefing in legal challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency's rule is completed (North Dakota v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1381, 1/4/17). -
Court Rejects NSPS Opponents' Briefing Extension Request
Jan 4, 2017 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has rejected state and industry groups' request to extend the briefing schedule in litigation over EPA's greenhouse gas standards for new power plants, meaning that rule opponents must file reply briefs the day before President-elect Donald Trump is inaugurated. -
Dakota Access Pipeline in Limbo as Protests Continue
Jan 4, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
The nearly 1,200-mile, $3.8 billion Dakota Access Pipeline LLC (DAPL) starts the new year in limbo, though most of it has been built while activists continue fighting the project. -
Hazmat Health Risk Opinions OK for Non-Injury Claims
Jan 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Defense expert testimony on health risks posed by soil and water contaminants is relevant even when the plaintiffs don't allege any personal injuries, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi ruled Jan. 3 (Hollingsworth v. Hercules, Inc., 2017 BL 508, S.D. Miss., No. 15-cv-00113, 1/3/17). -
Smart Grids And Meters Raise Hacking Risks
Jan 4, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Anca Gurzu
Europe is investing in power grids that save consumers money and easily handle surges from wind and solar sources — features critical to curbing climate change and cutting the Continent’s reliance on coal. -
Our Cybersecurity Policies Are Failing Us. It's Time To Fix Them.
Jan 5, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits
By Frances Zelazny
Last fall, the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) proposed new rules for enhanced cyber risk management standards. These latest standards follow existing federal legislation and regulation dating back to 1978 for risk assessment and management in the banking sector. -
Outlook 2017: U.S. Pipeline Agency to Focus on Data, Outreach
Jan 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven Gibb
The organizational overhaul of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration renews a focus in 2017 on data and stakeholder input—pivotal signposts for new emergency response authorities the agency was pursuing before the presidential election. -
Hazardous-Materials Cargo To Be Counted In Central Illinois
Jan 5, 2017 | AP (In Chron)
A study of hazardous materials shipped by train and truck through a three-county area in central Illinois is expected to begin this spring. -
Tillerson Tries to Clear Climate Bar With Key Democrat
Jan 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The top Senate Foreign Relations Committee Democrat said he was encouraged by his Jan. 4 one-on-one with Rex Tillerson, President-elect Donald Trump's pick to lead the State Department—at least on the issue of climate change and Tillerson's backing of the Paris Agreement. -
Environmentalists' Novel Ozone Suit Aims To Overturn BLM Drilling Leases
Jan 5, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists are pursuing a novel lawsuit seeking to scrap dozens of oil and gas drilling leases on public land in Colorado granted by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), claiming BLM failed to conduct sufficient emissions analysis of the leases that the environmentalists claim will worsen ozone problems around Denver.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Department of Energy Launches REMADE Institute to Boost Material Reuse
Jan 4, 2017 | Waste Dive
By Cole Rosengren
Dive Brief:The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has announced plans for a new Reducing Embodied-energy and Decreasing Emissions (REMADE) Institute in Rochester, NY. This is part of the agency's Manufacturing USA initiative and will be led by the Sustainable Manufacturing Innovation Alliance.
The REMADE Institute's mission will be to reduce the cost of technologies required to reuse, recycle and remanufacture metals, fibers, polymers and electronic waste. Through these efforts the goal is to see a 50% improvement in overall energy efficiency by 2027.
REMADE will use up to $70 million in federal funding — subject to appropriations — and that will be matched by an additional $70 million in private cost-share commitments from more than 100 industrial, academic and scientific partners. Dive Insight:
This will be the fifth institute started by DOE in the larger Manufacturing USA network — which has received more than $920 million in federal funding and been matched by more than $1.87 billion in non-federal investment so far. According to DOE, nearly 25% of the country's total energy use goes to U.S. manufacturing and much of that goes into the physical products that are created.
The act of extracting raw materials needed for these products, such as steel or aluminum, also requires large amounts of energy. REMADE will work to reduce the energy required in production by facilitating more manufacturing from reused or recycled parts, as well as improving the energy efficiency of the products themselves. The institute's work will also include developing new methods for collecting and sorting waste materials, separating mixed materials, removing trace contaminants, and creating more cost-effective recycling and disposal options.
Based on the long list of institute members the waste and recycling industry's interest in this sizable. Members include the American Chemistry Council, American Forest and Paper Association, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Plastics Industry Association, Resource Recycling Systems, Sims Metal Management and many others. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation is also involved, showing that the circular economy ideas they have been promoting are continuing to gain more mainstream acceptance.
http://www.wastedive.com/news/us-department-of-energy-launches-remade-institute-to-boost-material-reuse/433322/
-
(ACC Mentioned) 9 Reasons The Stock Market Is Optimistic About 2017
Jan 5, 2017 | Market Watch
By Jeff Reeves
A turn of the calendar means it’s time to do away with the old and bring in the new. And many Americans are all too happy to say goodbye to 2016 and face 2017 with optimism.
This kind of hope for the future is unleashing what Keynes called “animal spirits” on Wall Street, pushing the Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, +0.30% up against record levels and prompting a massive rally over the past 60 days or so on the heels of the 2016 presidential election.
Of course, optimism is a funny thing. There is a biological imperative in optimism that helps push us toward the future rather than live in the past and despair, but being overly hopeful leaves us open to being unrealistic about our chances of future success. This “optimism bias” is a common cause of pain among traders, especially those who take risky bets without acknowledging the true odds of recording a big loss.
In other words, then, all those animal spirits may come into 2017 like a lion and wind up leaving like a lamb.
But for now, optimism is strong across various segments of the market and the U.S. economy. Here are nine areas where hopes are running high as we enter the new year:
Investors: According to a recent Wells Fargo/Gallup poll, individual investor optimism hit a nine-year high in November and marked the third straight quarter of improving sentiment. Furthermore, the surge to a reading of 96 was up 17 points from a reading of 79 in the prior quarter, and was a hair away from pre-financial crisis levels.
Family finances: Americans are more optimistic about how their family finances will fare in 2017 compared with a similar survey five years ago, according to a recent New York Life survey of 1,800 adults ages 30 or older,. Specifically, 43% are optimistic about the new year vs. just 31% of those surveyed in 2011 about their hopes for the following 12 months. Also, 34% planned to spend more on big purchases like home improvements or appliances — double the reading of just 17% who planned to increase spending going into 2012.
Jobs: The Employer Associations of America released its 2017 National Business Trends Survey recently, and it showed 48% of employers plan on increasing staffing — and that’s after 32% hired more than they expected to in 2016. Looking forward, 89% expect overall business results to be the same or better in 2017 compared with 2016, which is bolstering their staffing plans.
Consumers: The Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index rose to 113.7 in December, topping estimates and hitting the highest level since August 2001. That would be impressive enough if it didn’t come on the heels of previously strong data, including an upward revision to November numbers.
Manufacturing: The latest manufacturing report from the Institute for Supply Management showed continued expansion in the sector. But of particular note was a big surge in purchases, with the report showing the new orders index hit 60.2% — a big increase of 7.2 percentage points from November. That, coupled with positive forward-looking comments, seems to show a rosy outlook for manufacturers in the new year.
Materials: The American Chemistry Council’s Chemical Activity Barometer just ended the year with a year-over-year increase of 4.4% — the strongest pace of expansion since 2010. All four core categories for the index improved in December, which is notable given that “the chemical industry has been found to consistently lead the U.S. economy’s business cycle given its early position in the supply chain,” according to the ACC.
Housing: The National Association of Home Builders said builder confidence in December surged to an 11-year high. Furthermore, the reading of 70 obliterated forecasts of just 63 for the optimism index. At the same time, prospective home buyers were getting more optimistic as more people entered the market looking for a house, according to the NAHB.
Small businesses: The National Federation of Independent Businesses’ Small Business Optimism Index climbed to 98.4 after Election Day, only the third time it’s been above the long-term average since 2007. Most tellingly, the biggest surge in optimism was recorded in the reading of those business owners who “expect the economy to improve” — followed closely by the category of those who “expect higher real sales volume” in the future.
Small businesses, again: The Wells Fargo/Gallup Small Business Index poll showed the highest rate of optimism in eight years in 2016’s fourth quarter. It wasn’t a small bump, either: The overall index surged from a reading of 68 in the third quarter to 80 in the latest reading. The details show 58% of small-business owners surveyed expect revenue to increase in the next 12 months, 35% plan to increase capital spending and 36% expect to hire new workers.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/9-reasons-the-stock-market-is-optimistic-about-2017-2017-01-05
-
House Passes Bill to Overturn Slew of Obama Regulations
Jan 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Cheryl Bolen
The House passed by a vote of 238-184 a bill (H.R. 21) that would allow Congress to repeal at once a slew of regulations issued by the Obama administration in the last half of 2016.
The Midnight Rules Relief Act, sponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), would amend the Congressional Review Act to allow Congress to include multiple regulations in one joint resolution of disapproval. The CRA now requires regulations to be considered individually.
According to the Congressional Research Service, as many as 61 regulations could be bundled together under this bill, said Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. This number includes all significant regulations submitted to Congress after June 13, 2016.
Vital Protections at Risk
“I don't want to belittle my own legislation, but let's understand, there won't be 61 [regulations] en bloc being brought,” Issa said. “There will be some, I hope,” he said.
Democrats and public interest organizations expressed alarm that the bill would allow Congress to strike dozens of vital public safeguards in one fell swoop, with little or no debate of their merits. Once repealed, federal agencies could not issue substantially similar rules in their place.
“I am in a state of surprise that on the second day of a new Congress, we would come forward with a measure that could potentially jeopardize the public's health and safety in so many different ways,” Conyers said.
Midnight: Reality or Misnomer?
In defense of the measure, House Republicans raised the specter of a last-minute rush of low-quality, hastily reviewed and overreaching regulations issued by an administration with one foot out the door.
“Today, our specific focus is on reforming regulations that are hastily cobbled together in the waning weeks and months of an outgoing administration,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).
“These regulations are particularly susceptible to abuse and thus have an even greater potential to undermine job opportunities, wages and American competitiveness,” Goodlatte said.
In 2016, the final year of the Obama administration, 401 regulations were finalized with total compliance costs of more than $164 billion, said Rep. Tom Marino (R-Pa.).
Years in the Making
Top Obama administration officials have repeatedly said that there will be no rush of surprise regulations at the end of this administration. And during debate of the bill, no Republican offered evidence that such regulation had been issued to date.
A Jan. 3 letter signed by the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards said the proposed legislation was based on a fatally flawed premise—namely, that regulations proposed or finalized during the so-called “midnight” rulemaking period are rushed and inadequately vetted.
“In fact, the very opposite is true,” the letter said. “There are currently dozens of public health and safety regulations that have been in the regulatory process for years or decades, including many that date from the Obama administration's first term or implement laws passed in the first term,” it said.
Timeline Stretched
Historically, concerns have been raised by both Democrats and Republicans about rules adopted during a presidential transition period, typically the last 60 or 90 calendar days of a president's term, not legislative days, said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.).
Moreover, this bill differs greatly from previous bills that would have merely delayed the implementation of rules issued in the final three months of a president's term, Nadler said.
“The legislation before us today, however, goes much further and creates a process to simply erase the last months of an outgoing administration's regulatory agenda,” he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=102907852&vname=dennotallissues&fn=102907852&jd=102907852
-
Rule-Slashing On The March; 4 Dems Back 'Midnight Rules' Bill
Jan 5, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
Two days into the 115th Congress, House Republicans are well on their way to slashing federal regulations that they say are antiquated, costly and curtail economic growth.
The House yesterday passed the "Midnight Rules Relief Act," largely on a party-line 238-184 vote. It authorizes Congress to overturn regulations finalized in the last days of the Obama administration with a single vote.
Four Democrats joined their GOP colleagues in support: Reps. Henry Cuellar of Texas, Collin Peterson of Minnesota, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, a freshman. Not a single Republican opposed the measure.
Meanwhile, the House is one step closer to passing the "Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act," which requires congressional approval of measures with an estimated annual economic impact of more than $100 million.
And House Republican leaders and rank-and-file members are beginning to strategize on employing the Congressional Review Act to attempt to block dozens more of President Obama's regulations. The leader of the conservative House Freedom Caucus said the group hopes 300 rules can be scrapped with that parliamentary maneuver.
The "Midnight Rules Relief Act," H.R. 21, introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), would bundle final rules under one expanded Congressional Review Act joint resolution of disapproval, allowing for the en bloc disapproval of multiple regulations that would otherwise be subject to individual review under a simple CRA.
The CRA only requires a simple majority to pass, making it an ideal vehicle for roll-back supporters.
House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who has been spearheading regulatory reform, decried President Obama for "hastily cobbled together" last-minute rules issued in the "waning weeks and months" of his administration. He said in the week of Dec. 12, 2016, alone, the administration released 18 "midnight" rules, costing the economy $2 billion.
"These regulations are particularly susceptible to abuse and thus have an even greater potential to undermine job opportunities, wages and American competitiveness," Goodlatte said from the floor.
"As a new Congress and president begin their terms, both, understandably, must be focused on implementing the new priorities within the mandates the voters have given them," he said. "That doesn't always leave time for cleaning up all of the last acts of the departing administration."
Scott Slesinger, legislative director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the name "midnight rules" is misleading as regulations take years to construct.
"These aren't midnight rules that the administration did at the last minute," he said. "It takes years to get through the regulatory process. If you're working in an agency to do a rule, you're going to generally try to figure out how to do that in four years."
He said if the problem is a lack of oversight and review by Congress, it doesn't make sense to indiscriminately kill a swath of regulations in "one-fell swoop" without looking at each rule individually.
"It shows they're following the dictates of special interest lobbyists who find it too expensive to protect drinking water, to protect air, to make sure employees are treated fairly and to protect reproductive rights," Schlesinger said.
Christine Harbin, director of federal affairs and strategic initiatives for the free market group Americans for Prosperity, called that notion a "red herring argument."
"Congress should absolutely be giving thoughtful deliberation to these rules," she said. "But if the solution is to just let executive agencies run amok and cement the president's regulatory agenda, then that's a bad solution for American families and businesses."
Harbin said if Congress wants more say in evaluating regulations, members should support the "REINS Act."
Congress would have to adopt a joint resolution to approve a "major" rule. The resolution would have to pass both chambers and be signed by the president.'REINS Act'
The House Rules Committee yesterday sent the "REINS Act," H.R. 26, to the floor with a rule that allows for an hour of general debate and additional time for 12 amendments.
The measure could move to the floor as early as today.
Proponents argue it would increase accountability for major executive branch policy decisions and compel Congress to take more responsibility over agency actions. Critics maintain it would result in a complete paralysis of the regulatory system.
The committee approved debate on three amendments offered by Republicans and nine by Democrats.
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) offered an amendment that would require evaluation of greenhouse gas emission impacts associated with a rule and an analysis of the impacts on low-income communities. If a rule increases carbon dioxide emissions by a certain amount, it would be defined as a major rule.
Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I) offered an amendment that would exempt any rule from being considered "major" that pertained to the protection of the public health or safety. Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) would have all rules that provide for reduction in the amount of lead in public drinking water be exempt from the legislation.
Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.) said the "REINS Act" would address the historically slow economic growth of the last eight years by freeing businesses to bring back jobs. He cited a reduction in the number of days red snapper fishing was permitted in his state.
Taking boats out of the water hurt the economy in an array of small but damaging ways, Byrne said.
"It affects people who sell ice and fuel to these boats," he said.
Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney who was elected to the House in November, said she sees regulations hurting coal miners in her state every day. She praised the "REINS Act" as a viable solution.
"I think this is exactly what we're here to do," she said.
But Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) said the bill would seriously derail environmental and health protections put in place to protect citizens and workers.
"Not all regulations are useful at this time, but not all regulations are bad," he said. "So when we stop the rulemaking process it hurts the nation's ability to protect health."
He also cautioned that the bill could transgress the separation of powers laid out in the Constitution, a notion Goodlatte readily dismissed.
Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) questioned whether the bill went far enough, given it only addresses regulations that cost $100 million or more. He cited the thousands of regulations that are not considered "major."
Goodlatte said Congress would need a more "streamlined" process to address other regulations since reviewing major rules would already add considerably to the year's workload.
"You have to walk before you run," he said.CRA
While conservatives are hopeful the "Midnight Rules Relief Act" and "REINS Act" will make it through the Senate, they're not banking on it.
"The Senate is where things get more tricky," Harbin conceded.
Without the "Midnight Rules Relief Act," Republicans will have to prioritize which Obama regulations to include in a Congressional Review Act.
The CRA is a 20-year-old legislative tool that has seldom been used. It allows Congress to quickly review and nix new federal agency regulations. Once a rule is proposed, Congress has 60 days to disapprove it. The resolution must also be signed by the president (E&E Daily, Jan. 3).
Bill Kovacs, senior vice president for the environment, technology and regulatory affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a regulatory reform supporter, said the CRA is tricky because it requires a lot of floor time.
"On the CRA, each one of those is entitled to 10 hours of debate in the Senate. So if you have five of them, you've taken up a week," he said. "That's difficult because [the Obama administration was] pumping out rules like you pump gas; it's going to be very hard for many of those rules to be reviewed."
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, said in the coming days his group could finalize a list of as many as 300 regulations it would like to see blocked under the Congressional Review Act.
Meadows said Congress will have until mid-May to repeal the rules under the guidelines of the CRA.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) told reporters this week that the House will begin blocking rules under the Congressional Review Act as soon as Jan. 30. He said no decisions have yet been made on what rules will move first, but likely rules on coal mining and methane emissions will be among the first to go.
"While we haven't yet determined what needs to be repealed first, I expect to start with swift action on at least on the Stream Protection Rule and methane emissions standards, both of which are limits to our energy production," McCarthy said in a speech on the House floor.Environment, energy and health
The House passage of the "Midnight Rules Relief Act," with the "REINS Act" likely to follow, has many environmental and public health advocates nervous.
Harold Wimmer, national president and CEO of the American Lung Association, is urging members to reject the "REINS Act," calling it "a dangerous attack on public health protections."
In addition to delaying or stopping meaningful oversight of tobacco products, the "REINS Act" would block critical clean air protections, he said.
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has a track record of cost-effectively saving lives and improving public health under the Clean Air Act. The REINS Act would block or delay critical clean air protections against deadly pollutants, as well as the pollution that causes climate change," Wimmer said in a statement.
Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union for Concerned Scientists, called the "REINS Act" and the "Midnight Rules Relief Act" two "egregious" attacks on science-based safeguards.
"It's very discouraging to see this Congress, in its first week, launching this attack on science-based policies. Americans didn't vote to have public health and environmental protections gutted," he said. "They didn't vote to give corporations yet another tool to nullify the laws that keep our homes, neighborhoods and workplaces safe. But that's what these two bills would do."
Conversely, the industry-backed American Energy Alliance supported passage of the "Midnight Rules Relief Act" and is asking members to vote in favor of the "REINS Act," saying the measures would increase accountability and transparency in the federal regulatory process and roll back "overbearing" regulations. The group said it would consider the measure a "key vote" that would be used on a scorecard of lawmakers.
"The REINS Act would make America's elected representatives more accountable for federal regulations. Rules such as the Clean Power Plan, Waters of the United States, and ozone regulations would be subject to review by Congress, not left to the whim of unelected bureaucrats," the Alliance wrote in a statement.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/01/05/stories/1060047867
-
(ACC Mentioned) Outlook 2017: Amended Chemicals Law Implementation Top Priority
Jan 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Engaging with the Environmental Protection Agency to shape the development of chemical rules and policies in 2017 is a top priority for a host of industry and environmental groups, their representatives told Bloomberg BNA.
Building on Congress's bipartisan 2016 overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act and Canada's chemical regulation to show how North America offers a global model for chemicals management also is a priority for the American Chemistry Council.
Working with Congress to pass laws requiring the disclosure of chemicals in products, increasing the Food and Drug Administration's oversight of chemicals and working with state legislatures and agencies as they seek to manage chemicals of concern are additional priorities for the American Sustainable Business Council and environmental health advocacy groups.
Ben Dunham, a senior policy adviser with Holland & Knight LLP, told Bloomberg BNA companies, trade associations and other groups should make educating the incoming Trump administration about the value of the amended chemicals law their top priority.
“This is a situation where regulation is good for business, public health and the environment,” said Dunham, who previously advised the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.). The 2016 TSCA amendments are named after Lautenberg, who introduced a number of bills to overhaul the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act.
Lautenberg Act ‘Job One’
“We have a clear position that the fair and effective implementation of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act is job one when it comes to chemical management issues to be addressed by the new administration,” said Michael Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council. The trade association represents major U.S. chemical manufacturers.
“Congress has now put in place a process to help ensure the public that chemicals are manufactured and used safely,” Walls told Bloomberg BNA.
“We can enhance public confidence while we promote innovation and ensure that the benefits of chemistry can be safely brought forward to the marketplace,” he said.
Regulations, Guidance & More
The chemistry council expects the EPA under the Trump administration to make sure the law's deadlines are met, Walls said.
The statute's deadlines include directing the EPA to publish the scope of 10 risk evaluations by May, to release three final procedural rules by June and to develop guidance by June to help third parties submit draft risk evaluations to the agency (see chart).
If the EPA meets the June 2017 deadline and issues the final rule describing the process it will use to update the TSCA inventory, that would trigger an end-of-the-year deadline for industry.
Chemical manufacturers and possibly processors would be required to notify the agency 180 days after the final rule is issued concerning any chemical they've made or used during the previous 10 years.
Participating in these rulemakings and policy decisions are priorities for the Consumer Specialty Products Association, the American Sustainable Business Council and the Natural Resources Defense Council as well, according to representatives of those organizations.
Funding EPA Critical
A critical element of TSCA implementation will be ensuring that the EPA has the financial, staffing and other resources it needs for its chemical review and control efforts, according to representatives from a wide swath of organizations Bloomberg BNA interviewed.
“While the industry funds a portion of EPA's activities under the new law, appropriated funds cover the majority of the costs. Funding for TSCA implementation should increase significantly beyond the baseline set during the years when TSCA was essentially dormant,” Phil Klein, an executive vice president at the specialty products association, told Bloomberg BNA.
Beyond Implementation
The EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention has work to do in 2017 beyond the specific mandates of the amended TSCA law.
For example, the Chemical Data Reporting rule required thousands of chemical manufacturers and processors in 2016 to submit production volume, use, exposure data and many other details about their chemical-related manufacturing and use activities in 2015.
Companies had to submit more limited production volume and other information for calendar years 2012-2014.
This information, which the agency typically would release in 2017, is important to the prioritization of chemicals for risk evaluation, a requirement of the TSCA amendments, said Charlie Auer, a senior regulatory and policy advisor with the Washington, D.C.-based Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.
The increased information that had to be reported in 2016 will give the agency a much better understanding of people's exposures to chemicals than the agency has had before, Auer told Bloomberg BNA.
The agency also can use this information to determine what additional chemical exposure data may still be required for prioritization, he said.
Jim Jones, assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention under President Obama, declined to discuss the preparations the agency has made to release the Chemical Data Reporting rule information nor the timeline by which it hoped to release it during the Trump administration.
Beyond TSCA
Daniel Rosenberg, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said he expects some members of Congress to attempt to undermine chemical programs in 2017. These programs, he said, include:
• the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS program, which assesses the hazards of chemicals and the doses at which those hazards could manifest as health effects;
• the National Toxicology Program, which prepares the federal Report on Carcinogens that lists chemicals, viruses and other substances known or reasonably assumed to cause cancer in people; and
• the EPA's voluntary Safer Choice program that recognizes with a logo products made with chemicals that are proven to be among the safest for the function they provide.
IRIS
The Competitive Enterprise Institute weighed in on both IRIS and Safer Choice in a “Free to Prosper” policy paper it released in December.
IRIS should be transferred to the agency's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, which oversees TSCA, the Institute said.
The EPA Office of Research and Development has long managed the integrated risk program to serve the agency's air, water, hazardous waste and other regulatory offices.
Angela Logomasini, a senior fellow at the institute, told Bloomberg BNA other EPA programs could still rely on IRIS assessments, but they will be more valuable if those data comply with the scientific standards of amended TSCA.
Those requirements include that chemical evaluations be based on the best available science and weight of the evidence.
Those standards are a better foundation for IRIS assessments than are the hazard-based approaches the integrated risk program currently uses, Logomasini said.
Safer Choice on the Chopping Block?
EPA's Safer Choice program should be eliminated, she said.
It relies on a hazard-based rather than risk-based approach to reach conclusions about the safety of products and then provides a government endorsement of qualifying products, she said.
But David Levine, chief executive officer for the American Sustainable Business Council, supports the Safer Choice program.
The program uses scientific criteria to identify safer chemicals and adds government recognition to encourage their innovation, Levine said.
“This isn't a rule. It provides voluntary guidelines for industry to aspire to,” Levine said.
“It's using the best of science to develop a clear line of opportunity for business to innovate,” he said.
Klein, with the specialty products association, also defended EPA's Safer Choice program.
“The Safer Choice logo helps consumers, businesses, and purchasers find products that are safer for human health and the environment, while maintaining a high level of performance,” Klein said by e-mail.
Rosenberg said the Natural Resources Defense Council will resist any congressional or other attempts to overturn, block, weaken or defund chemical programs and policies including the IRIS and Safer Choice programs.
Beyond EPA
Bryan McGannon, from the sustainable business council, discussed additional chemical laws and policies the council will work to support in 2017.
These include supporting the reintroduction of the Personal Care Products Safety Act, which would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require cosmetics companies to register their facilities with the Food and Drug Administration.
The bill, which was supported by five Democrats and two Republicans in the last Congress, also would boost FDA authority over cosmetics and their ingredients.
The business council will support the reintroduction of the Cleaning Product Right to Know Act, McGannon said.
Introduced in 2016 by Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), that bill would have required cleaning products to disclose their ingredients including components of dyes, fragrances, and preservatives making up 1 percent or more of the product.
States
Sarah Doll, director of Safer States, a network of environmental health organizations, said the 2016 election “reinforced the need for states to double down and continue to move forward” on chemicals management.
It is unclear how the Trump administration will implement amended TSCA, but under the law, states only are preempted when the EPA acts and, even then, the scope of that preemption is limited, she said.
“States retain quite a bit of space to act,” Doll said.
California, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, Washington, Vermont and other states are expected to stay focused on chemicals including arsenic, lead, flame retardants, perfluorinated compounds, bisphenol A and other chemicals regulated by the FDA as well as the EPA, Doll said.
Ingredient Disclosure
Mandating chemical disclosure in cleaning and other products is a type of legislative action Doll said she expects states to take up again in 2017.
Klein, from the specialty products association, agreed ingredient disclosure is likely to come to a head in 2017 at the state level.
“We are committed to working with the states and nongovernmental organizations to find a solution on this important issue. We need to find the balance of being transparent while protecting trade secret information and companies’ innovation,” he said.
“We would like to see this issue addressed at the federal level to prevent a patchwork of state laws that impedes interstate commerce,” Klein said.
Hazard Versus Risk
States generally use a hazard-based approach to evaluate whether chemicals could cause harm, Doll said.
A risk-based approach combines hazard plus exposure to estimate a probability of harm.
Few states have the financial or other resources to conduct exposure assessments, which can vary extensively, Doll said.
States, however, have experience dealing with the legacy of persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals such as mercury, she said.
Based on that experience, they work towards solutions that eliminate hazards and avoid potential problems, Doll said.
That approach “sets you down a path towards solutions that are faster and more effective” than employing the more complicated risk-based approach, she said.
Working Internationally
The American Chemistry Council opposes hazard-based approaches as potentially wasting resources on chemicals that pose few or no risks.
In 2017, it will be working to promote risk-based approaches internationally, Walls said.
The Lautenberg Act's risk-based approach to chemicals is shared by Canada's Environmental Protection Act, which is the cornerstone of that country's chemicals management, Walls said.
“Both systems reject just a hazard-based approach; both require hazard plus exposure to actually determine risk,” he said.
“That looks like a model for chemical regulation and regulatory cooperation that we think other regions could benefit from,” Walls said.
Governments around the world are thinking of revising their existing or establishing new chemical regulatory systems, he said.
In addition, governments that already have established chemical programs that are examining chemicals in commerce often focus on the same chemicals, he said.
There are many opportunities for governments to share the risk evaluation burden by understanding the information and analytic approaches each has used, Walls said.
The risk assessment work that the U.S. and Canada have undertaken through the US-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council aims to show how different countries can work together to assess chemicals more effectively and efficiently, he said.
The American Chemistry Council supports the continuation of that program, he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=102907850&vname=dennotallissues&fn=102907850&jd=102907850
-
NAS Poised To Release Report On Using New Tox Methods
Jan 4, 2017 | Inside EPA
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) will release Jan. 5 a new report requested by EPA and the Defense Department (DOD) on how best to use information gleaned from the myriad new toxicity testing methodologies -- methods other than traditional animal toxicology approaches.
The new report “provides recommendations on integrating new scientific approaches into evaluating public health and environmental risks … and proposes best ways to integrate and use the emerging results in evaluating chemical risk and identify how traditional human-health risk assessment can incorporate the new science,” NAS writes in a Dec. 29 email announcing the report's Jan. 5 release date.
EPA's ability to use the nascent information -- very different from that gleaned from traditional animal toxicology tests now commonly used in regulatory risk analyses -- is central to its ability to address the thousands of industrial chemicals that the agency has new abilities and responsibilities to regulate as part of Congress' overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) last summer. The sheer volume of chemicals that EPA is now tasked with reviewing makes use of these newer, faster and potentially cheaper testing methods necessitous, EPA officials have said.
TSCA also includes language directing EPA to use non-vertebrate testing if feasible when it issues new test orders for chemicals and to craft a strategy for using non-animal testing in its decision-making.
NAS' report, requested and funded by EPA, follows a pair of NAS reports on 21st century science: the 2007 publication “Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy” and a 2012 companion report, “Exposure Science in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy.”
The NAS panel that developed the forthcoming report was asked to review the earlier reports' recommendations and “then propose how best to integrate and use the emerging results in evaluating chemical risk and identify how traditional human-health risk assessment can incorporate the new science,” according to a proposal outlining the project. The agency's goal was to gain advice on how to best use the data produced from the methods while DOD sought guidance on how it could use EPA's newer toxics screening methods to protect its personnel.
EPA also asked the committee to address a number of key hurdles to use of the new types of toxicity data in its risk assessments. For example, a top EPA research official, Bob Kavlock, asked the committee at its first meeting in January 2015 to recommend how to validate these new technologies for regulatory use more efficiently. He said that the new technologies have advanced faster than anticipated, one reason for the agency's request for more advice.
The chairman of the NAS committee will present findings and recommendations during a Jan. 6 webinar.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/toxics-nas-poised-release-report-using-new-tox-methods
-
NGOs File Suit Against FDA For Formaldehyde Inaction
Jan 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Two NGOs have filed suit against the FDA over its failure to act on a citizen’s petition that requested it investigate and regulate formaldehyde-containing hair straighteners.
In the suit, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Women’s Voices for the Earth (WVE) urge the court to order action on the matter, by setting and enforcing a deadline for the agency to look into and respond to the petition.
Filed in 2011, the petition asked the FDA to exercise its authority under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) to:investigate and respond to “deceptive labelling of keratin hair straighteners that conceal the fact that their use will expose salon workers and customers to formaldehyde”;require manufacturers to label their products in a manner that discloses the extent to which they contain formaldehyde or formaldehyde-releasing chemicals, such as methylene glycol; andreview whether to ban the use of the substances in the manufacture of keratin hair straighteners.
The NGOs say that although “ample scientific evidence” demonstrates that the use of formaldehyde-containing keratin products poses health risks to salon workers and to consumers, the FDA has limited its action to generating an informational webpage and issuing warning letters to two manufacturers.
Following filing of the suit, the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) issued a statement saying it “fully supports” the 2011 findings of the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel – an independent body that assesses the safety of ingredients used in cosmetics in the US – that formaldehyde and methylene glycol, as used in hair straightening products, are unsafe under present conditions of use.
And the industry group said it is "important to note that FDA has clear authority to regulate the safety of these products under the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act, which requires that every product and its individual ingredients be substantiated for safety before they are put on the market, and that those products’ labels be truthful and not misleading."Formaldehyde concerns
The 2011 Report on Carcinogens (RoC), prepared by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), lists formaldehyde as a known human carcinogen. This finding was upheld by the National Academy of Sciences in 2014.
The law suit also refers to evidence of short-term effects including eye, nose and throat irritation, loss of the sense of smell, increased upper respiratory disease, dry and sore throats and respiratory tract irritation.
In 2011, the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) issued a hazard alert to hair salon owners and workers about potential formaldehyde exposure from working with some hair smoothing and straightening products. And the following year several congressmen urged the FDA to take action.
“For years stylists have reported that the application of these hair treatments caused difficulty breathing, eye irritation and nosebleeds,” said Tina Sigurdson, EWG assistant general counsel. “The FDA has been aware of the health hazards associated with the products, since at least 2008. Despite these dangers, it has yet to take action to remove them from the market.”
A spokesperson for the FDA said the agency could not comment on pending litigation. It said that companies and individuals that manufacture cosmetics have a legal responsibility to ensure the safety of their products, but it does not have the authority to require companies to present data demonstrating this before they are marketed.
The agency encouraged consumers and healthcare providers to report cosmetic-related adverse reactions. And its informational page said the FDA “continues to evaluate hair products that release formaldehyde when heated”.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51885/ngos-file-suit-against-fda-for-formaldehyde-inaction
-
Outlook 2017: New Restrictions Expected From International Chemical Conventions
Jan 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bryce Baschuk
Parties to the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm international chemical conventions are planning to stake new ground in their effort to curb the global proliferation of harmful substances.
More than a thousand delegates from more than 180 countries will convene in Geneva to consider new limits and guidelines for chemicals and wastes at the 13th Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm (BRS) Conference of the Parties from April 24 to May 5.
The goal is to help countries “more effectively and efficiently implement the conventions for the benefit of human health and the environment,” BRS Executive Secretary Rolph Payet told Bloomberg BNA.
“The COPs are not only important for the decisions which are taken, they are also vital in terms of the direction and momentum which is given to countries’ implementation efforts at the national level,” Payet said. “In short, 2017 will be a key and exciting year in pushing forward the chemicals and waste agenda, through both policy and through practical means.”
Basel Convention
Parties to the Basel Convention—which defines limits on the cross-border movement of hazardous waste and its disposal—will discuss technical guidelines to curb the hazardous effects of electronic waste.
Two years ago, Basel parties adopted a set of guidelines aimed at curbing trade in e-waste from discarded mobile devices and computer equipment, which often contains harmful toxic materials—like mercury, cadmium, asbestos and lead.
In 2017, Basel parties will evaluate the implementation of their e-waste guidelines and may consider future work to address any outstanding aspects of the guidelines, according to the BRS secretariat.
Basel Convention parties will discuss technical guidelines for the environmentally sound management of wastes that consist of, contain, or are contaminated with persistent organic pollutants. They also will consider an Indonesian-Swiss initiative to improve the effectiveness of the convention and address challenges with handling, storing and disposing of household waste, among other matters.
Members are considering a follow-up to the Indonesian-Swiss country-led initiative regarding the ratification or acceptance by additional parties of the Ban Amendment, which prohibits all transboundary movements of hazardous wastes destined for final disposal operations from Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development to non-OECD states.
Specifically, the initiative considers whether a simple, two-thirds or three- fourths majority is necessary for the Ban Amendment to enter into force.
Rotterdam Convention
Parties to the Rotterdam Convention COP—which requires countries to verify their trading partners’ consent to receive restricted chemical exports—will consider listing eight additional chemicals in Annex III of the convention.
That annex requires members to notify a receiving country when they plan to export restricted chemicals and participate in a “prior informed consent” procedure for hazardous chemicals and pesticides.
In September 2016, the Rotterdam Convention's Chemical Review Committee (CRC) recommended that parties include two highly toxic pesticides in Annex III—carbofuran and carbosulfan—which are used to control insects on a variety of crops.
Carbofuran is a highly toxic carbamate pesticide marketed as Furadan and sold by companies like the Philadelphia-based FMC Corp. Carbosulfan is another carbamate insecticide that is banned in the European Union.
Annex III Listings
Rotterdam parties are expected to increase transparency for international exports of paraquat dichloride, fenthion, chrysotile asbestos, trichlorfon and tributyltin compounds at the 2017 Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm COPs.
In 2015 India, Guatemala, Malaysia and Zimbabwe blocked the Annex III listing of paraquat dichloride—an herbicide considered toxic to humans and animals—due to concerns about the impact on their respective agricultural industries.
Also that year, Sudan categorically objected to the Annex III listing of fenthion 640 ULV—a toxic pesticide—due to concerns it would negatively affect its domestic agricultural practices.
India and other top asbestos-producing nations—Kazakhstan and Russia—previously blocked the listing of chrysotile asbestos, also known as “white asbestos.”
Exposure to chrysotile asbestos—which is used to produce cement and roofing materials—causes cancer of the lung, larynx and ovaries; mesothelioma and asbestosis, according to the World Health Organization.
Rotterdam parties also will seek to surmount India's opposition to the listing of trichlorfon, another toxic pesticide.
New Voting Procedure
Rotterdam parties will consider amending their convention to sanction a majority vote if all efforts to find a consensus on a particular issue or listing have failed.
Though the BRS conventions have traditionally adopted any decisions or amendments to the treaties on a consensus basis, Stockholm parties in 2015 voted to ban pentachlorophenol despite opposition from the Indian delegation.
“Some parties have been reluctant to list additional chemicals in Annex III of the convention,” a spokesman for the BRS secretariat told Bloomberg BNA. “The conference of the parties thus launched a process in 2015 to review the cases where no consensus was reached and to develop options for improving the effectiveness of the listing process.”
Specifically, members will consider a formal proposal offered by a group of African nations that would permit members to pass a particular measure if 75 percent of the parties present approved such a decision.
“In our view, the pressure of a possible vote helps move parties toward consensus,” said Joe DiGangi, a senior science and technical adviser at the International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN). “If consensus is not possible, then a vote permits protective measures to move forward without being held hostage to the objections of a small number of countries.”
Stockholm Convention
Parties to the Stockholm Convention—which bans the production, use and trade of certain persistent organic pollutants—will consider new restrictions for three chemicals during the 2017 COPs.
Participants will consider including decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE)—a flame retardant that is widely used in electronic products—in Annex A of the convention, which requires parties to eliminate the production and use of such chemicals.
Environmental groups said they would oppose the European auto industry's effort to obtain any “open-ended” exemptions for legacy spare parts that contain DecaBDE.
“The basis for the auto industry exemption request is that the industry simply does not want to take responsibility or pay for validating new spare parts that do not contain DecaBDE,” DiGangi told Bloomberg BNA via e-mail. “The auto industry admits they can make new parts that do not contain DecaBDE and they should do the same for spare parts.”
IPEN also will oppose any forthcoming EU proposals to exempt the recycling of plastics containing DecaBDE or apply insufficient clean-up standards.
Such proposals “would essentially legitimize e-waste dumping in developing countries under the guise of ‘recycling,’ ” DiGangi told Bloomberg BNA.
Other Possible Listings
Stockholm parties will try to add short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs) to Annex A of the convention during the 2017 COPs.
IPEN said it would oppose China's efforts to pursue certain exemptions to the listing of SCCPs, which are used for metal cutting and have been found in products like toys, exercise mats, children's costumes and stickers.
Stockholm parties also will consider adding hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD) to Annex C of the convention, which would require members to reduce its unintentional release during certain industrial and combustion processes.
HCBD is a chemical byproduct linked to hypotension, myocardial dystrophy, nervous disorders, liver function disorders and respiratory tract lesions and is no longer produced intentionally.
Though Stockholm parties agreed to list HCBD on annex A of the convention in 2015, China blocked a proposal to add it to Annex C.
HCBD is linked to the production of a hydrofluorocarbon substance that China wants to use in air conditioning and refrigerators as a substitute for chlorofluorocarbons, DiGangi told Bloomberg BNA.
“If [Stockholm parties] fail to list the substance, then the COP would be ignoring the principal source of HCBD releases,” he said.
Stockholm Convention parties also will work to adopt a compliance mechanism; consider implementation guidelines; discuss funding; and evaluate the effectiveness of the convention's ability to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=102907827&vname=dennotallissues&fn=102907827&jd=102907827
-
Outlook 2017: Uncertainty the Theme of 2017 for Pesticides and Biotech
Jan 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
When it comes to environmental regulation of the agriculture industry, the theme for 2017, at least at the outset of the new year, is uncertainty.
Several key decisions about pesticides and genetically modified crops that federal agencies had expected to finalize in 2016 have been pushed back to this year, including a determination about whether the world's most widely used weed killer poses unacceptable risks to use.
Additionally, the law that allows the Environmental Protection Agency to use fees from pesticide makers to review and license the industry's products expires at midnight Sept. 30. If Congress doesn't reauthorize the law before this deadline, the regulatory processes that allow the pesticide industry to function could grind to a halt.
Meanwhile, the EPA's senior leader, its top chemicals regulator and the head of its pesticides office are all scheduled to be leaving the agency at the end of January or shortly thereafter.
And, of course, all of this will take place under a new president, Donald Trump, who to date has been averse to spelling out specific details about the policies he'll prioritize. Greater clarity on this won't be found in this story: multiple e-mails from Bloomberg BNA posing questions to the president-elect's transition team went unanswered.
Glyphosate
Depending on your perspective, the EPA's upcoming decision on the risks of glyphosate will either be 2017's most significant pesticide regulatory development or its least.
On the one hand, glyphosate is likely the most used pesticide in the world. It's the active ingredient in dozens of products, including Monsanto's signature weed killer, Roundup. Because of its ubiquity—especially among genetically modified, herbicide-tolerant crops—even minor restrictions on how glyphosate can be used could have seismic economic effects on the agrochemical and agriculture industry.
But on the other hand, the EPA has been signaling for months that, despite a 2015 report from the World Health Organization that found the chemical is a probable carcinogen, the agency would likely determine that glyphosate doesn't pose an unreasonable environmental threat.
Earlier this year, the EPA inadvertently posted online, and then withdrew, an internal report that reached an opposite conclusion from the WHO study. It then re-posted the report months later, along with many other scientific studies supporting its non-carcinogenic finding.
Both anti-pesticide activists and pesticide industry representatives told Bloomberg BNA that they believe the EPA's stamp of approval for glyphosate is all but a foregone conclusion.
“I don't think the EPA is about to cancel glyphosate,” Lori Ann Burd, an attorney with the conservation group Center for Biological Diversity, said.
Chlorpyrifos
Conversely, the EPA is very likely—though not certain—to take significant measures in 2017 to rein in the use of chlorpyrifos, an insecticide developed by Dow Chemical Co. that is widely used on cotton, corn and many other fruit and vegetable crops.
The agency is under a court order to make a determination by March 31 on whether it's safe for any amount of chlorpyrifos to be used on food crops. If the EPA determines the chemical isn't safe, as it has long been indicating it would, the agency would be required to enact a near-total ban on the use of it.
Theoretically, the incoming Trump administration could ask the federal appellate judges hearing the chlorpyrifos case for an extension on the March 31 deadline. But these judges have already extended this deadline once and have harshly criticized in the past the EPA's delay in making a decision on chlorpyrifos (In re: Pesticide Action Network, et al v. EPA, 9th Cir., No. 14-72794, 9/10/14).
Or, the agency's new leadership could make a determination that chlorpyrifos doesn't pose an unreasonable health risk. However, to do this it would have to earn judicial approval to disregard the voluminous scientific evidence to the contrary that EPA scientists have been compiling during the Obama years.
Jay Vroom, president of the pesticide industry trade group CropLife America, said that how the EPA moves forward on chlorpyrifos may be less important than how, or whether, it develops a clear, predictable process for analyzing new types of pesticide science. To make its case on the dangers of chlorpyrifos, the EPA took the approach of relying mainly on human-based epidemiology studies rather than its usual animal-based lab tests.
“We would hope the EPA would finalize a very clear procedure for taking into account epidemiology,” Vroom told Bloomberg BNA. “You need to get all of that right ... before you establish precedents.”
CropLife formally petitioned the EPA to halt its regulation of chlorpyrifos and other similar pesticides until it establishes a transparent, public process for using epidemiology studies.
Pollinators
The EPA's work on pollinator protection is one area that may be the most affected by this November's election results, according to one environmental activist who closely tracks the agency's work.
In 2017, the EPA is scheduled to finalize several initiatives that were key parts of the White House Pollinator Health Task Force's landmark 2015 report. That's according to Michael Goodis and Yu-Ting Guilaran, two senior officials in the agency's Office of Pesticide Programs, who spoke at a meeting at OPP's Arlington, Va., headquarters.
The agency will continue to release scientific risk assessments for several neonicotinoid insecticides that look at the effects these controversial chemicals have on bees and other beneficial insects. It's also planning on finalizing new restrictions on the use of neonicotinoids and other insecticides on farms while bees have been brought in to conduct pollinating services.
However, Nichelle Harriott, science and regulatory director with the activist group Beyond Pesticides, said she believes this second initiative likely will never be finalized. She told Bloomberg BNA that, given the agriculture industry's strong opposition to this measure and the general pro-business stance of the president-elect, the EPA's new leadership may simply elect to stop working on this.
Under a Trump administration, “that may be one of the things that may go into a black hole,” Harriott said. “I'm not very optimistic about that.”
PRIA
Vroom said he was very confident that Congress would meet its Sept. 30 deadline to pass a re-authorization of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act, which provides the EPA with the legal authority to collect fees from pesticide makers to license them.
In the past, both environmental activists and industry trade groups have joined together to advocate for the law's renewal, because without it the EPA might be unable to clear new pesticide products for sale or to conduct risk reviews of existing pesticides.
Vroom said a draft version of the bill is currently being reviewed by legal staffers in the House and Senate agriculture committees, and there's even a remote chance it could clear both chambers during the current session of Congress.
The latest iteration of PRIA will likely be similar to the version currently in place, which Congress approved in 2012, Vroom said. The most significant change, he said, will likely be more authority for the EPA to use pesticide fee money to comply with provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Lawsuits from environmental groups over the years have prodded the EPA to set up a process for consulting with other federal wildlife agencies on pesticide approvals, as required by the ESA. But the development and execution of this process has been heavily time- and resource-intensive for the EPA and has, thus far, resulted only in draft endangered species analyses for just three pesticide chemicals.
If, for some reason, Congress doesn't meet the Sept. 30 deadline, the EPA can dip into cash reserves that it established after the 2013 government shutdown to keep its pesticide regulatory operations going, Vroom said.
But, he added, “that's not an outcome that has any possibility of happening. It would just be a matter of a few weeks if it did.”
Regulatory Overhaul
When it comes to the regulation of genetically modified agriculture, one of the more significant items on the horizon is an overhaul of the way USDA scrutinizes new GM crops. This overhaul could make it easier for companies like DuPont Co. and Bayer AG to gain regulatory approval for their new GM seeds (RIN: 0579-AE15).
In February, the department announced it would examine several different options to change the way it reviews these crops before they hit the market. Its current process was created at the dawn of the age of genetically modified organisms in the 1990s, when fears and unknowns were high.
USDA's top biotechnology regulators have for years talked about changing the regulatory language that requires them to conduct pre-market environmental reviews of the types of crops that have now been successfully planted at farms across the country for decades.
A draft version of this regulatory overhaul is currently under review at the Office of Management and Budget and could be formally unveiled as early as this month.
Transition of Power
Dana O'Brien, a vice president at the industry trade group BIO, said this effort bears eerie similarities to the last time USDA floated a proposal to overhaul its GMO review regulations during the waning days of the Bush administration. Amid criticism from biotech companies for its vagueness in key areas, the ensuing Obama administration never acted to finalize its predecessor's proposal. In 2015, it finally opted to formally scrap the proposal, clearing the way for this latest effort.
O'Brien said it's entirely possible the Trump administration also could choose to sit on its predecessor's proposal for years.
Because of this, he said, it might benefit the USDA to wait to formally unveil the proposal until after Obama leaves office. This is because once a proposed regulation has been published, federal laws make it difficult for agencies to have informal discussions about the proposal with affected parties. O'Brien said these laws handcuffed the USDA during the Obama administration and prevented it from gaining input on how to improve the Bush-era regulatory rewrite, leading eventually to its being discarded.
“There are pros and cons to getting it out now,” he told Bloomberg BNA. “If they publish something that is super-flawed, you have potential for having it languish for a long time ... Then you get into these unusual periods when things are published and agencies go quiet.”
Genome Editing
However, O'Brien said the benefit to issuing the proposed rewrite now is that, even if it never gets finalized, it could send a strong signal to the marketplace about how federal regulators are viewing new genetic modification technologies known as genome editing.
Scientists are increasingly using genome editing methods to make hyper-precise changes to the genomes of plants. But they are increasingly posing quandaries for USDA because genome editing allows scientists to genetically modify a plant without needing to introduce any foreign DNA, which is what typically triggers regulatory oversight from the department. This, in essence, allows these plants to avoid the environmental reviews that other plants that were created with more well-established techniques must undergo.
Should the plants and animals developed using genome editing be subject to the same scrutiny as other, more traditional GMOs? It's a question Bernice Slutsky, a senior vice president with the American Seed Trade Association, would like USDA to definitively answer in 2017, in one way or another.
Even if the department doesn't answer this question as part of its regulatory overhaul, Slutsky said even a non-binding public statement of some sort, such as a guidance document, would be significant because it could clarify the legal status of these crops and avoid any potential snags in their overseas trade.
“It's a topic a lot of countries are discussing. We want the U.S. to be part of that discussion,” she said. “We don't want to end up with a patchwork of different regulations around the world.”
Ultimately, Slutsky said she hopes the Trump administration continues its predecessor's work here and doesn't take a knee-jerk stance toward enacting any new regulations.
“Hopefully they'll understand what USDA is trying to do through this rule,” she told Bloomberg BNA. “Rule-making in itself is not necessarily a negative thing.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=102907844&vname=dennotallissues&fn=102907844&jd=102907844
-
OECD Has Not Shown Test Guidelines Are Suitable For Nanomaterials
Jan 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
Researchers in Denmark and the US have criticised the OECD's Sponsorship Testing Programme for Nanomaterials and called for follow-up work to confirm the conclusions.
According to the researchers, lead by Steffen Foss Hansen at the Technical University of Denmark, with support from colleagues at Arizona State University, the programme's conclusion “that the test guidelines used for regular chemical substances are in the most part suitable for use on nanomaterials” is not supported by the evidence in the dossiers.
They say that a further programme is needed to “systematically evaluate the applicability and interpretation of toxicity assays for nanomaterials, and to develop new methodologies where existing ones fall short”.
In a paper published in Environmental Science Nano, the researchers raise several objections about the work, which ended in 2015. They are:Most of the studies were not designed to investigate the validity of the test guidelines.Most of the contributors to the programme applied existing guidelines for chemicals, with little or no reporting of the test performance in relation to nanomaterials.The studies that discuss test validity, and explain modifications made to accommodate nanomaterials, provide “substantial points of concern” about the general applicability of the OECD test guidelines.The number of studies conducted for each endpoint was low. Although the dossiers have made available large data sets on certain nanomaterials, the value of the knowledge is “limited” because the information “often replicates what was already known in 2007”.
The programme was launched in 2007 to provide information on the safety of key nanomaterials, and decide if existing tests were generally suitable. It has published 11 dossiers, each on a different nanomaterial.
The OECD has defended it. Bob Diederich, head of its environment, health and safety division, told Chemical Watch: “The testing programme was always about gaining experience on the applicability of our test guidelines to nanomaterials. It was never about deriving actual regulatory risk assessments for these 11.”
He added: “Thanks to the testing programme, we have gained a lot of experience in how to characterise the properties of nanomaterials so that the results are fit for purpose in regulatory risk assessment. And we are well on our way in using this experience to adapt the regulatory tools for assessing the safety of nanomaterials.”
Peter Kearns, a principal administrator in the division, said although “the majority” of tests were found to be adequate for nanomaterial assessment, others were found to be in need of adaptation. Furthermore, the programme identified a need for new tests in certain areas. There are eight projects for new tests in the workplan as a direct result of the programme, he said. Additionally, updates to two inhalation tests are scheduled.
Dr Kearns disagreed that a further OECD programme was needed and said that, from the outset, the intention had been for the programme to be flexible and to take a pragmatic approach. It had, for example, included findings from other major initiatives with overlapping aims as they became available, often through workshops that brought together a wide range of experts. He cited the recently published guidance on sample preparation and dosimetry as one output for which the need was realised as the programme progressed. “Sample preparation is key for nanomaterials,” he said.
In October, the EU-funded Managing Risks of Nanomaterials (MARINA) project proposed changes to eight OECD ecotoxicity tests to account for nanomaterials.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51877/oecd-has-not-shown-test-guidelines-are-suitable-for-nanomaterials
-
Outlook 2017: OECD to Work on Climate Policy, Chemical Safety
Jan 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rick Mitchell
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development this year plans policy work on the fight against climate change, on biosafety, and on testing chemicals for safety, OECD environmental officials told Bloomberg BNA.
The Paris-based policy and standards body's 35 member countries include some of the world's biggest energy users and polluters among advanced market economies, as well as a handful of emerging economies such as Chile, Mexico and Turkey.
Major emerging Group of 20 economies Brazil, India, China, Indonesia and South Africa are not OECD members, but participate in the organization's “key partners” program.
Last year, the organization released environmental performance reviews of Chile and France. Publication of similar reviews of Canada, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, South Korea, New Zealand and Switzerland are planned for 2017 and 2018, said Ziga Zarnic, special adviser in OECD's Environment Directorate.
Implementing Paris Commitments
At the 2015 Paris climate conference, nearly 200 countries signed a pact that called for holding global warming to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels and for making an effort to hold warming to a more ambitious 1.5 degrees Celsius. They also made national commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
A June 2016 paper, “The OECD Supporting Action on Climate Change,” summarized the organization's analytical and policy work aimed at helping countries spell out a “credible roadmap” of collective and national efforts to achieve the Paris Agreement's goals.
Since many implementation details must still be worked out, this year a climate change expert group made up of OECD and International Energy Agency (IEA) members plans to work with parties in a “non-negotiating setup” on efforts to complete rules and resolve outstanding methodological issues, such as transparency, accounting and communicating progress on adaptation.
The group's focus is on improving transparency for mitigation and climate finance under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process. As countries work on developing low-emissions development pathways to 2050, OECD analysis aims to help them monitor progress and provide information about major policy challenges and choices, such as on carbon pricing mechanisms and eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, Zarnic said.
Aligning Climate, Economic Policies
A 2015 publication that OECD produced with the IEA and other autonomous agencies argued that governments and regulators should coordinate climate policy goals with policies in investment, finance, tax, competition, energy, agriculture, land use, transport and market regulations.
Around 70 percent of the organization's country reports, including environmental performance reviews, economic surveys and investment reviews, have recommendations on meeting climate and environmental goals through structural reforms to foster new business models and ease entry of low-carbon and resource-efficient businesses.
OECD said it plans to help countries “diagnose” policy misalignments and prepare pre-2020 action plans on mitigation in a broader economic context. “Some of the cross-cutting issues that need to be examined,” are, “for example, the role of fossil fuel subsidies and the effect that their removal could have on emissions pathways, economic performance and technological choices,” said Zarnic.
G-20, Green Finance
G-20 countries account for about 85 percent of world economic output and a similar percentage of global carbon dioxide emissions. The OECD heads voluntary peer reviews of G-20 members’ fossil-fuel subsidies and contributes to the group's work on climate finance.
For Germany's G-20 presidency in 2017, a major OECD project aims to analyze if, and how, low-emissions and climate-resilient development can be achieved without compromising economic growth, competitiveness, development or well-being. A final report is planned for May.
The OECD, which launched the Centre on Green Finance & Investment in 2016, plans a report this year to introduce policy makers to the growing green bond market and to propose a framework for analyzing the potential contribution that bonds can make to a low-carbon transition, Zarnic said. The fourth OECD Green Investment Financing Forum is planned for the fall.
In May, the organization will release “Green Growth Indicators 2017,” while the OECD Green Growth and Sustainable Development Forum in the fall will focus on developing the ocean economy.
Circular Economy
The organization is continuing work on analyzing key characteristics and macroeconomic impacts of the transition toward a circular economy, taking into account the full life cycle of products and the importance of new business models, trade-offs and hurdles.
That includes OECD work to “mainstream” biodiversity and development focuses on national and sectoral objectives, for example, in agriculture, fisheries and forestry, and how to monitor and evaluate performance.
Planned for March, “Marine Protected Areas: Economics, Management and Effective Policy” will draw on countries’ examples of good practices, while “Biodiversity and Development: Mainstreaming and Managing for Results” is planned for the OECD Global Forum on Environment, later in the year.
The OECD Nitrogen Expert Group is assessing policy instruments to manage “unwanted” release of nitrogen across a range of sectors, including agriculture, energy, industry, transportation and households. The 2017 publication “Managing the Human Impacts on the Nitrogen Cycle” will examine how countries can design policies to reduce adverse environmental and health effects of reactive nitrogen, such as through better identifying intervention points in the nitrogen cycle.
In the area of water policy, the OECD will release in March “The Economics of Water Quality in OECD Countries” for World Water Day, said Zarnic.
CHEMICALS
Harmonized Test Guidelines
The core of OECD's wide-ranging work on chemicals aims to add or adapt harmonized test guidelines to the organization's multilateral Mutual Acceptance of Data system (MAD), under which the 41 participating countries exchange results of toxicity testing conducted using OECD-approved methods and principles.
The organization said MAD testing allows hazard identification, which with exposure information fosters risk assessments for chemicals, while sharing data allows saving more than 150 million euros ($160.5 million) a year.
Bob Diderich said the directorate's Environment, Health and Safety Division, which he heads, will continue developing harmonized test guidelines for safety testing of chemicals, including for endocrine disruptors, pesticides and manufactured nanomaterials.
The organization published a first batch of adverse outcome pathways (AOP), or toxicity pathways through which chemicals cause adverse outcomes in humans and wildlife, for its AOP-wiki knowledge base in 2016 and plans another batch in 2017.
AOPs underpin the OECD's project for developing integrated or novel approaches to hazard testing and assessment, which encourage regulatory use of non-test data and in vitro test data; allow reduction of animal testing; and enable assessment of larger numbers of chemicals based on factors such as similarity in structure, mechanism of action and metabolic pathways.
Read Across
Read-across—a powerful tool that allows predicting unknown properties of one chemical from known properties of similar chemicals—is the science behind the OECD Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships (QSAR) project. The OECD plans to publish a new Version 4 QSAR toolbox with new methods and profilers for grouping chemicals.
The organization plans to release a new knowledge base module called Effectopedia for gathering information on quantitative links between key molecular initiating events in adverse outcome pathways. The long-term goal is to be able to predict adverse outcome effects from chemicals in living tissue and organisms.
The organization also plans five new case studies for its program on using novel methods for hazard assessments, including for grouping and read-across for repeated-dose toxicity. “That is one endpoint for which it is always difficult to perform read-across on,” Diderich said.
Test Guidelines
The OECD has about 100 test guidelines projects going. On the subject of endocrine disrupting pathways, a focus in 2017 will be the thyroid receptor pathway.
“There are still not many methods out there that could be a model for an OECD test guideline for that,” Diderich said.
Among new projects, the organization is developing a stock-taking paper on existing test methods for identifying endocrine disrupting chemicals that act via the retinoic acid pathway, for which no harmonized test methods exist yet.
There is also work to update a document on interpreting test results from endocrine disruptor studies, based on recent work by the European Chemicals Agency and the U.S. on deciding which chemicals are actually endocrine disruptors and which are not. There is work underway to update an existing inhalation toxicity test to take into account specific properties of nanomaterials.
Honeybees
The OECD plans a seminar on testing and risk assessment of pesticide effects on pollinators. Authorities, such as the European Food Safety Authority, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and others, need longer term toxicity tests, especially of pesticides on honeybees. Until now, the organization has had only acute toxicity test guidelines, but is developing longer term, multiple-day feeding tests and may be able to publish a first long-term toxicity test guideline in 2017.
“There will probably be other, even longer term test methods that need to be developed. Work on a test guideline on behavior of honeybees following a single exposure was recently started, but that will a couple of years to finish,” Diderich said.
Novel Pesticide Technologies
An OECD guidance document released in 2016 addressed measuring and interpreting pesticide residues in crops. A companion document planned for 2017 will address rotational crops. Work also will be published on risk assessment of secondary metabolites of micro-biocontrol agents, as well as a revised guidance document on pheromones, which are biological methods for pest control.
In addition there is work on use of novel pesticide technologies coming up on the market, specifically RNA interference-based pesticides, which are highly effective biological pesticides.
“Because they are biological material—ribonucleic acids—when they come in for registrations, people are scratching their heads about how to assess their safety,” said Diderich. “We are hoping to work on a first report on what we know about these materials and how countries have addressed them so far.”
Harmonizing Use Codes
Within the OECD's program on exposure assessment, one project is gathering models for estimating children's exposure to chemicals when they put toys, other products or objects into their mouths.
A shortcoming of risk assessment is that it is very difficult to find out how chemicals are used. For example, in the European Union, registrants under REACH must indicate the chemical's functions based on a table of functional-use codes.
The problem is these codes are not harmonized between countries. An OECD project aims to take a step toward harmonizing them among member countries to ease exchange information, Diderich said.
Costs-Benefits Program
The OECD plans to establish a regular forum for countries to share case studies as well as risk-management approaches and methods for estimating associated costs and benefits for society. The plan is for it to do methodological development, especially on how to quantify benefits from lowering morbidity rates to reducing environmental impacts from chemicals.
The OECD has traditionally developed tools and guidance documents and left it to countries to figure out what to do with them. Another new plan for next year is to have outreach workshops to directly help nonmember partner countries that don't have chemical regulatory systems to set up a system for gathering information on chemicals on the market, performing risk assessment and deciding on risk management measures for individual chemicals.
This program is in the context of what the United Nations does through its Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management program.
There are also two ongoing projects for pollutant release and transfer registries. On sustainable plastics, one workshop is planned for how to assess plastic makers’ sustainability claims. And several scenario documents for estimating chemical emissions from industry sectors are in the pipeline.
Manufactured Nanomaterials
Peter Kearns, principal administrator in the organization's Environment Directorate, said during 2017 the OECD will continue developing methods or guidelines for safety testing of nanomaterials in “areas in which they are most needed, bearing in mind that many existing test guidelines are suitable.”
A strong focus in the coming months will be on characterization of nanomaterials in relation to physical chemical properties. There also will be an increased effort to address exposure assessment, especially in relation to consumer exposure and environmental exposure, he said.
Chemical Accidents
In January, the organization plans to publish a document on aging of hazardous installations, gathering information from recent discussions and projects by the OECD Working Group on Chemical Accidents, with particular attention on results of an analysis of accidents linked to such aging.
The working group will hold an expert workshop in May on developing guidance for ownership changes in hazardous installations. It will aim to finish guidance to help stakeholders identify the main “risk drivers” during a change of ownership at a hazardous facility, Kearns said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=102907828&vname=dennotallissues&fn=102907828&jd=102907828
-
Outlook 2017: Major Review of EU's REACH Chemical Regulation on Tap
Jan 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Union's REACH chemicals regulation will chalk up its 10th year of implementation in 2017, a milestone that will be marked by a review that could trigger amendments to the law.
The review, to be carried out by the EU's executive arm, the European Commission, will be wide ranging. Article 117 of REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals) specifies that the review should cover the functioning in practice of the regulation, the effectiveness of the system for registering chemicals, success in promoting nonanimal testing and enforcement of the rules by the 28 member states.
A previous review was carried out after REACH passed the five-year mark. Published in 2013, it recommended clarifications, for example, on requirements for information on chemicals, but no other major changes.
This year, however, the commission will combine the review with a so-called REFIT, or regulatory fitness, check. In a statement to Bloomberg BNA, the commission said this will be “an evidence-based judgment of the effects of REACH” that will consider “to what extent it is delivering on its objectives without unnecessary burdens.”
Further complicating the picture, the commission is carrying out a parallel REFIT check on EU chemicals legislation other than REACH, which should identify any overlaps and inconsistencies, such as different “safe” exposure thresholds for substances under REACH and under occupational safety legislation.
It all adds up to a major exercise that, starting this year, could lead to more proposals to amend REACH and other EU chemicals laws.
Limited Appetite for Change
But despite the extensive review exercise, there is little appetite for major change.
Frida Hök, senior policy adviser with ChemSec, a nonprofit group that campaigns for the phaseout of toxic substances, said the reviews were a “massive process” and no major overhaul should be proposed, though “it will of course be difficult” for the commission “to not make any changes.”
Erwin Annys, director of chemicals policy at the European Chemical Industry Council, said, “There is clearly room for improvement” of REACH, but “it's probably too early to evaluate the broader consequences and aspects of REACH.”
The Helsinki, Finland-based European Chemicals Agency, which administers REACH, published in May 2016 its own report on the implementation of the regulation. Some streamlining could be done, but there was no “imminent need to revise the REACH Regulation,” ECHA said in the report.
On the REACH review combined with the REFIT of other EU chemicals legislation, ECHA Director Geert Dancet said, “there are possibilities to make legislation work more in harmony,” but the commission should follow the ECHA recommendations from last May that suggested a fine-tuning of REACH rather than a wholesale revision.
Complex Exercise
REACH requires the commission's review of the law to be delivered by June 1, but few expect the deadline to be met.
“It's a large, complicated exercise,” and it would be “extraordinarily ambitious” for the commission to deliver on time, Dancet said.
In addition, the review is being carried out while preparations are gearing up for the third and final REACH registration deadline, which falls on May 31, 2018. To comply with EU market access requirements by that date, all substances manufactured in, or imported into, the EU in volumes between one and 100 metric tons must be registered with ECHA. Higher volume substances were required to be registered by previous deadlines.
The 2018 deadline is likely to affect thousands of companies, many of which could be trading in low-volume or specialist substances and will be filing registrations to ECHA for the first time. ECHA wants affected companies to submit their registration dossiers as far ahead of the deadline as possible.
For the chemicals industry, the “preparatory work is taking place now,” and many smaller companies will be preparing their registration dossiers during 2017 for submission in 2018, Annys said.
Authorization Process
Although the commission might hold back from introducing major changes in the 2017 REACH review, some REACH processes will be in the spotlight.
Companies are concerned that, when decisions are made under REACH to phase out hazardous substances, the process for obtaining continued-use authorizations for those substances should not be excessively bureaucratic or expensive.
Annys said the commission was assessing whether there were “ways in general to facilitate the authorization process.” Authorities should be able to process authorization requests “in a more straightforward way,” with simplified information requirements, such as better templates, he added.
Companies have requested better templates for the elements they have to provide as part of the process, mainly information on how substances can be safely managed and analyses of whether there are safer alternatives.
Modifying the authorization process—which requires companies to demonstrate that there are no viable alternatives to otherwise phased-out substances and the risks of hazardous substances can be managed—might not prove straightforward.
The commission has been attempting for more than a year to move forward with two secondary acts that would reduce the amount of information required from companies for authorizations for hazardous substances used at low volumes and hazardous substances used in spare parts for equipment that continues to operate but is no longer sold new on the market.
Two people who are separately following the process told Bloomberg BNA that hold-ups in adopting the authorization modifications were due to uncertainties over data thresholds and technical legal considerations about the type of act that would be required to implement the changes.
The commission said work on the draft acts was “currently still ongoing.”
Nanomaterials Gap
The place of nanomaterials in REACH also will be considered in 2017. REACH does not impose special requirements on chemicals at nanoscale compared to the same substances at normal scale, but the requirement for companies to provide information on safe use of substances should cover any nano-specific uses.
ECHA has said, however, that nanosubstances have been under-reported in REACH registration dossiers. The commission said it will propose changes to the annexes of REACH to clarify what the information requirements are for nanosubstances.
These changes also have been delayed for more than a year. “The amendment to the REACH annexes on nanomaterials is still in the pipeline,” the commission said.
Dancet said, “We really need the changes to these annexes to make the information richer,” and a regulatory committee will discuss the proposals in spring. The issue would be resolved “we hope as quickly as possible afterwards,” he added.
Clarification of the requirements for nanosubstances will “guide industry better on how to provide that information to ECHA,” said David Carlander, director general of the Nanotechnology Industries Association.
The information requirements should be finalized because “we are expecting for the 2018 REACH deadline to see more nanomaterials” being registered, Carlander said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=102907834&vname=dennotallissues&fn=102907834&jd=102907834
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Ports Prime Themselves For Expected Uptick In Petchem Exports
Jan 5, 2017 | Platts
By Kristen Hays
The world’s second-largest petrochemical port in Houston may command 75% of all US polyethylene exports, but expected growth in international shipments as a slew of new ethane crackers and associated derivative units start coming online this year has US ports a thousand miles or more away gearing up to nab a piece of the action.
Last month Georgia’s Port of Savannah increased its ship-to-shore crane total to 26 — one more than the 25 at the Port of Houston’s Bayport and Barbour’s Cut terminals — with the arrival of four new post-Panamax cranes that cost about $15 million each. Resin packagers and distributors, such as New Jersey-based A&R Bulk-Pak and Mobile, Alabama-based SeaPac Inc., are setting up operations at or near the Port of Charleston in South Carolina. The Port of New Orleans also is adding post-Panamax cranes, resin packaging capacity and taking empty containers from Memphis shipped via barge on the Mississippi River to add loading capacity for exporters.
Barge companies and container services also are working to position equipment at like-minded ports.
In 2015 Seacor AMH started moving containers on barges on the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, which connects the Tennessee River to Alabama’s Tombigbee River that empties into Mobile Bay, home to the Port of Mobile. Nearly a year ago the company started providing the same service between Baton Rouge and the Port of New Orleans, largely to ease trucking bottlenecks that complicate current polyvinyl chloride (PVC) exports and accommodate expected export growth.
Resin is a “huge part of our conversations” about growth, Port of New Orleans director of marketing Janine Mansour said at a recent energy conference in Houston.
Increasingly, petrochemical industry players from shippers to port officials to logistics companies say the Port of Houston’s chemical traffic is congested. The largest US petrochemical port includes the 52-mile Houston Ship Channel, home to the second-largest petrochemical complex in the world and second only to Rotterdam in the Netherlands. Traders and shipbrokers expect congestion — and costly holdups — to increase as more ships compete for berths and battle inefficiencies.
Traffic has already increased. US PE exports rose 22.6% in 2015 compared to 2014, according to American Chemistry Council data, and 2016 is expected to surpass 2015’s total.
Brian Wyly, director of global logistics for Ascend Performance Materials, a Houston-based chemical, fiber and plastics manufacturer and supplier, said challenges include getting the right container to the right berth at the right time and aligning port and plant operating hours. He said Ascend has been shipping “heavy volume” out of New Orleans and Mobile, thanks to moving empty containers via barge to those ports.
“That is actually our strategy — to go to uncongested ports,” Wyly said.
John Moseley, senior director of trade development for the Port of Houston, bristles at suggestions that the port is congested. He said during a recent tour of the port’s container terminals that they are ready for the next resin export wave, with wharf and crane upgrades and dock additions in progress, a new resin packaging facility slated to open by the end of 2017, expansion of port gate hours this summer and room to expand rail operations.
He said the port has 8,000 to 10,000 empty containers on site, ready to be loaded, at any given time. A sharp 30% to 40% bump in import volume in the summer of 2015, when a labor strike idled much activity at otherwise bustling Los Angeles and Long Beach ports in California, had “no impact on our lines,” Moseley said.
“When you have a Wal-Mart or an Exxon here, they’re not going to accept anything less than perfection in your operations,” he said, referring to Exxon’s Baytown and Mont Belvieu chemical manufacturing and Wal-Mart’s 4.2 million square-foot distribution center in Baytown.
Congested or not, Houston’s proximity to 40% of US petrochemical capacity is an obvious advantage. According to US Customs, the Port of Houston handled 75% of all waterborne polyethylene exports in 2015. Los Angeles/Long Beach came in second at 10%, followed by New Orleans at 7%, and the rest in Freeport, Texas, New York and elsewhere.
“Freight will always find the most cost effective way to move,” Moseley noted.
Still, competitors expect their efforts to bear at least some fruit.
“We understand the first choice will be the closest port when it comes to exports,” said Greg Van Brunt, regional sales manager of trade development for the Georgia Port Authority. “But there will come a time when it reaches critical mass and others can step in.”
http://blogs.platts.com/2017/01/05/us-ports-prime-petrochemical-exports/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Anxiety Is Building As Canada And U.S. Energy Policies Head In Opposite Directions
Jan 4, 2017 | Financial Post
By Claudia Cattaneo
Canada and the United States have highly integrated oil and gas markets, but their governments will pursue opposite energy policies starting this year: Canada is taxing and restricting oil and gas activity and infrastructure to meet international climate change commitments, while the U.S. under Donald Trump will be liberalizing it and pushing its energy renaissance to the next level.
According to Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the powerful American Petroleum Institute – the U.S. oil industry lobby group that is expected to have big influence in the Trump White House — the U.S. renaissance will continue to keep energy costs low, repatriate manufacturing, create jobs and boost the U.S. as a world energy superpower and exporter, while reducing environmental impacts through private-sector-funded innovation.
Canada’s policy choices aim for balance between energy development and environmental protection.
What’s certain is that the U.S. oil and gas sector seems very excited about the years ahead. On the other hand, the Canadian sector is very anxious about its declining competitiveness and the hurdles it continues to face to build export pipelines, even as oil and gas prices recover. The jury is still out about whether energy companies that are still active will stick around.
In a speech Tuesday in Washington on the state of American energy, Gerard said his group will advocate to re-examine the “regulatory onslaught” and repeal many of the 145 regulations and other executive actions implemented by President Obama that are stifling oil and gas activity. It will also push for quick approval of energy infrastructure, increased access for oil and gas drilling, reduce taxes.
There is a good chance it will get what it wants, given Trump’s pro-fossil fuel cabinet picks, including former Exxon Mobil Corp. chairman Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, and former Texas governor Rick Perry as Energy Secretary.
“We occupy an important point in our nation’s history,” Gerard said in his speech. “For the first time in our lifetime, we can now say that North America has the potential to become a net energy exporter. That’s a revolutionary change, a significant shift from where we were just a few short years ago.”
Gerard said the U.S. energy revolution, the result of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing innovations that unlocked shale oil and gas, has made U.S. energy more affordable, resulting in US$1,337 savings in 2015 for the average household on electricity bills and a further US$550 in savings in transportation fuel costs.
Lower energy costs are also supporting the repatriation of manufacturing.
“U.S. industrial electricity costs are 30 to 50 percent lower than those of our foreign competitors,” Gerard said. “And American manufacturing costs are now 10 to 20 percent lower than those in Europe and could be 2 to 3 percent lower than in China by 2018, an important competitive edge. These lower energy costs are helping attract a return of manufacturing to the United States. For example, according to an analysis by the American Chemistry Council, chemical production grew 3.6 percent in 2015 and is projected to continue to increase through 2020 as new capacity from 266 new, announced projects comes to fruition.”
Compare that to Canada, where the introduction of a national carbon price means the manufacturing sector will be struggling even more with high energy costs, while consumers are facing even higher energy bills.
For the first time in our lifetime, we can now say that North America has the potential to become a net energy exporter.
Gerard said it’s untrue that growing oil and gas production has resulted in a dirtier environment. Increased use of natural gas has meant the lowest carbon emissions for electricity generation in the U.S. in 25 years, a success that has received little credit from the Obama administration, which has been focused on transitioning to renewable energy.
Speaking to reporters, Gerard predicted the Canadian oil and gas sector would be more impacted by Canadian policy than by any policy implemented in the U.S. under Trump.
“Whatever regulations and costs are imposed in Canada obviously play into that broader economic competitiveness,” Gerard said.
“My expectation is that we will find a balance and further integration and synergy between the two nations — or the three nations including Mexico — so as we look at it long term the North American energy infrastructure is truly integrated.”
That infrastructure is likely to include quick approval of the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to the U.S. Gulf coast. Gerard didn’t mention the project by name, only that Trump is expected to approve two pipeline projects early on, which could be the main upside for the Canadian oilpatch of the new administration.
http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/anxiety-is-building-as-canada-and-u-s-energy-policies-head-in-opposite-directions?__lsa=c6d9-32a0
-
API's Gerard Eager For Trump Regime, Worries About Tax Reform
Jan 4, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
Jack Gerard, the nation's top oil and gas lobbyist, bemoaned the over-politicization of federal pipeline reviews today and said he was hoping for big changes under the incoming Trump administration.
Gerard, speaking at the American Petroleum Institute's annual State of American Energy event in Washington, said some groups are trying to inject the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission — and therefore the review and approval of interstate gas pipelines — with politics.
President-elect Donald Trump, notably, will tap three new members of the commission and has vowed to unleash oil and gas production and infrastructure.
"I think it's very unfortunate over the past year or two that some are trying to politicize the work at FERC," Gerard, API's chief, told reporters today.
"Our view is FERC [is] ... a very science, data-based organization," he said. "I would hope it would go back to that and there would be less polarization."
The lack of gas infrastructure, Gerard said, has caused electricity prices in the Northeast to skyrocket. He carefully sidestepped the public backlash some oil and gas projects have triggered among landowners and environmentalists along the East Coast and in the Midwest.
Gerard called on the incoming administration and regulators to "follow the law" and approve projects like the Dakota Access pipeline. He also said members like North Dakota Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp "get it," a nod to her tough re-election in a state where protests have exploded surrounding the now-stalled oil project.
Gerard reiterated his message that fossil fuels will continue to provide the bulk of the nation's electricity for decades into the future, casting the country's natural gas shale plays as a domestic and global climate solution.
He also lamented more than 140 federal "proposed or imposed" regulations, which he said have hamstrung more than $1 trillion in private sector investment on energy infrastructure.
"That's three times the size of the highway bill that passed in 2015," Gerard said.
The oil and gas sector appears to be amassing supporters throughout the incoming Trump administration. Gerard applauded Trump's choice of Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Rex Tillerson to lead the State Department and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry for the Department of Energy.Tax reform
Gerard also expressed concern about the industry's fate under looming tax reform. API, he said, is conducting an analysis to determine how a spending blueprint House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) released would affect oil and gas production, imports and exports.
A top concern for Gerard is a provision, dubbed the "border adjustment tax," that would impose a new tax on oil and gas imports.
Energy companies have mixed views about the proposal, said one former tax staffer with the Senate Finance Committee. Whereas independent producers could benefit because oil exports wouldn't be taxed, companies that import the bulk of their oil may be negatively affected.
Gerard said API has been meeting with members of Congress about the blueprint, which is being crafted into legislation by the Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas).
"As this unfolds, as this moves forward," Gerard said, "we'll have more to say about it. Right now, the broader framework under Chairman Brady's leadership and the speaker's leadership ... acknowledges our capital-intensive nature."
API, with its diverse membership, is hoping to capitalize on its success of lifting the nation's ban on exporting oil and double down on efforts to accelerate shipments of domestic liquefied natural gas. Gerard repeatedly pointed to LNG exports as a global climate solution.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/01/04/stories/1060047845
-
Oil Lobby Bullish On Trump, GOP Congress
Jan 4, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The oil industry’s top lobbyist said companies are looking forward to a pro-oil, anti-regulation agenda from President-elect Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress.
American Petroleum Institute (API) President Jack Gerard told the group's members and reporters Wednesday that Trump and lawmakers have a clear mandate to roll back major pieces of President Obama’s environmental agenda and push policies for more oil and natural gas production.
“We must reexamine the regulatory onslaught of the last few years that has proposed or imposed some 145 regulations and other executive actions on our industry,” Gerard said, adding that the regulatory structure should be “focused on the consumer, help to grow our economy, protect workers and continue to improve the environment.”
He called for more areas to be opened for offshore drilling, better approval processes for pipelines and an overhaul or repeal of the federal ethanol mandate, among other policies.
“We support smart regulation, commonsense regulation,” Gerard said. “Many of these [regulations] are redundant, unnecessary and unnecessarily impose costs on the American consumer. So our hope is that the regulatory activity will be a top priority.”
Specific to pipelines and other infrastructure, Gerard accused Obama of ignoring the “rule of law” in his decisions, like rejecting Keystone XL and delaying the Dakota Access Pipeline, both of which Trump plans to approve quickly.
He said the most important changes for the oil industry would be to add “certainty” to the permitting process.
“When we go through these exhaustive permitting processes, and seek approval through the collaborative processes … we need to make sure, when a final decision is made, that we honor that decision,” he said. “There’s nothing more chilling to private sector investment than the unknown, or not knowing what the outcome will be and how long it might take.”
API cited polling data to argue that voters agree with their agenda, including that 80 percent of election voters support increased domestic energy production and refining, and that 77 percent support the role of natural gas in reducing emissions.
The oil industry, along with the business community as a whole, did not support Trump in the campaign as strongly as it supported other candidates in the Republican primary, or previous GOP presidential candidates.
But Gerard nonetheless is looking to Trump and Republicans to pull them out of what he characterized as a regulatory rut by Obama.
That includes repealing rules limiting methane emissions from oil and gas drilling, the Clean Power Plan, a rule on air pollution from offshore drilling and more.
But API isn’t backing everything on the GOP agenda.
A major example is last year’s House Republican blueprint for comprehensive tax reform.
It included a border “adjustment” that would tax imported products.
In 2015, the most recent year for which data is available, the United States imported 3.4 billion barrels of crude oil and refined products like gasoline, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Of that total, 2.7 billion barrels was crude oil, which refiners almost always use to make other products.
Gerard said the House GOP proposal could increase the oil industry’s costs, and defended companies’ imports.
“We are concerned about that ... we’re doing some analysis to really see what it will do and the impact it might have,” Gerard said.
“If you look at imports, particularly as it relates to energy, we add value to those as they come into the United States, particularly for crude.”
He said API has not taken a “hard position” on the matter, though it is concerned.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/312721-oil-lobby-bullish-on-trump-gop-congress
-
Tiny Group of Tesla Skeptics Emerges as Trump Energy Powerhouse
Jan 5, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Jennifer A Dlouhy
An obscure Washington policy group that opposes almost any government aid for renewable energy has emerged as an influential force in shaping Donald Trump’s plans to dismantle Obama administration climate initiatives.
The tiny Institute for Energy Research and its advocacy arm, the American Energy Alliance, work from an office decorated with an oversized photo of an oil derrick in a nondescript building in downtown Washington. Their names aren’t even on display in the unmanned lobby nine floors below.
But the modest trappings and small, 14-member staff belies their impact.
"There’s not a material energy or environmental policy on which they are not involved -- and most of them, they own," said Michael McKenna, a lobbyist who advises the alliance.
The head of the institute, Thomas Pyle, is leading the president-elect’s transition team for energy. Two other staff members are advising Trump, and another recently joined the office of House Speaker Paul Ryan.
And the group’s views permeated a controversial questionnaire sent to the Energy Department last month seeking names of employees involved in work on climate change.
AEA and IER bill themselves as free-market groups, fighting regulations they see distorting the energy market and restricting the use of coal, oil and natural gas in favor of lower-emission wind and solar power. They have derided electric car pioneer Elon Musk as taking advantage of government support to build his business and complainedwhen Obama announced plans to install solar panels on the White House.Funding Database
Founded by a former Enron Corp. executive, the institute has drawn financial support from the fossil-fuel industry. It maintains a database tracking U.S. funding of private energy ventures, circulates a survey on voter opposition to carbon taxes and scrutinizes the cost of wind and solar power. The group has become a go-to source for congressional Republicans looking for data to support legislation and speeches on climate change and environmental regulation.
Its growing prominence and the fact that Pyle is a former lobbyist for Koch Industries, a nemesis of environmentalists, has them worried.
"You have a president-elect who pledged to clean up the swamp, and now you have people being tapped for the most important positions who have been instrumental in advancing corporate interests over the interests of ordinary Americans," said Lisa Graves, executive director of the left-leaning Center for Media and Democracy.‘Industry Wish List’
After Pyle sent donors an e-mail outlining "what to expect from the Trump administration," the center published the document, warning that it "amounts to a fossil fuel industry wish list."
Some of that plays out in the AEA’s daily newsletter "In The Pipeline," often in sarcastic criticism of Obama, electric vehicles, and Tesla Motors Inc. Chairman Musk. Recent headlines: "Elon Musk: messiah or charlatan? I think you know how we’re voting;" "January 20th can’t come soon enough;" "Big Wind runs into big problems in Vermont" and "The environmental left: Where everything’s made up and the facts don’t matter."
The alliance already has recommendations for how Trump can expand drilling and make good on his campaign promise to rescind "job-killing" regulations by targeting fuel economy standards and Obama’s Clean Power Plan to slash power-plant emissions.
Trump transition officials did not respond to e-mails seeking comment about the institute.Bigger Groups
To win Trump’s ear, the alliance and research institute beat out larger funded and staffed groups, such as the American Petroleum Institute, which has 21 times the alliance’s 14-member staff and 45 times its $4.8 million budget. IER leveraged its reputation in conservative circles as a reliable source of economic reports and wonky regulatory studies buttressing calls for more fossil fuel development and fewer renewable power subsidies.
An alliance spokesman did not respond to a request for comment on whether its staff had authored the controversial questionnaire that was sent to the Energy Department last month, although Pyle leads the team that sent it. A Trump transition official said the questionnaire hadn’t been authorized.
Even before the election, the groups’ reports were cited in Trump’s campaign speeches and policy papers, though the president-elect mangled IER’s name when he highlighted one of its studies during a Sept. 15 speech to the New York Economic Club.
Exxon, Koch
The alliance does not discuss its donors, other than acknowledging supporters include energy companies with fossil fuel interests as well as foundations that care about free markets. Exxon Mobil Corp. said it funded the Institute for Energy Research in 2006 and 2007, though it subsequently stopped providing financial support to the group. Exxon has joined some other oil companies in advocating a revenue-neutral carbon tax -- a non-starter with the alliance. The Claude R. Lambe Foundation, which was created by billionaire Charles Koch, also steered money to the institute before it folded in 2013.
To be sure, some environmental groups dwarf AEA in size and resources. The Natural Resources Defense Council has more than 500 employees and an annual budget of more than $150 million, 32 times that of AEA. The Oakland, California-based Sierra Club pulled in about 23 times AEA’s revenue in 2015.
"We are definitely the underdog in terms of money -- not in terms of reach and influence with the new administration," said Dan Simmons, vice president of policy for the institute. "If we could have the type of influence that NRDC had, for example, with the Obama administration, then we’ve done our job."‘Sowers of Doubt’
Critics say AEA’s relatively low revenue numbers belie its role as a highly focused group in a bigger network of conservative organizations, including the Heritage Foundationand the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Graves calls IER and AEA "professional sowers of doubt" on climate change.
The alliance is "advocating for working Americans" so they can make their own choices about the energy they consume, the cars they drive and the appliances they use, Simmons said.
The Institute for Energy Research was founded to be a clearinghouse for energy information in 1989 in Houston by Robert L. Bradley Jr., a speechwriter for Enron chief executive Kenneth Lay, who was later convicted of securities fraud.Green Jobs
It won attention in Washington for studies disputing Obama’s promises that investment in clean, low-emission energy sources would create a wave of new "green jobs." One of those reports concluded that 2.2 jobs were lost in Spain for every one created as a result of government wind energy subsidies -- drawing a rebuke from the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
IER moved its headquarters to Washington, D.C. in 2007 in a bid to play a bigger role guiding U.S. energy policy. A year later, the institute spun off the American Energy Alliance under section 501c(4) of the tax code, freeing it to aggressively lobby policymakers and promote political candidates.
Although the American Energy Alliance didn’t pay for any political ads in 2016, it endorsed Trump, months after publicizing questionnaires providing an early look at his policy views and those of Republican challenger Ted Cruz. The document also served to lock both in as opponents of a carbon tax.
AEA’s victories include advising states to "just say no" to complying with the Clean Power Plan while the measure was challenged in court. That strategy was validated when the Supreme Court issued a stay blocking enforcement of the rule last February.
After years as one of Obama’s antagonists, the alliance is poised to play a different role advising congressional Republicans and a receptive administration on the most legally bulletproof ways to dismantle environmental regulations.
"We have to be constructively thinking, because we know our friends in the environmental community are already working very aggressively to push back on pretty much everything we want to do," Simmons said. "They are very good -- they are great activists, they are very good litigators -- so everything the Trump administration does on their issues has to be very well thought out."
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-05/tiny-group-of-tesla-skeptics-emerges-as-trump-energy-powerhouse
-
Forget Latin America, Asia Is the Biggest U.S. LNG Buyer Now
Jan 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ryan Collins
Asia's finally becoming a prime destination for U.S. shale gas cargoes.
Nine of the 12 tankers that have left Cheniere Energy Inc.’s Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana—the only one sending U.S. shale gas overseas—since the beginning of December are headed for Asian countries, shipping data compiled by Bloomberg show.
That's a big shift for the U.S. LNG market, which has been dominated by cargoes to Latin America since exports began in February. Asia's emerging as a bigger buyer as winter's chill stokes demand for the heating and power-plant fuel, fulfilling analysts’ predictions that the region would eventually become a major importer of U.S. supply.
Global demand has the U.S. on course to become a net exporter of gas this year, a turnaround from just a decade ago when it was facing shortages.
Asia is “probably the most economic destination to ship to right now,” Het Shah, an analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance in New York, said in a Dec. 3 phone interview.
Spot LNG prices in northeast Asia have jumped 79 percent since July, according to Energy Intelligence's World Gas Intelligence report.
More than half of the 42.9 million tons a year of U.S. LNG export capacity over the next three years is contracted by Asian buyers, a July analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance showed.
Cheniere wasn't immediately available for comment.
With assistance from Kevin Varley and Naureen S. Malik.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=102907829&vname=dennotallissues&fn=102907829&jd=102907829
-
Fracking Debate Heats Up in Maryland Legislature
Jan 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kathy Lundy Springuel
The approaching end of a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in Maryland has lawmakers queuing up bills that either would extend the moratorium, allow the practice under some of the nation's strictest rules or ban it altogether.
Several General Assembly members told Bloomberg BNA that they anticipate extensive debate over fracking during the 90-day legislative session that starts Jan. 11, but none could predict exactly where the votes would line up.
No fracking has been conducted in Maryland, and there are no pending applications.
Proposed Regulations on Hold
Lawmakers have been debating fracking in Maryland for the past five and a half years. The most recent round was launched in 2015 when the General Assembly enacted a moratorium on fracking until October 2017 and instructed the Maryland Department of the Environment to adopt regulations governing it.
The department unveiled its regulations last fall, calling them “the most stringent and protective environmental shale regulations in the country.”
The MDE's proposal, however, was put on hold Dec. 29, 2016, by a joint General Assembly committee charged with reviewing all regulations proposed by the state's executive departments.
The co-chairmen of the Administrative, Executive, and Legislative Review Committee said in a Dec. 29 letter that they were exercising their authority to delay final action on the regulations and asked the MDE to submit copies of all public comments to help them ensure that concerns raised by stakeholders are addressed.
‘Compelling’ Opposition
Sen. Roger Manno (D), co-chairman of the joint review committee, told Bloomberg BNA Jan. 3 that those who opposed the regulations during a Dec. 20 hearing represented “an unusual coalition that was large and compelling.”
Those opposed included “fracking supporters who said the regulations were overly stringent and environment and public health professionals who said they were too weak,” said Manno.
“Yes, there were some at the hearing who supported them, but there was a lot more opposition. We need to be fair and judicious to make sure any fracking regulations adopted in Maryland are in the public interest and fully vetted, which is why we implemented the hold,” he said. The hold runs through Feb. 27 under General Assembly rules.
MDE spokesman Jay Apperson told Bloomberg BNA in a Jan. 4 e-mail that the agency maintains that the proposed regulations “are the most protective and comprehensive in the country.” He said the state agency will work with the joint committee to provide the information it requested and evaluate its input.
Legislation Expected
While the joint committee continues reviewing the proposed regulations, others are gearing up for the upcoming legislative session.
“Whether we ban fracking or extend the moratorium, I can't imagine we would leave the 2017 session without acting on this,” state Sen. Bobby Zirkin (D) told Bloomberg BNA Jan. 3. “We have more than ample votes to take action this session.”
Zirkin, who supports a ban, said, “When you look at all of the studies on public health effects—an increase in premature births, worsened asthma—and the water pollution and air impacts, a ban on fracking should be a no-brainer.
“Any economic benefits of fracking are more than offset by the risk,” and “a vast majority of this state understands that the risks are tremendous,” he said.
Would Write Rules Into Statute
Sen. Joan Carter Conway (D) told Bloomberg BNA Jan. 3 that she doesn't see a huge demand for fracking in the state “because Maryland has dry shale and developers are interested in wet shale,” referring to gas that contains natural gas liquids that can be separated and sold.
Conway, who chairs the Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee, where any Senate fracking bills would be assigned, said she is drafting legislation that would codify more stringent regulations into statute and extend the moratorium.
She “could get a moratorium bill out of her committee,” Conway said, but doubted that an outright ban could win passage on the Senate floor.
The senator also suggested “there are lots of ways to have a ban” without using the word, such as costly regulations that make the practice economically not feasible.
Del. Kumar P. Barve (D), chairman of the House Environment and Transportation Committee, where any House fracking bills would be assigned, did not return messages seeking comment.
Leadership Could Decide
Sen. Paul Pinsky (D), vice chairman of the Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee, told Bloomberg BNA Jan. 3 that, unlike past years when pushing for a ban on fracking was “a very uphill battle,” the possibility of enacting a ban “is very much in play” this session.
“If not a ban, then we may see an extended moratorium,” said Pinsky, noting that a lot depends on the positions the Senate president and House speaker take.
“If the leadership gets behind the ban, it would have a strong likelihood of passage,” he said.
A staffer for Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D) told Bloomberg BNA that his office declined to comment, and a staffer for House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D) did not return a message seeking comment.
Josh Tulkin, director of the Maryland Sierra Club, which supports a ban, told Bloomberg BNA Jan. 4 that the group has been tallying potential votes and thinks it has a good chance in the House and expects a “healthy debate” in the Senate.
A ban was necessary because “no one has demonstrated a set of regulations strong enough to address all of the environmental and public health harms associated with fracking,” Tulkin said.
Delegation Backs Regulations
If fracking is conducted in Maryland, then it will likely occur in only two western counties—Garrett and Allegany—that sit atop the Marcellus Shale formation.
Although concerns have been raised about fracking's possible impacts on the area's many rivers and lakes and tourist trade, others see potential economic benefits of allowing fracking under proper regulation, including the legislative delegation from western Maryland.
The four lawmakers who represent that region, Sen. George C. Edwards, Del. Wendell R. Beitzel, Del. Jason C. Buckel and Del. Michael McKay, all Republicans, endorsed the MDE's proposed regulations in a letter submitted during the joint legislative review committee's Dec. 20 hearing and are not expected to support an extended moratorium or a ban.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=102907854&vname=dennotallissues&fn=102907854&jd=102907854
-
Extra Briefing Time Denied in Power Plant Carbon Rule Lawsuit
Jan 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The incoming Trump administration will not get additional time to review federal carbon dioxide limits for new power plants before briefing in legal challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency's rule is completed (North Dakota v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1381, 1/4/17).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Jan. 4 denied North Dakota's motion to extend the briefing in challenges to the EPA's carbon dioxide new source performance standards for new and modified power plants. Briefing is scheduled to conclude Feb. 6.
North Dakota and other opponents of the carbon dioxide standards had argued the briefing schedule should be slightly extended so the new Trump administration, which has opposed the EPA's climate change efforts, could have an opportunity to review the rule. The new administration could seek to withdraw or revise the rule, which could moot some challenges to the carbon dioxide standards, the opponents had argued.
The D.C. Circuit has scheduled the case for argument for April 17. The three judges hearing the argument have not yet been assigned.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=102907857&vname=dennotallissues&fn=102907857&jd=102907857
-
Court Rejects NSPS Opponents' Briefing Extension Request
Jan 4, 2017 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has rejected state and industry groups' request to extend the briefing schedule in litigation over EPA's greenhouse gas standards for new power plants, meaning that rule opponents must file reply briefs the day before President-elect Donald Trump is inaugurated.
The state and industry opponents had asked the court to extend deadline for them to file reply briefs until Feb. 24, arguing that the incoming Trump administration is likely to seek to short-circuit the suit because it opposes many of the Obama EPA's climate rules, including the power plant new source performance standards (NSPS).
But the D.C. Circuit in a Jan. 4 per curiam order rejected the request without comment.
Observers have said that the incoming Trump administration could seek voluntary remands of several high-profile climate rules that are in pending litigation, including the NSPS and the companion rule for existing sources, known as the existing source performance standards (ESPS) or the Clean Power Plan.
The Obama EPA, along with its state, utility and environmentalist supporters, called the opponents' scenario about potential changes by Trump officials “speculative.”
EPA said that opponents' “invocation of the bare inconvenience of filing reply briefs in light of highly speculative assumptions about the possibility of the next presidential administration adopting some new litigation position by February 24 is not 'extraordinarily compelling.'”
Environmentalists welcomed the court's decision. “We’re pleased that the court did not agree to a delay in briefing,” said Martha Roberts, an attorney for Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).
The recent court order means that NSPS opponents must reply briefs Jan. 19 -- the day before Trump takes office -- with briefing scheduled to conclude Feb. 6.
In a surprising order issued after the election, the D.C. Circuit also scheduled oral argument for April 17.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/climate-court-rejects-nsps-opponents-briefing-extension-request
-
Dakota Access Pipeline in Limbo as Protests Continue
Jan 4, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
The nearly 1,200-mile, $3.8 billion Dakota Access Pipeline LLC (DAPL) starts the new year in limbo, though most of it has been built while activists continue fighting the project.
Houston-based Energy Transfer Partners (ETP) said Tuesday the 30-inch diameter pipeline for transporting Bakken Shale oil is built except for a Missouri River crossing under Lake Oahe in south-central North Dakota, near the border with South Dakota and the Standing Rock Sioux tribe reservation.
"Once we have the approval to cross the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) land [near and under the lake], we will begin the horizontal directional drilling," an ETP spokeswoman told NGI's Shale Daily. The drilling is to be more than 90 feet below the lake bed.
The pipeline sponsors missed the targeted in-service date of Jan. 1, but there are no financial or contractual consequences for missing it. "There is nothing tied to it," the spokeswoman saidl.
"Pipelines and energy midstream assets are essential components of the energy value chain," analysts at Woodstock, NY-based Miller Howard Investments wrote last month. "As of 2015, 76% of domestic U.S. crude oil [refinery receipts] was delivered via pipeline, however, energy infrastructure is aging. More than 50% of the nation's pipelines were constructed in the 1950s and 1960s, and some were built even earlier."
Records indicate that DAPL follows existing energy infrastructure running parallel near the proposed water crossing to the Northern Border natural gas pipeline built in 1982 under Lake Oahe and an overhead major electric transmission line, along with proposing to use the less-invasive horizontal drilling.
Standing Rock Sioux leaders contend their concerns have been ignored, but the USACE and pipeline sponsors counter that they have done everything possible to accommodate those concerns, including trying to meet with tribal leaders numerous times last year and making more than 140 modifications in the DAPL route in North Dakota alone to avoid potential conflicts with cultural resources.
The Native American tribes want the USACE to regulate the entire pipeline, but Congress long ago limited the federal agency's authority to water crossings, which in this case is treated like a "single and complete project where activity will affect no more than a half-acre of regulated waters," according to the Miller Howard analysis.
The protests continue near the Standing Rock reservation in North Dakota and elsewhere. Opponents contend that ETP may lose more than $900 million in backing for continuing delays imposed last month by the Obama administration.
During a National Football League game between the Minnesota Vikings and Chicago Bears on New Year's Day at the US Bank Stadium in Minneapolis, two DAPL opponents calling themselves "water protectors" rappelled from the stadium rafters to display three large banners urging US Bank to divest from the pipeline project. Five demonstrators were arrested in North Dakota in late December for trespassing in Morton County. Up to 100 protesters reportedly also tried to remove a "no trespassing" sign from a bridge in the county that previously was the site of demonstrations against the pipeline.
On Wednesday a group of people demonstrated outside the U.S. District Court in Bismarck, ND, to support a fellow protester who was subpoenaed to appear for activities at the encampment near the pipeline water crossing. The activists claim that various U.S. agencies historically have "used subpoenas to federal grand juries" to force people to divulge the names and activities of other protesters.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108927-dakota-access-pipeline-in-limbo-as-protests-continue
-
Hazmat Health Risk Opinions OK for Non-Injury Claims
Jan 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Defense expert testimony on health risks posed by soil and water contaminants is relevant even when the plaintiffs don't allege any personal injuries, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi ruled Jan. 3 (Hollingsworth v. Hercules, Inc., 2017 BL 508, S.D. Miss., No. 15-cv-00113, 1/3/17).
Testimony by two experts for Hercules Inc. about risks posed by hazardous chemicals released at its former factory in Hattiesburg, Miss., are pertinent to property value devaluations alleged in the case, the court said.
The ruling denied motions by Lee and Scott Hollingsworth to exclude testimony by Dr. David Garabrant and Dr. Glenn Millner about the risks posed by toxic chemicals that allegedly migrated through soil, water and air to their properties.
The contamination caused loss of income and property damage to three parcels as a result of Hercules's negligence, trespass and nuisance, according to the complaint.
The expert testimony wasn't irrelevant just because the plaintiffs advanced no personal injury claims, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi said.
The opinions on human health risks and remediation of the site bear on the plaintiffs’ claims that the contamination hurt rental prospects for their properties, the court said.
U.S. District Judge Keith Starrett wrote the opinion.
The Cochran Firm, as well as Lightfoot, Franklin & White and King, Wiley, Williams & McKerall, represented Lee Hollingsworth and Scott Hollingsworth.
Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz represented Hercules Inc.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=102907836&vname=dennotallissues&fn=102907836&jd=102907836
-
Smart Grids And Meters Raise Hacking Risks
Jan 4, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Anca Gurzu
Europe is investing in power grids that save consumers money and easily handle surges from wind and solar sources — features critical to curbing climate change and cutting the Continent’s reliance on coal.
But these electricity networks of the future also create big risks.
So-called smart grids and smart meters expose the power supply to cyber threats that could lead to power outages during the depths of winter or batter the components of the electricity system so badly that repairs take ages.
“Technology becomes your Achilles heel if you don’t do the right things,” said Nuno Medeiros, information systems officer at Portugal’s power distribution company EDP Distribuição.
In October, residents of two apartment buildings in eastern Finland were left in the cold for about a week after a hacking attack disabled computers controlling heating and warm water systems. In 2016, Israel and Turkey reported hack attacks. In 2015, hackers infected the workstation of a Ukrainian utility company with malware, triggering an hours-long blackout affecting about 80,000 people in the western part of the country. Ukraine reported that another wave of hacks caused blackouts in Kiev last month.
“Ukraine became such a big story because it was the first attack in the energy sector,” said Michael John, director at the European Network for Cyber Security, a non-government group that focuses on the safety of Europe’s grids and infrastructure. “It demonstrated it is possible.”
That’s a reality that the now EU faces, with member countries investing in smart technology meant to reconfigure Europe’s power networks. Companies are not oblivious to the risks, but experts say Europe needs to do more to ensure it is ready to withstand cyberattacks.
Smart grids allow power networks to deal with the uneven electricity produced by renewables. These grids allow homeowners generating some of their own power to switch between drawing from the grid and selling into it. Smart meters allow customers to monitor their electricity usage and take advantage of price differences to cut costs. All of that is crucial to lowering energy demand and allowing the world to reduce the need for coal-fired electricity and meet the goals of the Paris climate change agreement.
The EU wants to have about 200 million electricity smart meters rolled out by 2020. The European Commission has been a strong advocate for the smartening of Europe’s grids and homes. If its most recent legislative proposals are accepted by national governments, every consumer will have the right to ask their energy supplier for a smart meter. The move goes hand in hand with European utilities’ efforts to digitize grids and interact with customers in a dynamic way.
“Citizens are central to the successful uptake of low-carbon innovative solutions, from smart meters in their homes to large-scale wind farms,” according to the Commission.
The idea is that more empowered consumers and smarter grids will lead to a more efficient use of energy and more green energy flowing through Europe’s power networks.
Smart but vulnerable
But as things get smarter and people get more connected, the system also becomes more vulnerable.
“Every component in the grid that has become digitized is becoming an attack point,” said Sander Kruese, privacy and security adviser at Alliander, a distribution system operator in the Netherlands.
Cyberattacks could bring down whole grids, something that could even kill people if it happens in winter. That’s the scenario of the 2012 German best-selling novel “Blackout” by Marc Elsberg, which portrays a dystopian nightmare after the collapse of the electricity grid triggers telecommunications problems, food shortages and an economic breakdown.
Those scenarios aren’t far-fetched to experts.
“Imagine a situation where hackers find a way to switch off the grid, but in such a way that the [affected] components get destroyed,” said John of the European Network for Cyber Security. “That would mean a lot of replacement work, which means power could not be restored so fast.”
It’s going to be a growing problem. The U.S. is projected to see the number of smart meters installed climb from 65 million in 2015 (about half of all households) to 90 million by 2020, the Edison Foundation’s Institute for Electric Innovation reported. By 2020, almost 72 percent of European consumers are expected to have the meters, according to general EU rules.
EU member governments were allowed to carry out a cost-benefit analysis to see whether a mass smart meter roll-out made sense. Sixteen said yes, while seven others (including Belgium and Germany) found that the benefits of introducing them for all households wasn’t proven, according to the Commission. Nevertheless, countries such as Germany also found that the meters are economically justified for certain groups of customers.
Cost benefits aside, the millions of smart meters installed in homes are a tempting target for hackers.
That’s why some countries are choosing “dumber” models out of security fears. The meters that really worry security experts are those that can be remotely switched off. The dangers range from leaving a single house in the dark to causing a widespread blackout by switching smart meters on and off repeatedly, said Kruese, whose company distributes power to about a third of Dutch households. “If you get control of the grid by getting control of the smart meters, you can cause a lot of damage.”
The Netherlands has opted for smart meters without the remote switch-off option, “because they saw this threat,” Kruese said.
In the U.K., the government has asked the GCHQ intelligence agency to help design security for smart meters — a proactive move for a country that wants to install 53 million smart meters by 2020.
“If somebody could hack into that or turn off very large numbers of meters by mistake, the sudden shock of taking them off the grid — even worse if they were all turned back on at the same time — would cause significant damage,” technology consultant Nick Hunn said in September during testimony before a parliamentary committee looking into smart meters.
An EU response
Utilities, regulators and governments across the EU aren’t oblivious to the threat, but it is proving difficult to coordinate a response. One of the problems is that there is no EU-wide consensus on the minimum range of capabilities required for smart meters, which also makes talk on security requirements more challenging. Authorities need to assess the risks and how to test for them, which is expensive.
European utilities should try to harmonize security standards for the meters, said Thomas Weisshaupt, chairman of the privacy and security working group in ESMIG, an association representing smart energy companies.
EU-level working groups are addressing the issue and national governments also have threat assessments in place. Experts and authorities from across the bloc are trying to learn from each other through non-profit groups such as John’s ENCS or the European Energy-Information Sharing and Analysis Center. The Commission also has its own experts in the Smart Grids Task Force dealing with energy cybersecurity threats.
One challenge in developing a coordinated response is a lack of trust. Authorities find it hard to share information about their vulnerabilities, making it difficult to pass on lessons learned from past hacks, Kruese said. There is reluctance to go public with attacks, since that may tarnish a company’s reputation, he added.
It could also alert other hackers to a vulnerable network.
“If you go to the public and share the problem you had, you could become a target again,” Kruese said.
Some countries are doing better than others, John said. The Netherlands, the U.K. and France are at the forefront of the energy cybersecurity battle, he said. “Not everyone is there. We need to have the same level of cybersecurity across Europe.”
For now, there have only been a few reports of hacks of grids and smart meters, but that’s more the result of chance than ironclad security measures, Medeiros said.
“I think we’ve been kind of lucky, and the threats haven’t been too oriented toward companies in Europe,” he said.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/01/smart-grids-and-meters-raise-hacking-risks-142780
-
Our Cybersecurity Policies Are Failing Us. It's Time To Fix Them.
Jan 5, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits
By Frances Zelazny
Last fall, the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) proposed new rules for enhanced cyber risk management standards. These latest standards follow existing federal legislation and regulation dating back to 1978 for risk assessment and management in the banking sector.
At the same time, the Department of Financial Services in New York is developing new rules to provide minimum requirements and deadlines for financial institutions doing business in the state. Ongoing reports of hacks ensure that there will be pressure to continue to strengthen cybersecurity guidelines and protect consumers from fraud, identity theft, ransomware and other cybercrimes.
The incoming administration, despite its deregulatory instincts, cannot ignore the facts. According to Forbes, there are approximately 500,000 cyberattacks every day, which are projected to cost more than $2 trillion by 2019. Among the companies that reported attacks or breaches in 2016are LinkedIn, Hyatt, Wendy’s, Oracle, Verizon, Citibank, Dropbox, Yahoo and Dyn. The average company in the financial services industry alone experienced 83 million events in 2015, according to IBM.
Considering that there are so many cybersecurity policies and regulations in place, why does this keep happening? What are we missing?
The answer is that the existing policies are vague. They don’t consider the way fraudsters behave and instead focus primarily on fortification and prevention as opposed to resilience and real-time response. Today’s cybercriminals are sophisticated and patient. They are familiar with our prevention solutions and they have figured out how to bypass them.
Organizations should focus on how to detect and respond to malicious behaviors and incidents instead of trying to prevent every threat, Gartner, an information technology research company, said last year.
Threats comes in three main forms—credential theft, remote access malware and social engineering—where oftentimes it is the human element that causes the breakdown. All the passwords, tokens and other forms of strong authentication are meaningless if a person is tricked into handing over their credentials, inadvertently installs rogue software on their device that performs certain actions, or unwittingly gives a criminal access to their machine or account.
The report issued by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security last week, is a case in point. The agencies explained the methods used by hackers to penetrate the U.S. government and political party system, and described in detail how a spearphishing campaign distributed emails containing malware. Through that the hackers were able to compromise the political party. At least one person activated the malware, which was able to establish further privileges, access email and active directory accounts and circumvent encrypted transmissions.
The report goes further to explain a second successful attack, also conducted through targeted spearphishing. The second time the email fooled users into resetting their passwords through a “mirror” website that was setup on the hacker domain. The hackers then had all the credentials that they needed to gain access and steal content, which was then distributed externally.
What this report tells us is what so many of us already know. Our policies are failing us. Today’s criminals are fighting a 21st century war, attacking our critical infrastructure and financial systems using unconventional techniques, while we defend ourselves with antiquated methods. Pins, tokens, passwords, IP verification, device authentication, physical biometrics and even multi-factor authentication can all be bypassed.
We know this because today’s fraud comes from authenticated sessions that are taken over post-login. Instead of being a step ahead of the fraudsters, we are a step behind. The good news is that there are technologies such as behavioral biometrics that provide continuous authentication to validate who is behind a session and not just what device or passcode was used to authenticate the login.
Our policies need to take these capabilities into account, to combat the techniques that fraudsters are using, and to adapt to the current fraud landscape and to protect against future attacks. They must be pointed, relevant and timely. The risk is too great.
Frances Zelazny is vice president of BioCatch, a cybersecurity company that delivers behavioral biometrics to protect users and data. She providedtestimony last year to the New York State Assembly's banking committee on cybersecurity threats facing the U.S. financial industry.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/312724-our-cybersecurity-policies-are-failing-us-its-time-to-fix-them
-
Outlook 2017: U.S. Pipeline Agency to Focus on Data, Outreach
Jan 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven Gibb
The organizational overhaul of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration renews a focus in 2017 on data and stakeholder input—pivotal signposts for new emergency response authorities the agency was pursuing before the presidential election.
The agency will be “more forward-looking, proactive, innovative and data-driven,” says PHMSA's latest strategic plan, issued in 2016. To support the changes, new positions were created, including an independent chief financial officer and an associate administrator for administration. PHMSA also will develop a workforce training and development plan for all levels of the organization to retain and enhance staff skills.
Christina Sames, vice president of operations and engineering with the American Gas Association in Washington, D.C., praised the recent overhaul. She said a new PHMSA executive director position—a career slot—will reinforce stability in between administrations.
But some groups raised questions about the permanence of PHMSA's new strategic plan.
“In the past, PHMSA's strategic priorities were readily identifiable based upon input from senior career staff, but the agency is much more influenced today by political decisions,” the nonprofit Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure said. “Their current strategic plan will likely be altered by the next administration.” The organization says it is dedicated to identifying infrastructure needs, creating awareness of those needs and developing public-private partnerships. “
A New Executive
President-elect Donald Trump has said that he would remove energy regulations to restore jobs, which presumably includes those affecting pipeline operations. However, the public was reminded of the relevance of regulations that govern safe lines last September when the Colonial Pipeline leak in Alabama forced a shutdown that caused gasoline reserves on the East Coast to fall from 64 million barrels to 55.5 million, the biggest one-week drop in U.S. history.
In view of the organizational changes, environmental advocates like Lena Moffitt with the Sierra Club in Washington, D.C., said PHMSA is still under-resourced and understaffed. Moffitt said leaks pose an increasing threat to communities and the environment, and she expressed “hope that we can correct the inadequacies of the past.”
On the positive side, “we're encouraged seeing Congress give PHMSA emergency powers” for leaks and explosions. And she praised the plans for a Department of Planning and Analytics for the information it may bring. “Any innovation in data and analytics is a good thing.”
PHMSA also is setting up a Voluntary Information-Sharing System Working Group that will provide the new secretary of transportation with independent pipeline safety recommendations. In addition, a PHMSA spokesperson said, “we've made strides in filling out and diversifying our federal advisory committees. We have added members to more fully represent government and the public on our Liquid and Gas Pipeline Advisory committees, and they will be an integral voice throughout the regulatory development process.”
The agency continues to work on a major crude-by-rail emergency response rule. According to the spokesperson, “To date, the department has taken over 30 actions to improve the safe transportation of crude by rail, including issuing the High Hazard Flammable Train Rule last year. In addition, we are working aggressively to implement the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act provisions including finalizing rulemaking on Oil Spill Response planning.”
That work also encompasses scientific queries about the chemical properties of crude. “We are participating with the Department of Energy, Sandia National Laboratories and Transport Canada in a study to better understand the characteristics of crude oil, to examine sample collection and testing methods of crude and to better understand how crude oil properties relate to transportation safety,” the spokesperson said.
Railroads would develop more thorough oil spill response plans based on the amount of oil they are transporting, as opposed to current “basic plans.” The goal is to provide first responders with more information so they can improve emergency and remedial efforts when derailments occur.
Aliso Canyon Fallout
The agency also is looking to strengthen protections for gas storage wells.
After the amount of natural gas released at Aliso Canyon in 2015 nearly erased California's progress on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, a federal task force said new natural gas storage wells should have double barriers and older, single-barrier wells should be phased out.
The call for the more protective well design is among 44 recommendations in the Oct. 18 report by an interagency panel the White House convened to analyze the massive leak. How the new administration will respond to the report—and to PHMSA regulations under development—is unclear.
Other Actions
If it is carried forward, an interim final rule implementing new emergency authorities at PHMSA may boost effective responses to pipeline ruptures.
On Oct. 3, PHMSA issued the interim final rule (RIN:2137-AF26) under a federal pipeline safety bill President Barack Obama signed into law in June that includes emergency order authority (the PIPES Act of 2016).
That bill reauthorized PHMSA through 2019 and required the agency to finish issuing safety directives from a 2011 law that was not fully implemented. The agency must finish those directives and rules first before it starts new ones.
“PHMSA's priorities include completing all outstanding regulatory requirements as enumerated in the PIPES Act of 2011, the PIPES Act of 2016 and the FAST Act,” an agency spokesperson told Bloomberg BNA.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=102907840&vname=dennotallissues&fn=102907840&jd=102907840
-
Hazardous-Materials Cargo To Be Counted In Central Illinois
Jan 5, 2017 | AP (In Chron)
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) — A study of hazardous materials shipped by train and truck through a three-county area in central Illinois is expected to begin this spring.
The study will count hazardous materials on major railroads and on commercial trucks at 20 locations in Sangamon, Menard and Christian counties, The State Journal-Register (http://bit.ly/2iApwwz ) reported.
Sangamon County emergency manager David Butt said the study will also track nine federally designated hazardous materials, from explosives to radioactive materials. Only Sangamon County was previously tracked. Menard and Christian counties were added thanks to a $40,000 grant from the Illinois Emergency Management Agency, Butt said.
Butt hopes to present a study contract at the February meeting of the Sangamon County Board. Proposals are due by Jan. 17 and tracking is set to begin in March. Under the plan, reports will be filed every three months, with a final report on rail traffic due in March 2018 and on truck traffic in May 2018.
The data acquired will be shared with local emergency service agencies, Butt said.
"It's for planning purposes," he said. "It helps the fire departments be aware of what might be coming through their area, and it gives transportation planners a better idea of what is coming through."
About $2 million in three-year grants was awarded statewide for the program, according to Illinois Emergency Management Agency spokeswoman Patti Thompson. The grants are funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
There were 100 rail incidents involving hazardous materials in 2015, including 73 that involved a spill or release of hazardous materials to the air, according to rail-safety reports at the Illinois Commerce Commission. Most of those incidents involved petroleum spills.
http://www.chron.com/news/article/Hazardous-materials-cargo-to-be-counted-in-10834720.php
-
Tillerson Tries to Clear Climate Bar With Key Democrat
Jan 5, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The top Senate Foreign Relations Committee Democrat said he was encouraged by his Jan. 4 one-on-one with Rex Tillerson, President-elect Donald Trump's pick to lead the State Department—at least on the issue of climate change and Tillerson's backing of the Paris Agreement.
Tillerson, the just-retired ExxonMobil Corp. chief executive officer, is seen as a moderating force as Trump decides the fate of U.S. participation in the climate deal, and played up the fact his company backed the climate pact, said Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.).
“He explained to me that he—that ExxonMobil—supported the Paris climate change accord. That was encouraging to hear,” Cardin told reporters after the meeting, held in the senator's office. And “he stressed to me his background in science and that he is a believer in science. That was also encouraging,” Cardin said.
Foreign Relations Committee Democrats are outnumbered—a result of Republicans’ 52–48 majority in the chamber after the November election—and thus would need Republican defections to scuttle Tillerson's nomination in committee.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) later in the day echoed concerns from other Senate Republicans that key members of Trump's Cabinet might not be in place by his Jan. 20 inauguration. In the end, “I believe all ... the president-elect's Cabinet appointments will be confirmed,” McConnell said at a press conference.
“I think it would be great if the Democrats would understand that, particularly with regard to the national security team,” McConnell said, adding “it would make a lot of sense to have those folks in place on day one.”
Courting Democrats Begins
The meeting was one of several Tillerson held Jan. 4 to court Democrats, including Cardin's fellow committee member Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.)—even as Senate Democrats signaled that they wanted ample time to weigh his confirmation and would not be rushed.
Coons told reporters he reminded Tillerson that “I support the (Paris) Agreement. And I think it is an appropriate role of the State Department” to continue “to sustain” ongoing efforts to implement the Paris deal, the Delaware Democrat said.
“We are just starting the confirmation process. I have a lot of other questions,” said Cardin, the panel's ranking minority member.
Those concerns range from Tillerson's views on climate and the environment to ensuring clean energy access to developing nations, Cardin said. “I found the discussion to be helpful, but certainly we are just at the beginning part of the process,” he said.
Tillerson, who retired Dec. 31 after more than 40 years with ExxonMobil, is seeking to overcome skepticism about his commitment to climate science; some Senate Democrats and environmental groups argue that ExxonMobil spent more than 20 years undercutting climate research even as its own research acknowledged that humans were likely contributing to the Earth's warming as early as 1981.Notable Support for Paris Deal
But ExxonMobil was effusive in lauding the climate pact the day it entered into force, Nov. 4, 2016, less than a year after nearly 200 nations struck the deal in Paris in December 2015.
The accord “is an important step forward by world governments in addressing the serious risks of climate change,” the company said in a prepared statement. The agreement and actions that individual nations pledged on climate change “reflect the dual challenge of minimizing greenhouse gas emissions while ensuring the world has adequate access to affordable and reliable supplies of energy.”
Cardin stressed that he and Tillerson had “a rather lengthy” and productive discussion on the climate issue during their meeting.
The two also talked about the “importance of conservation and what we need to do in countries around the world where extreme poverty has denied many people access to reasonable, clean-energy accessibility,” the senator said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=102907841&vname=dennotallissues&fn=102907841&jd=102907841
-
Environmentalists' Novel Ozone Suit Aims To Overturn BLM Drilling Leases
Jan 5, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists are pursuing a novel lawsuit seeking to scrap dozens of oil and gas drilling leases on public land in Colorado granted by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), claiming BLM failed to conduct sufficient emissions analysis of the leases that the environmentalists claim will worsen ozone problems around Denver.
In the suit, filed Dec. 21 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, WildEarth Guardians says BLM's grant of the leases will violate Colorado's state implementation plans (SIP) for meeting federal ozone standards, and therefore that the grant also violates the Clean Air Act. The group further alleges BLM's action was “arbitrary and capricious” because of the missing analysis, and so violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The litigation is a novel effort by the group to fault a federal agency's actions in order to try and target air pollution from the oil and gas sector, which environmentalists have long said needs greater regulation.
It could potentially also set a precedent for future similar cases, because President-elect Donald Trump’s administration is expected to provide greater access to fossil fuel development on public lands, after Trump during the election campaign criticized the Obama administration's policies as too restrictive.
The Denver metropolitan area and outlying counties are classified by EPA in “moderate” nonattainment with the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 75 parts per billion (ppb) averaged over eight hours.
EPA again tightened its ozone NAAQS to 70 ppb in 2015, citing serious health issues caused by ozone, but area attainment designations for the tougher limit are not yet determined. Areas designated in nonattainment must impose pollution controls on local industry, or face the ultimate prospect of losing federal highway funding.
“In 2017, the Denver Nonattainment Area is again set to be designated as in nonattainment with the 2015 ozone standard. The ozone problem in the Denver Nonattainment Area is not getting better. It is getting worse,” WildEarth Guardians says in its district court complaint.
Strong growth in natural gas and oil drilling in the state has contributed to ozone problems, as drilling releases ozone-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), the group says.
“The elevated levels of ozone in the Denver Nonattainment Area are attributable, in part, to the significant amount of oil and gas development occurring within the Area’s boundaries, particularly in and around Weld County. Oil and gas development activities, including wellhead compressors, condensate tanks, and other pollutant emitting activities release high levels of the pollutants that contribute to the formation of ozone,” the filing says.
BLM Leases
BLM, as the federal authority responsible for granting drilling leases on public lands, is partly responsible, WildEarth Guardians says. This is because a significant amount of the development has been planned for the Pawnee National Grassland, public land managed by BLM.
The suit targets 67 leases authorized and sold by BLM in two lease sales held in May and December of 2015. Under the Clean Air Act, federal agencies must ensure they abide by “general conformity” requirements that require federal actions not to worsen air quality in areas failing to meet NAAQS, or to cause fresh violations. Federal actions must “conform” to the state's SIP for NAAQS attainment, which itself incorporates the federal general conformity rule.
BLM in environmental assessments conducted in advance of the lease sales concluded that it need not conduct a general conformity determination, because the leasing “does not authorize emissions generating activities,” and because emissions from the leasing were not “reasonably foreseeable.”
Nonetheless, WildEarth Guardians filed protests of these decisions in March and September of 2015, alleging that BLM failed to comply with general conformity requirements.
BLM dismissed those protests, and the group is therefore asking the court to vacate the lease approvals and sales, based on its own estimates that VOC and NOx emissions resulting from the 67 leases would significantly add to ozone in the Denver area.
According the those estimates, the resulting wells would produce NOx and VOCs far in excess of the air law's threshold of 100 tons per year of ozone-forming pollution that triggers the need for a general conformity analysis, assuming at least one well per leased area.
“BLM’s failure to ensure conformity with the Colorado SIP and the Clean Air Act. . . constitutes agency action unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed,” and was further “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, under the APA,” the group says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-novel-ozone-suit-aims-overturn-blm-drilling-leases
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested