Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 2/8/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) AFPM Announces Appointments
Feb 8, 2017 | Hydrocarbon Engineering
By Francesca Brindle
The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) announced that Robert McArver has joined the association as vice president of petrochemicals and Don Thoren has been promoted to vice president of state and local outreach. -
(ACC Mentioned) Science vs. White Nationalist Tabloids
Feb 8, 2017 | Eco Watch
By Denier Roundup
Everyone's favorite climate scientist witch-hunter and man who told us to believe Donald Trump instead of the news, Lamar Smith, held a hearing Tuesday on Making EPA Great Again. -
(ACC Mentioned) House Science Committee: Making EPA Great Again
Feb 8, 2017 | Ecological Society of America
By Julia Marsh
The full House Science, Space, and Technology Committee held a hearing Tuesday, February 7, on “Making EPA Great Again.” -
Trump Taps House Staff for Legislative Team
Feb 8, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
The White House yesterday announced a number of hires to fill out its legislative affairs team focused on working with House Republicans. -
CPSC Chairman Criticises Trump's Regulatory Cuts
Feb 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Chairman Elliot Kaye has criticised the executive order from President Donald Trump requiring agencies to eliminate two regulations for each new regulation issued, and said that the CPSC will not be adhering to the new policy. -
(ACC Blog) 2017 GlobalChem Will Showcase New Day in Politics, Chemical Regulation and International Cooperation
Feb 8, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
We all knew that modernizing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) through passage and implementation of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (LCSA) would create a new era of chemical regulation in the United States. -
EPA Worker Safety Measures Could be Model for Future TSCA Risk Rules
Feb 8, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Worker safety measures that EPA is seeking input on as part of its draft Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rules to limit certain uses of three chemicals could become a model for use in other TSCA risk rules given the revised toxics law's mandate to consider risks to susceptible subpopulations such as workers, industry sources say. -
Senators Urge EPA Action
Feb 8, 2017 | Long Island Weekly
By Anton Media Staff
Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand recently called on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prioritize and accelerate the risk evaluation for 1,4-dioxane, a potential carcinogen that was found in 71 percent of Long Island water supply systems. -
‘Kids Don’t Get a Second Chance’: EPA Staff Fear Cuts to Health Programs Under Trump
Feb 8, 2017 | Stat News
By Sheila Kaplan
The Environmental Protection Agency’s advisory panel on children’s health gathered last week to consider a few items that had long been on its agenda: getting lead out of water, cutting pollution-related asthma, and educating doctors about toxins in toys. -
Anti-Asbestos Advocates Uneasy with EPA Pick Scott Pruitt
Feb 8, 2017 | Asbestos.com
By Matt Mauney
For weeks, U.S. Senate Democrats, anti-asbestos activists and workers’ rights groups have fought the confirmation of Scott Pruitt, President Donald Trump’s controversial nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency. -
(ACC Mentioned) Dow Corning's Next-Generation Silicone Adhesive Technologies Key to Broader Global Adoption, Growth of Wearable Medical Devices
Feb 8, 2017 | Today's Medical Developments
According to Grand View Research, the global market for wearable medical devices is expected to reach $27.8 billion by 2022. -
Maine Poised to Designate Two Flame Retardants as Priority Chemicals
Feb 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection will hold a public hearing on 14 February to adopt a proposed rule to designate the flame retardants decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE) and hexabromocylododecane (HBCD) as priority chemicals. -
Unep Head Calls for ‘Bolder’ Government Actions on Hazardous Substances
Feb 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
To speed up the elimination of unwanted chemicals and products globally, governments must “challenge businesses” through regulation, Unep’s executive director Erik Solheim has urged. -
New Life for Old Preservative
Feb 8, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc S. Reisch
As retailers and product formulators band together to find new cosmetic preservatives, Emerald Kalama Chemical is investing in 50-year-old sodium benzoate, calling it a safe, readily available alternative for a number of biocides under fire. -
Trump's Energy Inner Circle Takes Shape
Feb 8, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
President Trump is expected to soon fill key White House energy jobs — relying on Washington energy insiders and former staffers to Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) to help shape his administration's environmental agenda. -
Industry Cites Preservation 'Bias' in Backing Planning 2.0 Repeal
Feb 8, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
President Obama's signature land-management rule has not yet affected the way oil and gas producers do business on public lands, but industry groups say the regulation could add new layers of uncertainty to the permitting process. -
Opponents Plot Next Steps as Construction Looms
Feb 8, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel and Ellen M. Gilmer
The Army Corps of Engineers is poised to grant a crucial easement for the Dakota Access pipeline, spurring calls for an intensification of a battle that has yet to be tested in the Trump administration. -
Cyber's Paul Revere Sounds Alarms and Rattles Cages
Feb 8, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak and Peter Behr
Joe Weiss can go hoarse explaining the cybersecurity gaps at U.S. nuclear plants, at oil refineries and across the nation's critical infrastructure. -
Perry's Playbook Fills Up Before His Arrival
Feb 8, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr
As secretary of Energy, Ernest Moniz helped persuade Congress to give future heads of the Energy Department extraordinary authority over the U.S. electric grid in the event of a national emergency. -
NTSB: Defective Axle Led to Casselton Crude-Oil Train Derailment
Feb 8, 2017 | Progressive Rail Roading
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) yesterday determined that a broken axle set off a series of actions that resulted in a BNSF Railway Co. train accident in which 476,000 gallons of crude oil spilled and ignited near Casselton, N.D., in late 2013. -
Ex-Officials Try to Pitch Carbon Tax to GOP
Feb 8, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A team of Republican former high-ranking government officials is pitching the GOP on a carbon tax. -
Carbon Prices Rise in California's Cap-And-Trade Program as Legal Certainty Grows
Feb 8, 2017 | Forbes
By Chris Busch
California’s cap-and-trade program, which anchors North America’s largest carbon market, is starting 2017 on a strong note ahead of its first quarterly auction on February 22.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) AFPM Announces Appointments
Feb 8, 2017 | Hydrocarbon Engineering
By Francesca Brindle
The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) announced that Robert McArver has joined the association as vice president of petrochemicals and Don Thoren has been promoted to vice president of state and local outreach.
"Rob will lead AFPM's petrochemical division during an exciting time as the industry plays an increasingly important role in creating jobs, strengthening the US economy, and providing energy security," said AFPM President and CEO Chet Thompson. Thompson also added, "In the short time since Don has joined AFPM, he has excelled in building strong coalitions and alliances with both consumers and stakeholders. In his new role leading the division, I am confident that Don will continue to increase the visibility of AFPM and its priorities at both the local and state level."
Thompson concluded, "AFPM has committed the resources necessary to build a leading association that is capable of meeting the industry's growing opportunities, and I am confident that Rob and Don's experience will serve our members and the entire fuel and petrochemical industries well."
Both McArver and Thoren bring a wealth of in-depth industry experience. McArver most recently served as the vice president of policy and government relations for the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. McArver has also worked for Celanese Corporation, where as vice president of global public affairs he executed an aggressive international government relations strategy. Thoren joined AFPM in 2016 as the director of state and local outreach and previously held leadership roles at the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the Altria Group, where he focused on outreach, political mobilisation, and state government affairs.
McArver holds a Juris Doctor from Washington University School of Law and a Bachelor's degree in History from Duke University and Thoren is a graduate of Drew University in Madison, NJ, where he earned his Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Economics.
https://www.hydrocarbonengineering.com/petrochemicals/08022017/afpm-announces-appointments/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Science vs. White Nationalist Tabloids
Feb 8, 2017 | Eco Watch
By Denier Roundup
Everyone's favorite climate scientist witch-hunter and man who told us to believe Donald Trump instead of the news, Lamar Smith, held a hearing Tuesday on Making EPA Great Again.
Despite a line-up of three industry voices against a lone voice of reason in Dr. Rush Holt of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the hearing failed to land any substantial blows against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Instead, Holt and the pro-science members of the committee explained the many ways in which Smith's "sound science" fixation sounds stupid to those who know science.
While Smith did his best to use this weekend's fake news about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to stir up drama, the fact that the "whistleblower" told E&E there was no data manipulation took the wind right out of his sails. Instead of problems with the conclusion of the study, the concern Bates had was that the data wasn't archived properly because the paper was rushed, which isn't true. So when Smith asked if Science would retract the paper, Holt reiterated these points. He added, "This is not the making of a big scandal" and "there is nothing in the Karl paper that, in our current analysis, suggests retraction." Score one for science!
The industry speakers, on the other hand, made relatively drab and inconsequential statements in the form of vague platitudes about the need for "sound science" instead of "secret science." For those who missed it, The Intercept had a great piecethe other day on this Orwellian term and its tobacco industry-origins (which the ever-awesome Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson entered into the record to close the hearing). Because while Smith claims it will make science at the EPA better, what it would really do is prevent the EPA from using studies that rely on confidential health records or studies of individual events, which by definition can't be replicated.
Dr. Holt made it clear that, "The Secret Science Act, as it has been previously introduced, has been based on a misunderstanding of how science works." Though, given its design as a vehicle for the tobacco (and now fossil fuel) industry to prevent regulation, one might believe that it is less a misunderstanding of science than a deliberate attempt to cripple it.
The second aspect of "making the EPA great again" was proposed reform to the EPA's Scientific Advisory Boards. This idea was deceptively described by the industry speakers as an effort to increase "diversity" and "balance" and provide more "perspective" to these review boards. What they really do is give industry a seat at the table so they can do what industry wants- fight regulation. That Smith called on Jeffrey Holmstead, who was once disqualified as an expert witness by a judge due to his multiple conflicts of interest, namely lobbying for coal and other energy companies, tells you everything you need to know.
The third witness was Dr. Richard Belzer, an economist and president of "Regulatory Checkbook," who seems to be in the outer orbit of the Koch universe and whose Twitter feed appears to be a bizarre advertisement for a wine website. His main contribution was that cost-benefit analyses should be called benefit-cost Analyses because ... benefits are better? It wasn't really clear.
The last witness on Smith's side was Dr. Kimberly White of the American Chemistry Council. She made a valiant effort to portray the injection of biased industry voices into the federal peer review process as a matter of balance and perspective, which one would expect from someone representing an industry group.
Our favorite part of the hearing, though, came not from any of the witnesses but from Rep. Don Beyer, who donned a red "Keep The EPA Great" hat after saying that, "We will not help anyone by disputing climate science with stories from white nationalist websites like Breitbart.com or tabloids like the Daily Mail."
Given Rep. Smith's history of writing op-eds for Breitbart and reliance on the Mail to attack NOAA, we couldn't have put it better ourselves.
http://www.ecowatch.com/lamar-smith-climate-hearing-2247605060.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) House Science Committee: Making EPA Great Again
Feb 8, 2017 | Ecological Society of America
By Julia Marsh
The full House Science, Space, and Technology Committee held a hearing Tuesday, February 7, on “Making EPA Great Again.” Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) promotes the hearing as focusing on “. . . the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) process for evaluating and using science during its regulatory decision making activities.” Smith said, “EPA has long been on a path of regulatory overreach, and the committee will use the tools necessary to put EPA back on track.”
A spokeswoman from Chairman Smith’s staff said no bill is planned for introduction, though many see the hearings as a springboard for reintroducing Smith’s “Secret Science Reform Act” (H.R.1030 in the 114th Congress) into the current favorable political environment. The previous effort passed the House, but it failed in the Senate.
In the past, the proposed “Secret Science Reform Act” sought to require the EPA to rely on “transparent or reproducible” science in making new regulations, with the underlying research data posted online. Knowledgeable opponents of the Act fear it would weaken EPA’s issuing of needed regulations.
Witnesses Tuesday included Jeff Holmstead, partner, Bracewell LLP and former EPA air chief in the administration of former President George W. Bush, and Dr. Richard Belzer, independent consultant. Holmstead views the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards as misguided, and Belzer sees EPA advisory committees as subject to politicization. Other witnesses included Dr. Kimberly White, Senior Director, American Chemistry Council and Rush Holt (D-NJ), former Congressman now CEO, American Association for the Advancement of Science. Mr. Holt appeared at the request of committee Democrats and was expected to testify about “protecting science and scientific integrity” according to a spokeswoman for committee ranking member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX).
http://www.esa.org/esablog/ecology-in-policy/special-policy-news-6-the-transition/
-
Trump Taps House Staff for Legislative Team
Feb 8, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
The White House yesterday announced a number of hires to fill out its legislative affairs team focused on working with House Republicans.
President Trump's Director of Legislative Affairs Marc Short hailed the "impressive individuals" who will help advance the president's agenda.
"With extensive experience and relationships on Capitol Hill, they offer abundant knowledge and valuable insight that will undoubtedly play a vital role within Legislative Affairs," Short said in a statement.
Jonathan Hiler, who according to the Legistorm website was the legislative director for Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) until last month, will serve as assistant to Vice President Mike Pence and director of legislative affairs.
Joyce Meyer, who according to Legistorm has served as deputy chief of staff in the office of Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) since October 2015, will hold the title of deputy assistant to the president and House deputy director of legislative affairs.
Alex Angelson will serve as special assistant to the president and House special assistant. According to Legistorm, he's served as special assistant to the Republican National Committee chairman since April 2015; former RNC Chairman Reince Priebus is now Trump's White House chief of staff. Prior to joining the RNC, Angelson was an intern on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Ben Howard, who until last month was floor director for House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), will serve as special assistant to the president and House special assistant.
Tim Pataki, who according to Legistorm was named a senior adviser for member services, coalitions and legislative operations on the Energy and Commerce Committee under new Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.), will serve as special assistant to the president and House special assistant.
Pataki previously was director of member services for the committee under former Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), who hired him in August 2014 as a professional staff member.
Cindy Simms, who according to Legistorm has worked for Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) as director of member services and coalitions since August 2015, will serve as special assistant to the president and House special assistant.
The White House also announced that Paul Teller will serve as special assistant to the president and House special assistant. Teller, who until last August was chief of staff to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), previously served as executive director of the Republican Study Committee from 2001 to 2013.
Teller was fired from that position in 2013 by then-RSC Chairman Steve Scalise (R-La.), The Washington Post reported, after complaints that he was working with outside conservative groups against the GOP leadership.
In a statement, Ryan praised Meyer, whom he noted was among his first hires when he was elected to the House. She will be replaced by Andy Speth, who Ryan noted has worked for him since his first congressional race and served as chief of staff in his district office for 17 years.
Since Ryan became speaker, Speth has been a senior adviser in the speaker's office.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/02/08/stories/1060049719
-
CPSC Chairman Criticises Trump's Regulatory Cuts
Feb 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Chairman Elliot Kaye has criticised the executive order from President Donald Trump requiring agencies to eliminate two regulations for each new regulation issued, and said that the CPSC will not be adhering to the new policy.
As an independent federal agency the commission is not required to follow the order. In a statement released on 2 February, Mr Kaye said the CPSC traditionally tries to follow “in spirit” executive orders that advance sound public policy and do not conflict with his agency’s mission.
But this order falls short on both accounts, he said.
“To voluntarily follow it would lead to poor public policy decisions, by ignoring the many necessary benefits provided by consumer protections that save lives and protect all of America’s families,” Mr Kaye said. “It would also be counter to our safety mission, as it would cruelly and unfairly have us pit vulnerable populations against each other when it comes to making safety decisions.”
Along with eliminating two regulations for each new one issued, the executive order calls for agencies to not take on any net new costs when issuing new regulations for the remainder of the 2017 federal fiscal year.
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs recently released interim guidance on how agencies should implement the executive order.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53443/cpsc-chairman-criticises-trumps-regulatory-cuts
-
Feb 8, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
We all knew that modernizing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) through passage and implementation of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (LCSA) would create a new era of chemical regulation in the United States. What we may not have known was that the statutory change would coincide with major changes in our political landscape. The confluence of these changes provides an important opportunity for us to learn and work together.
This year’s GlobalChem will provide an opportunity for us to continue to strengthen our partnership among industry stakeholders and EPA. With the LCSA, industry, regulators and stakeholders are all looking to align approaches to chemical management consistent with Congressional intent and throughout the value chain. LCSA holds particular promise for aligning interests in international chemical regulation as well. During each session at GlobalChem 2017, we will explore these new opportunities and gain insight as to the future of the chemical industry.
GlobalChem will feature robust discussions on implementation of the LCSA, including a focus on how the Canadian Chemicals Management Plan influences and complements U.S. law. Together, the Canadian and U.S. chemical systems can be a positive influence and model for science- and risk-based approaches to chemical regulation in other countries.
During the discussions on international developments at GlobalChem, we will explore how it is essential that governments take a step-by-step approach to implement chemical regulations, starting with building basic capacity to manage chemicals safely. For example, implementing the United Nations’ Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling (GHS), which provides essential product information (including safety precautions) to users and workers, can help build foundational knowledge for both industry and government regarding chemicals, their hazards and risk management procedures. Once implemented, it can also help collect information on the chemicals in commerce in a particular country.
Please join with ACC, regulators, manufacturers and other industry professionals at GlobalChem 2017 to learn more about how a comprehensive, modern chemical management system can serve as a potential warehouse of information, as well as a way to give people greater confidence that chemicals in commerce are being used safely.
For real-time news updates from the conference, follow ACC (@AmChemistry) on Twitter and join the conversation by using the hashtag #GlobalChem. Also, be sure to join thousands of industry professionals on ACC’s private LinkedIn group and visit ACC’s blog, American Chemistry Matters. And don’t forget about the GlobalChem app, available for your iOS or Android device (search for “GlobalChem”).
To learn more about the conference agenda and to register, visit http://www.globalchem.org.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2017/02/2017-globalchem-will-showcase-new-day-in-politics-chemical-regulation-and-international-cooperation/
-
EPA Worker Safety Measures Could be Model for Future TSCA Risk Rules
Feb 8, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Worker safety measures that EPA is seeking input on as part of its draft Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rules to limit certain uses of three chemicals could become a model for use in other TSCA risk rules given the revised toxics law's mandate to consider risks to susceptible subpopulations such as workers, industry sources say.
EPA recently released four proposed rules under the revised TSCA section 6(a) to prohibit or restrict trichloroethylene (TCE) for vapor degreasing, aerosol degreasing and spot cleaning in dry cleaning facilities and for two paint-stripping chemicals: methylene chloride (MC) and n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP).
The proposed rules mark the first proposed section 6 risk management actions under TSCA that EPA has issued in decades following its failed attempt in 1991 to ban the known carcinogen asbestos, and the first section 6 proposed rules issued under the reform law which took effect in June.
The proposed rules fall under a special provision of the new TSCA law, section 26(l)(4), which says that for those chemicals included in EPA's 2014 TSCA work plan with completed assessments -- as with NMP, TCE and MC -- EPA may publish proposed and final rules under Section 6(a) that are "consistent with the scope of the completed risk assessment for the chemical substance and consistent with other applicable requirements of section 6."
But the law also requires EPA to prioritize and review chemicals for section 6 regulation in a way that ensures a substance does present an unreasonable risk to potentially exposed and susceptible subpopulations.
EPA in the proposed rules is taking steps to protect workers as part of the mandate, despite industry concerns that such approaches may violate section 9(a) of TSCA, which outlines the requirements of the toxics law with respect to other statutes. Section 9 states that if EPA finds unreasonable risk from a substance that is in the purview of another federal agency, EPA should submit to that agency a report that describes the risk and request that the other agency determine if the risk may be prevented or reduced to a sufficient extent by action taken under that law, and if so, to issue an order declaring whether or not the activities present such risk.
"The WP [worker protection] regs are not a real surprise given that workers are potentially exposed and susceptible subpopulations under Lautenberg," one industry source says, referring to the revised TSCA law named for the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ).
Judah Prero, counsel at Sidley Austin, noted that given that the agency has not developed many section 6(a) rules, "EPA definitely tried to be creative at the outset," and that part of the rulemaking will be discussing the worker safety issues during inter agency review. "Clearly [the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)] has jurisdiction" over worker safety standards, but may be able to work collaboratively with the agency on the rules, Prero said, adding that "it's definitely a learning curve for EPA, now that the statute has changed."
Worker Exposure
Former EPA toxics chief Jim Jones told Inside EPA in a late December interview that even in the risk evaluations that EPA conducted under TSCA before the new law passed, the agency was "seeing that workers were often the most highly exposed groups and that's not surprising. I think that will be the case going forward" because "when you're assessing a chemical for risk, workers tend to be most highly exposed subgroup."
On the NMP proposal, EPA is proposing to prohibit the manufacture, including import, processing, and distribution in commerce of NMP for all consumer and commercial paint and coating removal. But EPA is also seeking comment on an alternative plan that would establish a worker protection program for dermal and respiratory protections that would prohibit use of paint and coating removal products that contain greater than 35 percent NMP by weight, although with similar protections for processors.
On MC, EPA is also proposing one regulatory option that would seek to establish an occupational exposure protection program, which would include air monitoring, medical monitoring, and respiratory protection through use of a supplied-air respirator, depending on the methods used for paint and coating removal with methylene chloride and other workplace characteristics, with a performance-based alternative of meeting an air concentration level of 1 part per million (ppm), which a second industry source notes is significantly tighter than OSHA's limit of 25 ppm.
In its Jan. 11 press release accompanying the proposed TCE vapor degreasing rule, EPA says the proposal along with the Dec. 7 TCE proposal for aerosol degreasers and spot removers in dry cleaning will help protect workers and consumers from cancer and other serious health risks that can result from exposure to TCE.
"We don't think EPA has the authority to regulate workplace safety," because of the section 9 language, that source adds, saying that EPA has not taken any of the steps laid out in section 9(a) for addressing risks that fall within other agencies' purview. Industry has also argued that the proposed MC ban which restricts sale in volumes of less than 55-gallon containers also oversteps EPA's TSCA section 9 authority because the Consumer Product Safety Commission would normally be the agency to impose those types of restrictions.
The proposed rules are expected to face industry challenges, and manufacturers are expected to lobby the Trump administration against finalizing the proposals. "Hopefully the proposals won't be adopted," the industry source says, noting that if the rules are finalized absent major changes, a legal challenge would likely follow based on the language in section 9.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-worker-safety-measures-could-be-model-future-tsca-risk-rules
-
Feb 8, 2017 | Long Island Weekly
By Anton Media Staff
Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand recently called on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prioritize and accelerate the risk evaluation for 1,4-dioxane, a potential carcinogen that was found in 71 percent of Long Island water supply systems.
Under the just-passed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform bill, 1,4-dioxane was named by EPA as one of the first 10 chemicals to be evaluated for potential risks to human health and the environment. An EPA survey from August looked at 28 public water districts on Long Island. The survey suggested that Long Island water suppliers exceeded the national average for traces of 1,4-dioxane.
The survey suggests that the chemical is more prevalent on Long Island than anywhere else in New York state, with the highest concentration of 1,4-dioxane found in a well at the Hicksville Water District at 33 parts per billion—which has an estimated cancer risk of approximately 1 in 10,000 after extensive lifetime exposure.
“Long Island homeowners cannot afford an EPA raincheck when it comes to investigating 1,4-dioxane and its impact on our local water,” said Schumer. “That is why I am urging the EPA to open the floodgates and commit the resources required to swiftly investigate this serious chemical and any implications it may have on our local water supplies.”
Gillibrand charged that the EPA should hasten its action given the potentially negative impact this carcinogen could have on Long Island’s population.
“It’s unacceptable that while the drinking water on Long Island is contaminated with a possible carcinogen, the EPA is not acting with the urgency that the situation requires in order clean up our water supply,” said Gillibrand, a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “Under the updated Toxic Substances Control Act, the EPA is required by law to move quickly when our water supply is at risk and must immediately investigate Long Island’s water supply. I will continue to work with my colleagues to make sure the EPA takes action.”
A colorless liquid with a faint sweet odor, organic compound 1,4-dioxane is currently unregulated and there is no federal maximum contaminant level for it in drinking water. Schumer said that because the chemical has been found in the majority of Long Island water supply systems, the EPA must speed up the TSCA risk evaluation to determine any potential health hazards associated with the chemical. Schumer also said that, if warranted, the EPA should take immediate steps to establish a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL).
In 2016, Congress passed a bipartisan bill to reform TSCA, including a new requirement that EPA evaluate chemicals based on the health risks they pose. In November, the EPA announced the first 10 chemicals it would evaluate for potential risks to human health and the environment, with 1,4-dioxane being one of the 10 chemicals listed. The risk assessment will ultimately determine whether the chemical presents an unreasonable risk to humans and the environment. If it is determined that the chemical presents an unreasonable risk, the EPA must mitigate that risk within two years.
According to an EPA study, short-term exposure to the chemical may cause eye, nose and throat irritation while long-term exposure may cause kidney and liver damage. There is currently no federal maximum contaminant level for 1,4-dioxane in drinking water and there is not yet a state-approved method for removing 1,4-dioxane from the water supply.
A 2014 technical fact sheet compiled by the EPA said that 1,4-dioxane is found at many federal facilities because of its widespread use as a stabilizer in certain chlorinated solvents, paint strippers, greases and waxes.“When it comes to Long Island drinking water, we can’t take any chances,” said Schumer. “That’s why I pushed through a law that requires the feds to shine a light on the potential dangers of chemicals like this one.”
https://longislandweekly.com/senators-urge-epa-action/
-
‘Kids Don’t Get a Second Chance’: EPA Staff Fear Cuts to Health Programs Under Trump
Feb 8, 2017 | Stat News
By Sheila Kaplan
The Environmental Protection Agency’s advisory panel on children’s health gathered last week to consider a few items that had long been on its agenda: getting lead out of water, cutting pollution-related asthma, and educating doctors about toxins in toys.
The panel also took up an issue that few members could have foreseen several months ago: keeping the program off the chopping block.
Caroline Cox, a member of the Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee, suggested a letter to the incoming EPA chief, touting the economic benefits of protecting children from pollutants that can damage their brains or cause illness later in life. (“That might resonate,” she said.) Tom Neltner, an Environmental Defense Fund lawyer and a member of the advisory group since 2011, said the message must be more urgent.
“With any administration change there are people who don’t have any idea about this issue,” Neltner said. “We should emphasize that kids don’t get a second chance to develop a brain. They don’t get a second chance on a reproductive system.”
For scientists, the issue of environmental health is not typically seen as politically fraught as climate change. But interviews with staffers throughout the EPA underline widespread concern — and some panic — about the fate of environmental health regulation under President Trump and Scott Pruitt, his nominee to lead the agency.
Pruitt’s skepticism on climate change is well-known, as are his ties to the oil and gas industry. He filed or joined 14 lawsuits against the EPA during his six years as Oklahoma attorney general, and EPA officials have already been told to expect budget cuts to certain initiatives.
But the EPA’s environmental health staff are still waiting for the other shoe to drop on them if, as expected, Pruitt is confirmed.
Although Pruitt has not been particularly vocal about environmental health issues, he has a long record of opposition to environmental regulations that go beyond his many statements on climate change.
In testimony before Congress last May, he asserted that the EPA was never intended to be the country’s “frontline regulator.” During a confirmation hearing, asked about harmful levels of lead in the human body, he said, “that’s something I have not reviewed nor know about.” And he said that the EPA would have to consider the science about asbestos before taking further action, although it is a known carcinogen.
To advocates of environmental health regulation, it all spells trouble.
The study of the impact of chemicals on living organisms has actually boomed in recent years, after decades of being dismissed as fringe science.
Both EPA and the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences oversee hundreds of studies annually. Some evaluate the cognitive impacts of metals such as lead, arsenic, and mercury on children living near Superfund sites, including those in impoverished areas. Others test the impact of pesticides on the behavior of children of farmworkers or the relationship between pesticide exposure and depression.
“Research on the effects of toxics on the human body has advanced significantly in recent years,” said Sam Delson, of the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. “We have revised many of our health-protective standards and risk assessments to reflect the special sensitivity of children and other subpopulations.”
Lately, the EPA and other agencies have been focused on a new category of toxins called “contaminants of emerging concern” — that is, nanoparticles and other ingredients in your medicines, cosmetics, and other consumer goods that might not be as safe as once believed, especially for pregnant women and children.
Many researchers fear that their funding from the EPA will be cut in the Trump administration; and even if it’s not, many suspect, the agency will no longer issue protective rules based on their scientific evidence.
“The tragedy is that no one who voted for President Trump voted for dirty water, dirty air, or more dangerous pesticides in their food,” said Scott Faber, vice president of governmental affairs for the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research organization based in Washington. “But every indication is that Scott Pruitt will methodically weaken the basic environmental health protections.’’
To date under Trump, the EPA has blocked about 30 pending regulations, not unusual for a new administration. But a review of those rules shows many of them were designed to protect the public from environmental hazards, including air pollution, contaminated water, and hazardous chemicals.
The agency is not required to explain why regulations were canceled, and neither the White House nor Pruitt responded to requests for comment about their plans at the EPA. But the Trump administration has been clear that it believes regulations are a burden on small businesses and restrict economic growth.
“The signals are disconcerting,” said one EPA official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for the record. “They could leave us doing the same stuff and slowly make changes or they could come in the first day and tell us, change what you are doing right now.” One especially vulnerable area, this official said, was lead, where the Obama administration did not accomplish all it intended to following the Flint, Mich., water poisoning disaster.
But the big question is how the new EPA will implement the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.
The law, which President Obama signed in June, revised EPA’s handling of toxic substances, giving the agency new clout and setting deadlines for reviewing chemicals of concern. The legislation was the subject of debate for more than a dozen years, and was championed by New Jersey Democratic Senator Lautenberg, whose backing paved the way to bipartisan consensus on the measure.
So, what will happen now?
“The biggest thing from our corner of the world is the implementation of the Lautenberg reforms,” said Elizabeth Hitchcock, legislative director for Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a coalition of public health and environmental groups. “The law gave EPA new tools in its toolbox to get dangerous chemicals out of the marketplace. Now, it’s a question of whether they will use them.”
The law imposed deadlines for the EPA to select and review suspect chemicals used in common household goods and found in the environment. Last fall, the EPA released its first list of 10, which the agency is now reviewing. But the next step is more contentious: The EPA must agree on the science, to decide which substances to ban.
“It will be up to the new people at EPA to figure out how to implement the changes and write the rules to do so,” said Myron Ebell, who ran the EPA transition team for Trump and works on energy and environmental issues at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute.
“My guess is they will be trying to do exactly what Congress has prescribed, and that they will be trying to do that in the most scientifically defensible way possible.”
Ebell also hinted that the EPA’s environmental education programs could be reconsidered.
“Far too much of the EPA’s environmental education efforts are not scientifically respectable,” he said.
But many scientists — including a group of nearly 450 who submitted a petition against Pruitt’s nomination earlier this week — say that if the EPA is run by officials who deny climate change is a serious problem, they cannot possibly get the science right.
Former EPA official Tracey Woodruff, who now directs the program on reproductive health and the environment at the University of California, San Francisco, is among those expecting a significant rollback in environmental health rules.
“Once they get into power, they have so many different options in how they can influence science and policymaking,” she said.
“They could defund areas of research that they think might make the industry look bad, so research on pesticides or toxic chemicals or research on children’s health could go,” Woodruff said. “They could go after the biomonitoring program, which is already on life support, and cut funding” to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
Woodruff noted that in many cases, an EPA administrator could not take office and suspend most regulations. There would need to be a regulatory review process.
“Unless they change that too,” she said.
https://www.statnews.com/2017/02/08/environmental-health-trump-epa/
-
Anti-Asbestos Advocates Uneasy with EPA Pick Scott Pruitt
Feb 8, 2017 | Asbestos.com
By Matt Mauney
For weeks, U.S. Senate Democrats, anti-asbestos activists and workers’ rights groups have fought the confirmation of Scott Pruitt, President Donald Trump’s controversial nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency.
Despite a Democratic boycott and a pushback campaign from environmental advocates, Pruitt will likely replace former administrator Gina McCarthy, who held the position since 2013 under the Obama administration.
Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general, recently provided a 252-page document answering more than a thousand questions Democrats on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) asked him.
The word “asbestos” is mentioned 51 times in that document.
EPA officials recently designated the notorious carcinogen as a top-10 high-risk chemical for priority action under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.
Asbestos is the known cause of serious illnesses, including mesothelioma cancer. Despite being linked to approximately 15,000 American deaths each year, asbestos is still used legally in the U.S.
Pruitt’s critics fear his appointment may have a significant impact on future asbestos regulation, including prolonging a full, comprehensive ban on the toxic mineral.
‘Lack of Thoroughness’ in Pruitt’s Responses
In the written questions for the record following Pruitt’s nomination, Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., the top Democrat on the Senate Environment Committee, asked Pruitt a series of questions regarding asbestos.
Pruitt failed to give a definitive answer to his stance on asbestos or if he will pursue a ban. Instead, he repeatedly referenced the newly reformed Lautenberg Act and the risk evaluation process it requires for substances like asbestos.
“Prejudging the outcome of that risk evaluation process would not be appropriate,” Pruitt wrote.
The Lautenberg Act amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and grants the EPA more leverage against asbestos and other hazardous materials. This includes the power to ban and regulate “toxic, persistent and bioaccumulative” chemicals without concern for industry cost or any other nonrisk factor.
Independent scientific groups, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Agency on Research for Cancer acknowledge asbestos as a known human carcinogen with no safe level of exposure.
The EPA made several efforts to ban asbestos, the strongest one in 1989 when the agency issued the Asbestos Ban and Phase-Out Rule (ABPR). But the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the ban two years later after asbestos manufacturer Corrosion Proof Fittings won a landmark lawsuit against the EPA.
Pruitt, a longtime attorney, led or participated in 14 lawsuits aimed at blocking EPA regulations, according to the New York Times.
His anti-EPA track record and lack of transparency in his responses to the EPW is escalating legislators’ worries.
“The Committee Democrats are deeply concerned about the lack of thoroughness of Mr. Pruitt’s responses to our questions for the record,” Carper wrote in a letter to EPW Chairman John Barrasso, R-Wyo. “I share their concerns. On their behalf, I ask you to direct Mr. Pruitt to disclose information requested by Democratic members with the same level of transparency that this Committee has required of past nominees.”
Pruitt’s Critics Concerned over Trump’s Influence
Escalating apprehension over Pruitt’s nomination and qualifications come from Democrats and Republicans alike.
Christine Todd Whitman, former EPA administrator under George W. Bush, accused Pruitt of having a disdain for the EPA and the “science behind what the agency does.”
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, expressed concerns over the amount of times Pruitt sued the agency he may soon lead.
Another concern: Trump’s influence over a Pruitt-led EPA.
Trump publicly praised asbestos in the past, calling it “the greatest fireproofing material ever made” during a 2005 U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing. In that hearing, he blamed the collapse of the Twin Towers on Sept. 11, 2001, on the lack of asbestos in the buildings.
Experts estimated more than 400 tons of asbestos materials were pulverized during the collapse of the towers.
Cancers related to 9/11 have spiked in the last 30 months. Many oncologists expect cancer cases, including mesothelioma, which has a latency period of 20-50 years, will continue to riseamong first responders, cleanup workers and survivors of the terrorist attack.
In his 1997 book, “The Art of the Comeback,” Trump said the anti-asbestos movement is a mob-led conspiracy, claiming “it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal.” He also claimed the toxic mineral was “100 percent safe, once applied.”
Carper alluded to these claims in the written questions to Pruitt, asking if the EPA nominee would “heed the decades of conclusive science about asbestos” or allow Trump’s personal opinions to “skew the EPA’s actions on asbestos.”
Pruitt once again gave a templated answer, citing the Lautenberg Act.
“If confirmed I will implement the law following those statutory requirements,” he wrote.
Asbestos Remains a Major Health Problem in the US
Asbestos is responsible for approximately half of all occupational cancer deaths, according to WHO.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention reports 12,837 Americans have died of mesothelioma since 2011. Thousands more died as a result of asbestosis or asbestos-related lung cancer.
Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., noted the CDC mortality records in his written questions to Pruitt.
“More than 30 Americans die each day from diseases like asbestosis and cancer caused by asbestos,” Markey wrote. Continuing, Markey asked “Do you agree with Mr. Trump that asbestos is 100 percent safe once applied or that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob?”
Pruitt’s answer was nearly the same word-for-word response he gave Carper.
Asbestos is banned in 58 countries around the world, including all 28 nations of the European Union. Canada recently announced a plan to prohibit asbestos by 2018, which leaves the U.S. as one of the only major industrialized countries not fully committed to a federal ban.
While asbestos use has significantly declined among industries that once dependent on it heavily, including construction and automotive, it continues to be used in many products.
Carper noted the chloralkali industry accounts for 90 percent of all asbestos consumed in the U.S. The industry uses asbestos diaphragms in its chlorine manufacturing process.
“The chlor-alkali industry has been the only point of public pushback against an asbestos ban under TSCA, and they have asked the EPA to exempt the chlor-alkali industry’s use from any regulation on asbestos,” Carper wrote. “Exempting the primary user from a restriction or ban, of course, would result in negligible impact.”
EPW Chairman & Republicans Defend Pruitt
Chairman Barrasso defended Pruitt’s responses to EPW Democrats and dismissed complaints about the EPA nominee.
“Attorney General Pruitt has answered more questions than any past EPA administrator nominee in recent memory,” Barrasso said, adding that Pruitt’s hearing was historic in its length, lasting nearly seven hours.
In an extraordinary move, EPW Republicans temporarily suspended committee rules, which require the presence of at least two Democrats to hold votes. So despite the boycott from committee Democrats, the EPW approved Pruitt with an 11-0 vote, sending the nomination to the full Senate.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., called the boycott a waste of time, saying “88 percent of life is showing up” and Democrats are just “wasting their lives.”
Meanwhile, Carper and other critics continue to push for more clear answers about Pruitt’s intentions as the head of the EPA.
“From the outset of this confirmation process, Scott Pruitt has consistently misrepresented his environmental record and denied us the information we require to perform our duty to advise and consent,” Carper said in a statement. “The EPA performs a critical duty that protects Americans and saves lives. If Mr. Pruitt is serious about leading this important agency, he should be more than willing to provide straightforward answers to our fundamental questions.”
https://www.asbestos.com/news/2017/02/08/anti-asbestos-advocates-epa-scott-pruitt/
-
Feb 8, 2017 | Today's Medical Developments
According to Grand View Research, the global market for wearable medical devices is expected to reach $27.8 billion by 2022. Dow Corning, a global leader in silicones, silicon-based technology and innovation and a wholly owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company, sees the role of specialized adhesive technologies as a key driver of this growth – especially in skin-adhered medical devices, a major segment of the wearables market. Selecting the right adhesive for each device type – based upon factors such as duration of wear, skin condition, and device size and weight – can have a significant impact on patient compliance and, ultimately, treatment efficacy. Advancements in silicone-based adhesive technologies are intended to offer expanded flexibility to support new device designs while meeting patient needs for comfort and ease of use.
“Wearable medical devices represent one of the fastest growing sectors in the healthcare industry, which is being fueled by several trends,” said Marie Crane, Healthcare marketing leader, Dow Corning. “While wearable monitoring and treatment devices can deliver important benefits to patients, caregivers, and the health system as a whole, their effectiveness depends on compliant usage – and compliance is closely linked to comfort. This is where Dow Corning’s tailored silicone solutions for skin-adhered devices, including Dow Corning MG 7-1010 Soft Skin Adhesive, our highest adhesion level of soft-skin adhesive to date, make a big difference.”
Medical device megatrends
Four major trends are driving the growth of wearable medical devices, including skin-adhered diagnostic and therapeutic devices.Population aging: According to the Administration for Community Living, people aged 65 or older numbered 46.2 million in 2014 (the latest year for which data is available). By 2060, that population will more than double to about 98 million.2 Seniors typically have more medical issues than the younger population and can face difficulty traveling to the hospital or doctor’s office to receive care. Wearable medical devices allow more elderly people to benefit from convenient, remote monitoring and treatment at home.
Chronic conditions: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that as of 2012, about half of all adults – 117 million people – had one or more chronic health conditions.3 Heart disease, stroke, cancer, type 2 diabetes, obesity and arthritis often require ongoing monitoring, which can be provided with wearables. Importantly, wearable devices can also help with prevention by enabling patients to track their health and make healthier choices.
Self-management: Patients’ increasing interest in managing their own health and fitness is another major factor in the growth of wearable devices. Skin-adhered devices can provide a wide range of self-management functions, from back therapy guidance and ambulation monitoring to smoking cessation and sweat analysis4 for evaluating exercise results.
Cost control: Ongoing pressure to reduce spiraling medical costs can be alleviated by replacing some in-patient or out-patient clinical care with remote monitoring and treatment. Skin-adhered devices can wirelessly relay critical data to clinicians and automatically deliver medication, for example, via a programmed on-body injector.
Comfort promotes compliance
While skin-adhered diagnostic and therapeutic devices provide answers to the challenges of these megatrends, their efficacy – and market success – depend directly on patient compliance. Avoiding irritation during wear and discomfort during removal of skin-adhered devices, particularly when patients have delicate or sensitive skin, is an important compliance factor. This is why many device designers are turning to silicone pressure-sensitive and soft-skin adhesives. In addition to delivering proven biocompatibility, water repellency and design versatility, Dow Corning’s wide range of advanced silicone adhesives – with different levels of tack, adhesion strength and other parameters – make it easy to find a match for each application.In addition to developing new pressure-sensitive adhesives and gentle soft-skin adhesives, Dow Corning is investing in state-of-the-art capabilities for medical device customers. Its newly expanded application center in Midland, Mich., for example, offers expertise and support in medical device material processing and testing.
About Dow Corning
Dow Corning, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company, provides performance-enhancing solutions to serve the diverse needs of more than 25,000 customers worldwide. A global leader in silicones, silicon-based technology, and innovation, Dow Corning offers more than 7,000 products and services via the company’s Dow Corning and XIAMETER brands. More than half of Dow Corning’s annual sales are outside the United States. Dow Corning’s global operations adhere to the American Chemistry Council’s Responsible Care initiative, a stringent set of standards designed to advance the safe and secure management of chemical products and processes.About Dow
Dow (NYSE: DOW) combines the power of science and technology to passionately innovate what is essential to human progress. The Company is driving innovations that extract value from material, polymer, chemical and biological science to help address many of the world's most challenging problems such as the need for clean water, clean energy generation and conservation, and increasing agricultural productivity. Dow's integrated, market-driven, industry-leading portfolio of specialty chemical, advanced materials, agrosciences, and plastics businesses delivers a broad range of technology-based products and solutions to customers in approximately 180 countries and in high-growth sectors such as packaging, electronics, water, coatings and agriculture. In 2015, Dow had annual sales of nearly $49 billion and employed approximately 49,000 people worldwide. The Company's more than 6,000 product families are manufactured at 179 sites in 35 countries across the globe. On June 1, 2016, Dow became the 100 percent owner of Dow Corning Corporation’s silicones business, a global company with sales of greater than $4.5 billion in 2015, 25 manufacturing sites in 9 countries and approximately 10,000 employees worldwide. References to "Dow" or the "Company" mean The Dow Chemical Company and its consolidated subsidiaries unless otherwise expressly noted.http://www.todaysmedicaldevelopments.com/article/dow-corning-medical-device-adhesive-technologies-wearables-2817/
-
Maine Poised to Designate Two Flame Retardants as Priority Chemicals
Feb 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection will hold a public hearing on 14 February to adopt a proposed rule to designate the flame retardants decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE) and hexabromocylododecane (HBCD) as priority chemicals.
If adopted, it would require manufacturers of certain children’s products containing these substances to report to the state and submit a one-time fee. Clothing and footwear, toys and electronics, marketed to or intended for use by children 12 and under, would all be covered, as would household furniture and mattresses.
The DEP held a consultation last autumn, but did not receive adverse comments. The rule slated for adoption is thus unchanged from the earlier proposal.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53462/maine-poised-to-designate-two-flame-retardants-as-priority-chemicals
-
Unep Head Calls for ‘Bolder’ Government Actions on Hazardous Substances
Feb 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
To speed up the elimination of unwanted chemicals and products globally, governments must “challenge businesses” through regulation, Unep’s executive director Erik Solheim has urged.
Mr Solheim, who took over from Achim Steiner in June last year, said that solving global issues related to hazardous chemicals relies heavily on effective national regulation of products and markets. The lack of regulation in many countries is slowing progress, he said.
His comments came yesterday in Brazil, during discussions on a post 2020 global chemicals framework. The three day meeting, which ends on Thursday, begins a series of talks – known as the intersessional process – on whether the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm) should continue beyond 2020, or be replaced with an alternative framework.
Following the panel session, Mr Solheim told Chemical Watch that regulating markets would “mobilise the enormous forces of business” and encourage the development of better, safer chemicals and products.
But while he urged governments to be bold in regulating chemicals, Mr Solheim said discussions between regulators and industry are essential.
“[Regulators] must have a constant dialogue with businesses, who know the market best.” The countries that have introduced effective regulation, he said, have succeeded because of their discussions with industry.
This, he said, is lacking in many nations.
Speaking on the same panel, Cefic director general and International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) council secretary, Marco Mensink, said that the “core strengths of businesses are innovation and capitalising on opportunities”. He agreed with Mr Solheim that regulation can give direction to industry, and create opportunities, if properly designed.
To achieve this, he added, a continuous dialogue between regulators and industry is essential to ensure that regulations are fit for purpose, meet objectives and do not negatively impact the market.
Clear on chemicals
Mr Solheim also highlighted the need for businesses to provide consumers with clear information on the chemicals used in the products they buy. It needs to be “set out in a language that normal people, like myself, can understand”, he said.
Consumers that have a greater understanding of chemicals in products, said Mr Solheim, are likely to put more pressure on businesses and governments to act on phasing out hazardous substances and dangerous products.
At last year’s Echa stakeholder day, the agency’s executive director Geert Dancet gave the same message, saying companies need to provide European citizens with more reliable information on substances of very high concern (SVHCs) in the products they buy.
And speaking at Chemical Watch's Copenhagen chemicals summit in October last year, Åke Bergman, executive director of the Swetox Research Center, said government spending to identify chemicals of concern could be significantly reduced if companies provided full disclosure of substances in materials and products.
Last month, in preparation for this week's meeting, a group of Nordic countries released a report outlining possible ideas for a post 2020 framework. One option proposed is a legally binding framework. The ICCA opposed the idea, saying it would "close off the multi-stakeholder cooperation that has made Saicm unique".
In an article for the February issue of the Global Business Briefing – to be published later this month – the ICCA says it is has launched an initiative that will see chemical industry associations promoting common principles for communicating chemical safety downstream.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53433/unep-head-calls-for-bolder-government-actions-on-hazardous-substances
-
Feb 8, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc S. Reisch
As retailers and product formulators band together to find new cosmetic preservatives, Emerald Kalama Chemical is investing in 50-year-old sodium benzoate, calling it a safe, readily available alternative for a number of biocides under fire.
Today, many consumers shun preservatives such as parabens, methylisothiazolinone, and imidazolidinyl urea because of toxicity and skin sensitization concerns.
In November, the Green Chemistry & Commerce Council said it would launch a competition for new cosmetic preservative concepts backed by retailers and others with prizes up to $25,000. Driving the effort, GCC said, was a need to accelerate commercialization of safe and effective preservative systems in a market where so many of the old standbys are under attack.
But Emerald CEO Ed Gotsch says the products his firm offers are already approved by regulatory authorities and accepted in food preservation. Sodium benzoate and its precursor, benzoic acid, have been around more than 50 years and are already widely used in foods, beverages, and pharmaceuticals to guard against mold, mildew, and fungus, he says.
The company is confident enough in sodium benzoate’s potential in cosmetics and other uses that it plans to add 30,000 metric tons of annual production capacity at its Rotterdam plant by 2019.
Produced via toluene oxidation, benzoic acid is a “highly purified synthetic equivalent” to benzoic acid found in cranberries, Gotsch says. Certification agency Ecocert accepts Emerald’s benzoates in products that are labeled organic, he notes.
But although naturally derived benzoates would cost hundreds of dollars per kilogram, benzoic acid costs $1.00–$2.00 per kg, and sodium benzoate costs about a dollar more, Gotsch says.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i7/New-life-old-preservative.html
-
Trump's Energy Inner Circle Takes Shape
Feb 8, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
President Trump is expected to soon fill key White House energy jobs — relying on Washington energy insiders and former staffers to Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) to help shape his administration's environmental agenda.
One such former aide, George David Banks, is expected to take on the White House international energy and environment portfolio in the National Security Council, according to sources close to the administration.
In that position, he's expected to play a leading role in shaping the administration's international energy policies — including how the administration handles the climate deal reached in Paris.
And Mike Catanzaro, an energy lobbyist who's worked on environmental issues in the executive branch and both chambers of Congress, is expected to soon sign on as special assistant to the president for energy and environmental issues in the White House National Economic Council (Greenwire, Feb. 7).
Banks and Catanzaro are both well known by energy players in industry, Congress and other sectors.
"I think they would make a good team over there, they've worked together for a number of years and both are very knowledgeable in those issue areas," said Todd Johnston, vice president for government affairs at the Portland Cement Association and another former Inhofe aide.
Banks is currently executive vice president at the nonprofit policy group American Council for Capital Formation. He was deputy staff director on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee under Inhofe and was the senior adviser on international affairs and climate change at the White House Council on Environmental Quality during the George W. Bush administration.
He also worked on climate change issues at the State Department and was a CIA analyst.
Banks, an early Trump supporter, penned an article last September praising Trump's foreign policy agenda.
In October, he wrote another article criticizing the Paris climate accord, which he'll likely soon be in a position to influence. Trump vowed on the campaign trail to reject that deal, but he's since signaled that he's open to reconsidering.
Banks wrote, "Unilateral carbon regulation on U.S. manufacturing, justified by a poorly-designed international climate framework, would only add to the competitive advantage of China and other economies that do not face the same constraints."
He added, "Environmental and climate mitigation goals are important, but such policies must be based on a rational approach and balanced by sound economic principles that promote the national interest."
'Who's in charge here?'
The expected White House appointments are being hailed as a welcome development by some observers wondering who held the reins on energy policy in the Trump administration.
Overall, when it comes to Trump's energy and environmental policies, "There's no small measure of uncertainty," said a D.C. energy lobbyist with knowledge of the transition process, leaving some to question, "Who's in charge here?"
The new administration still hasn't officially hired energy staffers for those roles or to lead the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Trump's nominees to lead energy and environmental agencies haven't yet been confirmed, and top political jobs at U.S. EPA and the Energy and Interior departments remain largely unfilled.
The likely appointments could signal that the Trump team intends to bring in seasoned Republican officials to fill energy jobs across the executive branch, after promising to "drain the swamp" and selecting outsiders for some key Cabinet-level energy posts.
"I think it's one thing to have a president or Cabinet secretaries who are outsiders to Washington and bring a different perspective and different experiences," said Paul Bodnar, who was the director for environment and climate change on the National Security Council during the Obama administration.
"But I think as you go into the guts of the apparatus, you do need people who know how to pull the levers of government. It would probably not work to staff the White House entirely with people who had not worked in the White House or the federal government before," added Bodnar, who's now managing director at the Rocky Mountain Institute.
Bob McNally, who was the top international and domestic energy adviser in the George W. Bush White House, said he, too, expects to see experienced Republican officials begin to fill key energy posts.
"I think there's a general sense, whatever people may have thought during the campaign and whatever reservations — let's call them traditional Republicans — may have, I think there's a sense that now you've got to go and help the president and the administration, and they're being encouraged to do so," said McNally, president of the Rapidan Group.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/02/08/stories/1060049751
-
Industry Cites Preservation 'Bias' in Backing Planning 2.0 Repeal
Feb 8, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
President Obama's signature land-management rule has not yet affected the way oil and gas producers do business on public lands, but industry groups say the regulation could add new layers of uncertainty to the permitting process.
House lawmakers yesterday voted to strike down the Bureau of Land Management's so-called Planning 2.0 rule. The regulation joins a handful of Obama-era regulations, including BLM's rule to curb methane emissions from oil and gas operations on public lands, that appear poised for elimination under the Congressional Review Act.
"Planning 2.0 presents multiple challenges that will prejudice multiple use interests with a bias against oil and gas resources on public lands," the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and Petroleum Association of Wyoming (PAW) wrote in a Jan. 18 letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).
Conservation advocates seemed puzzled by the rule's opposition from industry and Republicans in Congress. Planning 2.0 is a "wishy-washy" process rule that sets goals for BLM, but does not dictate outcomes, as the agency carries out its duty to manage public lands, said Jeremy Nichols, climate and energy program director for WildEarth Guardians.
"There's something deeper going on here," he said. "This is another example of how this Congress has declared war on public lands."
In its final rule, BLM amends its procedures for preparing, revising and amending land-use plans with the goal of mitigating "undesirable impacts" to federal resources. The rule suggests, but does not require, that a mitigation standard might call for "no net loss" of an environmental asset. But a Nov. 3, 2015, memo from the president to the heads of several agencies, including the Interior Department, states that mitigation policies should set a "net benefit goal or, at a minimum, a no net loss goal" for natural resources.
Such a standard is inconsistent with the target of balanced multiple uses of federal lands, which should include a space for fossil fuels extraction, IPAA and PAW said.
"The mitigation standard of a net benefit, or net conservation gain, is policymaking that has been put in place through recent executive and secretarial directives and memorandums, and is not based upon laws or rules that have gone through the lawmaking or rulemaking process," they wrote.
Industry interests also raised concerns about Planning 2.0's focus on landscape-level planning. In its rule, BLM says a broader scope would address land-management challenges like climate change, wildfires and invasive species.
The bureau's process "ignores state boundaries, so it is contrary to our system of federalism," said Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance.
If resources dictate land-use plans, it's possible that a piece of land could be subject to several management strategies, IPAA and PAW said.
While BLM's rule does not mandate landscape-scale planning, it notes an "increasing emphasis" within Interior and the federal government on that type of strategy and cites other department directives to adopt a less localized planning approach.
Phil Hanceford, assistant director of the Wilderness Society's BLM Action Center, said a landscape-focused planning process could help build in more certainty for industry by allowing BLM and energy companies to resolve potential land-management conflicts across a region before development begins.
"It's basic stuff," Hanceford said. "It's basic planning."
IPAA, PAW and the Western Energy Alliance said they fear Planning 2.0 would complicate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews.
BLM's rule provides that in most circumstances, allowance of a land use — such as mineral leasing — will not constitute a final decision to authorize a similar use in the future. Rather, it will be subject to site-specific NEPA analysis.
Prior to Planning 2.0, operators were required to assemble an environmental assessment for each lease sale. PAW and IPAA wrote that they believe the new rule could require an environmental impact statement at that stage, extending the process by nearly a year.
Requiring more early NEPA legwork would help settle stakeholder conflicts before land-use plans are solidified, Hanceford said.
"The whole idea is that you have more public participation for NEPA up front to avoid all of the controversy and litigation that we have toward the end of the process," he said.
Killing BLM's planning rule is an attempt to shut out public input and limit the bureau's authority, said Kyle Tisdel, an attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center. Planning 2.0 could have been tweaked without wielding the CRA, which pre-empts agencies from reissuing "substantially similar" rules, he said.
"To a large extent, the federal government already acts as a rubber stamp in the leasing and development of our public lands, particularly in major oil and gas producing areas," Tisdel wrote in an email. "Planning 2.0 represented an opportunity to broaden the consideration of impacts, regardless of jurisdictional boundaries, to better understand the sacrifice to our land, air, water, and communities. The CRA is an attempt to keep the public in the dark, and agency consideration siloed."
The measure to stop Planning 2.0 now heads to the Senate, where votes on Trump administration nominees have stymied action on CRA resolutions.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/02/08/stories/1060049695
-
Opponents Plot Next Steps as Construction Looms
Feb 8, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel and Ellen M. Gilmer
The Army Corps of Engineers is poised to grant a crucial easement for the Dakota Access pipeline, spurring calls for an intensification of a battle that has yet to be tested in the Trump administration.
As the news broke yesterday, supporters of the pipeline hailed the administration's quick action on the easement as the sign of a new era for oil and gas projects, while opponents vowed to fight it with renewed determination.
The announcement came in the form of legal filings yesterday notifying a federal court that the Army Corps intends to grant an easement for the Energy Transfer Partners LP project to cross federal land under Lake Oahe, a reservoir just north of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota.
The Army Corps said it was waiving a customary two-week waiting period between notification and the commencement of work and scrapping an in-depth environmental review process launched by the Obama administration in December (E&E News PM, Feb. 7). The formal easement may be issued today.
In North Dakota, officials welcomed the news that construction would be going forward.
"This is a key step toward the completion of this important infrastructure project, which has faced months of politically driven delays and will allow for safe transport of North Dakota product to market," Gov. Doug Burgum (R) said in a statement.
Last month, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe voted to ask the remaining protesters camped out near the pipeline to leave the area, describing a shift in the battle from the ground to the courts and pointing to the potential for environmental damage if the campsites are not cleaned up before spring flooding hits the area (Energywire, Jan. 26).
"We continue to support the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's request that protesters leave the area and go home," Burgum said yesterday. "We also continue to ask for additional federal law enforcement assistance to assist local and state authorities in peacekeeping and provide a safe environment for all North Dakotans until construction is completed."
North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven (R) indicated yesterday that reinforcements were on the way, possibly signaling a shift by the administration toward tougher enforcement actions at the site. The Obama administration was reluctant to involve federal law enforcement in the dispute, leaving most management of the protests to local sheriff's departments.
"Recently, we got additional Bureau of Indian Affairs law enforcement officers to assist at the protest site. We also secured Customs and Border Protection agents to assist state and local law enforcement and we are currently working to get more federal law enforcement assistance," Hoeven said in a statement that called for "safe, efficient and environmentally sound" energy projects to go forward, along with a review of the permitting process "to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to be heard and that a fair, certain, and legal process has been followed."
In the courtroom
With construction imminent, opponents' ongoing legal maneuvering at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia becomes more urgent.
Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman, representing the Standing Rock Sioux against the pipeline, declined to comment on the tribe's legal strategy and noted yesterday that immediate next steps had not yet been decided. He said in a statement that the Trump administration "will be held accountable in court." The law firm representing co-plaintiff the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe also declined to comment on plans for a legal response.
The tribes have several options moving forward. They could challenge the reversal of the Obama administration's decision to do an in-depth environmental impact statement (EIS) and ask the district court to invalidate the easement or freeze construction. They also could opt to pivot back to the merits of the case, arguing their original claim filed last summer that the Army Corps' permitting process for pipeline water crossings is flawed.
Standing Rock Chairman Dave Archambault II said in a statement that the tribe will zero in on the scuttled EIS.
"The Tribe will challenge any easement decision on the grounds that the EIS was wrongfully terminated," he said. "The Tribe will demand a fair, accurate and lawful environmental impact statement to identify true risks to its treaty rights, including its water supply and sacred places.
"If DAPL is successful in constructing and operating the pipeline," he added later, "the Tribe will seek to shut the pipeline operations down."
Without a construction freeze, legal wrangling will face a ticking clock. Dakota Access lawyers have said oil could start moving through the pipeline within 60 days of easement approval, and the line could begin commercial service within 83 days (Energywire, Feb. 7).
ClearView Energy Partners analyst Christi Tezak noted that an injunction request from the tribes could be a gamble.
"If they go for another preliminary injunction and lose, they still haven't briefed on their merits," she said, making it more likely that the pipeline will be complete before the court considers their original arguments.
The tribes first sought an injunction last year, asking the court to pause pipeline construction near Lake Oahe as the case moved forward. The request centered on claims that construction could damage culturally sensitive sites. Judge James Boasberg declined to issue the injunction, finding that the Army Corps had "likely complied with" the National Historic Preservation Act and that "the Tribe has not shown it will suffer injury that would be prevented by any injunction the Court could issue."
James Coleman, an energy law professor at Southern Methodist University, said the tribes could have a stronger argument this time around because they can point to the extensive review process the Obama administration undertook last fall and its ultimate decision that further review was needed.
"It's always an uphill battle for an injunction," he said. "But they're in a stronger position than they were last time. [The December decision] lends some credence to their claim."
On the other hand, he said, the Trump administration will likely argue that the December decision was an outlier after the Army Corps already determined the project would have no significant impact.
On the ground
Activists, meanwhile, are recalibrating their response. As recently as yesterday, they were encouraging supporters to file formal comments on the EIS. Now, all focus is on legal challenges and public protests, including a rally tonight at the White House and a tribal rights march in Washington on March 10.
May Boeve, executive director of 350.org and a leading voice in the "keep it in the ground" movement against fossil fuels, said activists were ready to challenge the decision on both fronts.
"Trump thinks he's getting what he wants, but the people who've been emboldened by the worldwide fight against the Dakota Access pipeline won't quietly back away," she said in a statement. "While the industry's grip on our government tightens, so does our resolve to keep oil, coal, and gas in the ground and build the clean energy economy we need from the ground up."
During a roundtable with county sheriffs yesterday, President Trump argued that he hasn't "had one call from anybody" complaining about his decision to fast-track the pipeline.
"I haven't had one call from anybody saying, 'Oh, that was a terrible thing you did,'" he said, according to a White House transcript of the event. "I haven't had one call from anybody."
Critics of the president's order, however, have been outspoken in their opposition. Dallas Goldtooth, an organizer with the Indigenous Environmental Network's keep it in the ground campaign, predicted the decision to grant the easement would bring an outpouring of new opposition to the pipeline's completion.
"The fight's not over, it's a new beginning," he told E&E News.
Goldtooth estimated the camps near the Standing Rock reservation are hosting about 1,200 people despite recent efforts to clear them, though the exact number of protesters can be difficult to measure.
"All the discussion about people moving out of the camp, whether the [Bureau of Indian Affairs] is going to move in there and clear people out, all of that is on hold," Goldtooth said. "The majority of the people that are there are there to stop the pipeline, and now that Trump has given the green light for this project to finish," they will be committed to staying on site to block that outcome.
Goldtooth said the protests at the camps would be "in line with principles of nonviolent direct action," but he expressed concern that the response from the National Guard, private security guards and law enforcement personnel "to suppress civil disobedience and public demonstration" could endanger those involved.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/02/08/stories/1060049725
-
Cyber's Paul Revere Sounds Alarms and Rattles Cages
Feb 8, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak and Peter Behr
Joe Weiss can go hoarse explaining the cybersecurity gaps at U.S. nuclear plants, at oil refineries and across the nation's critical infrastructure.
But on Oct. 25, Weiss ceded the stage at an Atlanta cybersecurity conference to three researchers for a live demonstration. This time, Weiss wanted to show the overflowing room just how vulnerable the nation's wired-up systems are to hackers.
At the front of the room, researchers from a security software company called Mission Secure Inc. used a cellphone to take control of a piece of equipment common across the electric grid, hijack its functions and post a nose-thumbing message on the device's digital display.
"IM SORRY RICK, I CANT LET YOU DO THAT," read the screen at the ICS Cyber Security Conference.
There, in front of their peers, representatives from Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, which manufactured the grid device, were on the hot seat. They denied the equipment had a faulty design and insisted there had to be a better explanation for why a couple of pushes of a phone's keypad breached their product.
Weiss was not amused. The next day, he took a public swipe at the engineering lab for being "in denial" about flaws in its industrial control system products.
The confrontation was vintage Weiss. He used blunt tactics.
Weiss has emerged as a cyber maverick and gadfly in the security debate. He's been in the trenches researching and testing power plant control systems for more than 30 years. Today he runs a tiny San Francisco-area consulting business called Applied Control Solutions LLC, and he's written hundreds of blog posts and a few books and built a running list of underreported cyber incidents. He's traded barbs with the Department of Homeland Security, the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) and just about anyone who does not share his conviction that hackers are a greater threat to U.S. critical infrastructure than top officials will admit.
"We call him John the Baptist, because he's a big believer," said Mission Secure CEO David Drescher. "Some people love him, some people hate him. But at the end of the day, he's trying to do the right thing and get his message out."
In the lawless battleground of cyber war, Weiss is a Jeremiah, warning that the worst is coming.
But the Atlanta demonstration raises a commonly heard concern that his methods undermine his message. Weiss' blog chiding Schweitzer drew pointed criticism from colleagues for putting the manufacturer on the spot. Schweitzer complained that the takedown of the device was presented "out of context."
Cyber 'Pearl Harbor'
Weiss has spent the better part of his career steeped in industrial sensors, instruments and control rooms — systems that cybersecurity gurus had long thought were isolated from the internet and beyond hackers' reach.
"If you're worried about the grid going down for months," Weiss told E&E News, "that's generally not going to come from malware on a network."
Instead, Weiss says an attack disabling major components of the electric grid is more likely to come through a hack into a central control room.
He sharpened his focus on cyber risks near the turn of the millennium, as fears swirled around what the infamous Y2K bug would bring to the power sector's embedded computer systems.
While researching nuclear generation for the Electric Power Research Institute, Weiss noticed how an onslaught of connected technologies and "intelligent electronic devices" was intruding into industrial control networks. These "smart" devices, capable of two-way communication, allowed for huge efficiency gains but also brought new security challenges.
Weiss started to keep a professional journal of sorts in 2000, documenting the times he encountered failures in these smart systems. He began recording "cyber incidents" in nuclear power plants before expanding his database to include events at factories, water utilities, electric substations, petrochemical plants, and even food and beverage producers. Weiss started to chip away at the notion that the worlds of "cyber" and "industrial control systems" could be treated separately.
As an engineer, Weiss hoped he could convince companies to stop confining cybersecurity to the information technology staff and bring in control room operators and engineers to deal with threats to their domains. Without the right professionals paying heed, disaster could strike a control system and no one would even know its cause.
"This is the issue of the 'cyber Pearl Harbor.' Will there be one? Probably," Weiss said.
"Will we know that it [was] cyber? Probably not."
In other words, even a malicious cyberattack endangering U.S. national security could be written off as an accident.
"Joe deserves huge credit for being what I call the Paul Revere of the industry; when very few people were talking about this, Joe was shouting from every rooftop," said Dale Peterson, CEO of the Digital Bond cybersecurity consulting firm and an expert in securing supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) and industrial control systems.
But Peterson also pointed to an area where he says Weiss "falls down" owing to his broad interpretation of cybersecurity: "While stressing the broad definition of a cyber incident can be helpful for awareness, it makes coming up with solutions to prevent cyberattacks more difficult," Peterson noted.
No free security
Weiss avoids delving into specifics with many of the cyber incidents he describes on his blog, lest they jeopardize U.S. critical infrastructure or reveal the names and locations of past clients.
But there's also a "pay-to-play" motive coloring his interactions with companies like Schweitzer and the ICS community generally, some critics say.
"I provide the blog as a public service," Weiss said. "If you want more detailed information, I'm an independent consultant and would be happy to work with you."
In other words: If you want detailed advice, be ready to sign a contract.
The price tag cut short Weiss' interaction with Schweitzer in the runup to the Atlanta ICS Cyber Security Conference, where security professionals from Mission Secure demonstrated their hack of the company's 751A protective relay. Schweitzer balked at hiring anyone to provide advance details of the hack, and Mission Secure's researchers in turn held back from sharing all their notes at the conference.
Dave Whitehead, vice president of research and development at Schweitzer, said that based on his understanding of the 751A vulnerability, remote hackers would pose much less of a threat if the relay was properly configured within a trusted network. This "security in depth" approach would typically involve placing another device in front of the 751A to isolate it from the public internet, and handle passwords, encryption and other security features — a product sold by both Mission Secure and Schweitzer.
"I don't lock every single door inside my house, but what I do is that I protect the exterior of my house," Whitehead said.
The Aurora test
Weiss said he didn't originally intend to single out Schweitzer and has noted that the vulnerability in the 751A isn't unique to the product or the company. Other relays are at risk, as well.
But the device provided a vehicle for Weiss to draw attention to what he considers a significant, unaddressed threat to electric reliability.
The 751A detects faults in power systems, automatically cutting off electricity when something goes wrong. This "protective relay" can open or close key electric circuits on the grid, much like someone toggling the switches in a circuit breaker box at home.
The relay is also designed to guard against a grid cyber vulnerability that dates back at least a decade. The hazard hinges on the crucial requirement that generators connecting to the grid be synchronized with all the other operating generators. If hackers take control of relays and quickly disconnect and reconnect generators out of phase with the grid, the resulting kickback can damage the generator's spinning central shaft and fry wiring in the equipment.
The weakness was first demonstrated in a secret 2007 Idaho National Laboratory experiment called the Aurora Generator Test. A leaked video of the test showed how remote hackers — in this case government experts in a controlled environment — could cause a bulky power generator to shudder and break down with a hiss of smoke.
Schweitzer's 751A is designed to detect when someone commands it to reconnect with the grid while out of sync, like a driver who tries to throw a fast-moving car into reverse. The device then isolates the generator and alerts grid operators to the attempted connection.
Weiss said the industry and government handling of the Aurora vulnerability "has demonstrated what is wrong with responding to a real hardware vulnerability that can impact an entire infrastructure."
If many of the best available protections against the Aurora flaw can themselves be hacked — like the 751A — the industry still has a lot of work to do, according to Weiss.
The emperor wears no clothes
After the Aurora test, government and industry convened several high-level working groups to tackle the problem and patch the vulnerability.
But nearly a decade after the demonstration, senior grid officials aren't forthcoming about the details of the fix, though NERC says the interstate grid utilities it regulates have responded to NERC's October 2010 alert on the subject.
"The October 2010 alert required asset owners and operators to provide status reports every six months until they demonstrated that recommended actions were completed," said NERC spokeswoman Kimberly Mielcarek, adding that the nonprofit grid overseer has submitted several reports on the industry's Aurora response to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. "[Bulk power system] owners assessed their Aurora risk and either determined it was inapplicable to them or have mitigated the risk."
Weiss isn't reassured by the way NERC handled the Aurora danger, maintaining that it should have ordered companies on the high-voltage grids to use protective devices like Schweitzer's 751A to block an attack. To Weiss, it's a case of the emperor without his clothes.
Furthermore, Weiss notes that NERC's regulatory oversight of the interstate "bulk power" system does not extend to distribution utilities and the protective relays in tens of thousands of substations, which are subject to state, municipal or power cooperatives' oversight.
Weiss has also written extensively about perceived gaps in NERC standards — such as the lack of a requirement for utilities to root out malicious software from their own systems.
Tom Alrich, manager for enterprise risk services at Deloitte and Touche LLP, has taken to his own blog to critique Weiss for trying "to have his cake and eat it, too."
Alrich, who provides consulting services on issues related to NERC Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) standards, pointed out that Weiss has criticized the cyber regulations for being ineffective, while also contending that they don't cover enough utilities. "He is like the two ladies at a Catskills resort, in an old joke. The first says, 'The food here is terrible.' The second says, 'Yeah, and the portions are so small!'" Alrich wrote.
Asked for comment on Alrich's points, Weiss stood by his misgivings about NERC CIP, warning in an email about the risk of "a compliance-focused approach that not only doesn't reduce grid cyber threats, but can increase them and/or reduce grid reliability."
A 'wake-up call'
While the Aurora test offered a concrete example of how remote hackers could damage physical infrastructure, bona fide cases of cyberattacks on control systems are few and far between.
However, a December 2015 cyberattack on three utilities in Ukraine demonstrated how hackers can, in practice, infiltrate the distribution level and wreak havoc on the grid. Weiss has argued that with a little more effort and know-how, the hackers in Ukraine could have triggered an Aurora-type event to damage generators and cause much more devastation than an hourslong outage. He made the same point about a follow-up December 2016 hack that targeted a transmission-level substation in Ukraine (Energywire, Jan. 11).
"We're stirring up a debate that nobody wanted stirred up," Weiss said, calling the Ukraine cases a "wake-up call" for the Aurora vulnerability.
In a recent blog post, he outlined how the flaw can extend to more than just generators, damaging motors in "nuclear plants, refineries, water facilities, pipelines, hospitals, data centers, and other critical facilities who 'are at the mercy' of the utility for Aurora mitigation."
For his part, Whitehead of Schweitzer has said the Aurora case "can certainly happen," though he added that "it's no more critical than the 10 or 100 other" known vulnerabilities that manufacturers and grid operators have to deal with.
"It's yet another engineering problem that we have to consider when we design our electric power system," he said.
Experts at the Edison Electric Institute, which represents large investor-owned utilities in North America, have cast the Aurora test as a useful lesson for the industry but hardly an existential threat.
And then there's Weiss, whose frequent exhortations on the Aurora issue are a familiar refrain to his peers in control system security.
"Facts and physics, along with these actual [control system] cyber incident case histories, don't seem to have any correlation to what NERC states," Weiss said. "I feel like I'm in an alternate universe."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/02/08/stories/1060049699
-
Perry's Playbook Fills Up Before His Arrival
Feb 8, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr
As secretary of Energy, Ernest Moniz helped persuade Congress to give future heads of the Energy Department extraordinary authority over the U.S. electric grid in the event of a national emergency.
In one of his last actions before the Obama administration left office, Moniz urged Congress in December to arm his office with the power to defend against an attack on a local utility or a cascading outage that threatens the larger interstate grid.
In an interview with E&E News, a few weeks after leaving DOE and returning to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Moniz said protecting the grid against 21st-century threats requires federal leadership under the Trump administration. It means keeping in place offices critical to that mission, he said, including the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
Rick Perry, the Republican former Texas governor who is expected to face a Senate confirmation vote next week to replace Moniz, kept his cards close with a number of noncommittal written answers to questions from members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The answers became available this week (E&E News PM, Feb. 6, 2017).
Perry was asked by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) whether he would maintain the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability's funding at the fiscal 2016 level. He replied, "If I am confirmed, I will support spending levels that will ensure the Department of Energy can fulfill its mission."
To another question asking what additional authority the Energy secretary or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission might need to defend against cyberattacks, Perry replied, "Without classified briefings from the cybersecurity experts at DOE, I cannot say what additional authority the Secretary or FERC need."
The issue around emergency authority for the secretary of Energy is heating up as Perry prepares to lead an agency with responsibilities stretching from the national laboratories to the safety and maintenance of nuclear warheads. On the energy front, Perry finds himself on the sharp end of a lobbying campaign to shape, and in some cases curtail, DOE's authority to direct actions down to the electric generator and regional grid operators to protect power supplies during an emergency.
In 2015, Congress passed the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, which grants authority to DOE in emergency situations. And the new authority Moniz requested in the Quadrennial Energy Review report in December would require a limited but still precedent-breaking revision of the Federal Power Act's talismanic separation of the federally regulated "bulk" power interstate network and local utilities that answer to state commissions.
"We tried to put that recommendation forward in some sense in as narrow a way as we could," Moniz said, "but at the same time recognizing the national security concerns that need to be addressed."
There is growing recognition in parts of Congress, he said, that the Federal Power Act, with this bright line separating the interstate grid and local utilities, needs to be modernized.
An Energy secretary who shoulders those responsibilities will need even more expertise from staff in the Office of Electricity, and there, Perry might run into President Trump's stated intention to sharply downsize federal agencies and shift decisionmaking to the White House and Office of Management and Budget.
"I think there will be real pressure on the DOE budget," said energy lawyer Linda Stuntz, a former deputy Energy secretary under President George H.W. Bush and a member of Moniz's Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. "I've heard there is guidance going out for a 10 percent cut on departments except for Defense."
Power industry leaders supported the emergency authority legislation in principle. But in comments to DOE made public this week, representatives of investor-owned utilities, public power companies and municipal energy cooperatives insisted that DOE emergency plans would have to be shaped by industry. The orders could include directing which generation plants should run or not, and whether parts of cities or regions must be temporarily blacked out to protect vital equipment or systems from cyber damage or rogue solar currents.
The Edison Electric Institute, representing investor-owned utilities, cautioned that DOE should exercise its authority with the goal of "first, doing no harm." It called for prior notice, saying "DOE should revise its proposed emergency procedures to emphasize the importance of industry consultation before the Secretary issues an emergency order."
An order to grid operators to protect electricity supplies to a military base would be appropriate, for example, but DOE should not dictate which customers should lose power to ensure that the defense installation doesn't go dark, EEI said.
Scott Aaronson, EEI's executive director for security and business continuity, commented at a House Energy and Power Subcommittee hearing last week, "When the law said consultation with the electric sector 'where practicable' to us is a little concerning, given that any emergency order that doesn't take into account how grid operators actually operate the system could have unintended consequences."
"I do think that given all of the great relationships we have with the secretary of Energy and frankly just the Department of Energy in general as our sector-specific agency, we are confident that they understand us, we understand them, and think we can work productively with them to implement that emergency authority," Aaronson said.
Moniz said he expected that emergency actions by DOE would build on existing rules and practices, and DOE's budget should include funding for planning exercises for government and industry that would test crisis responses.
In the interview, Moniz made a case for the additional authority he and his policy team proposed that would allow DOE to look at cybersecurity protection for the entire electric power spectrum — transmission, distribution and customer-owned equipment — as a national security imperative. There are 1 million U.S. homes with rooftop solar installations, and the number is growing; there are millions of smart meters; and there is the expectation of billions of grid-connected devices generating two-way power flows in the "Internet of Things," all challenging the historic division of federal and state grid jurisdiction, he said.
FERC's authority should be increased accordingly, the new QER report argued. "To the extent necessary, appropriate statutes should be amended to clearly authorize FERC to adopt ... integrated electricity security planning requirements," the QER report said.
"DOE hasn't completed the implementation of the FAST Act authority they were given," Stuntz noted.
"Hopefully, Secretary Perry and his team, if and when they are confirmed, will pick up on this," she said, "and instead of wanting more authority under the Federal Power Act, will at least implement the authority they were given."
Moniz said in his view, the Federal Power Act's limitations are recognized in the energy sector.
"The question of actually making further amendments obviously has many, many political dimensions," he added. "But I do think the conversation has started."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/02/08/stories/1060049727
-
NTSB: Defective Axle Led to Casselton Crude-Oil Train Derailment
Feb 8, 2017 | Progressive Rail Roading
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) yesterday determined that a broken axle set off a series of actions that resulted in a BNSF Railway Co. train accident in which 476,000 gallons of crude oil spilled and ignited near Casselton, N.D., in late 2013.
The incident occurred Dec. 30, 2013, and involved a crude-oil train and a grain train. The board found that the chain of events for the accident began when the grain train derailed because of a broken axle on one of its cars. The second train, which was carrying crude oil on an adjacent track, was unable to stop in time before colliding with the derailed grain-train's cars, NTSB officials said in a press release.
The oil spilled from 18 of the 20 derailed DOT-111 tank cars, formed pools and caught fire. Other derailed tank cars eventually ruptured as the heat from the fire weakened the tank steel and increased the internal pressure until oil vapor erupted into fire balls.
Also yesterday, the board released this YouTube video of the accident.
There were no fatalities or serious injuries as a result of the accident. Nearly 1,500 people were evacuated from nearby homes, however, NTSB officials said.
NTSB investigators found a void in the middle of the grain-train car's axle, which was used previously on another train car. In response to the board's urgent safety recommendation on the matter, the Association of American Railroads has moved to require testing of secondhand-use axles.
The accident also raised additional concerns about the widely used DOT-111 cars. The NTSB has long had concerns about the cars, which have a "relatively thin" 7/16-inch shell thickness, are not puncture-resistant and lack thermal protection as well as top and bottom fittings protection. The board yesterday reiterated its call for quickly phasing out DOT-111 tank cars.
Since the accident, Congress and the U.S. Department of Transportationhave established requirements for the new, stronger DOT-117 tank car to replace the DOT-111 and its variants. The deadline for replacing the tank cars and its variants extends to 2029, however.
Although relatively few DOT-111s remain in crude-oil service, a vast fleet of them continues in service for ethanol and other flammable liquids, the board said.
"The fact remains that trains carrying flammable liquids in DOT-111 tank cars continue to roll through America's towns and cities," said NTSB Chairman Christopher Hart. "Progress toward removing or retrofitting DOT-111s has been too slow."
As part of its investigation into the accident, the NTSB also studied advanced brake systems. While their use in this instance would not have prevented the accident, "it may have mitigated the damage," NTSB board members said.
"In other scenarios, advanced brake systems have the potential to prevent train accidents altogether," they added.
Among its recommendations following the accident, the board suggested studying the use of additional "buffer" cars between locomotives and cars carrying hazardous materials to protect crews. The oil train in the Casselton accident had one buffer car between the locomotives and the cars carrying crude oil.
The NTSB's final report on the accident will be available later on ntsb.gov.
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/safety/news/NTSB-Defective-axle-led-to-Casselton-crude-oil-train-derailment--50800
-
Ex-Officials Try to Pitch Carbon Tax to GOP
Feb 8, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A team of Republican former high-ranking government officials is pitching the GOP on a carbon tax.
The group, which includes people such as former Secretary of State James Baker, former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulsen and former Secretary of State George Schultz, rolled out their plan Wednesday and are meeting with Trump White House officials on the proposal.
They’re pitching the idea as a “repeal and replace” plan, like what the GOP is attempting to do with ObamaCare.
The group of establishment Republicans, which calls itself the Climate Leadership Council, is urging President Trump and Congress to institute a carbon tax and simultaneously remove nearly all of former President Barack Obama’s climate change regulations, such as the Clean Power Plan.
Trump and the GOP plan to repeal those regulations anyway, though they do not intend to replace them with other climate policies.
The proposal got an early boost from former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who called it a “Thought-provoking plan from highly respected conservatives to both strengthen the economy & confront climate risks” on Twitter.
But while a carbon tax has long gotten strong support from economists and Democrats, it has rarely gotten very far among Republican policymakers.
Trump made it clear on the campaign trail that he never intends to support a carbon tax. And House Republicans last year passed a non-binding resolution to denounce the idea.
Nonetheless, the group of elder GOP statesmen think that their policy arguments can get traction.
“For too long, we Republicans and conservatives haven’t occupied a real place at the table during the debate about global climate change,” Baker, who led State under former President George H.W. Bush, told reporters Wednesday at an event with other leaders in the group.
“Instead, we intended to dispute the fact of climate change, and particularly, the extent to which man is responsible for any changes in the Earth’s climate.”
He framed a carbon tax as an “insurance policy” that even climate skeptics can get behind.
“And if we can get an insurance policy that is a conservative approach, based on the free market, that limits government, doesn’t expand government and that is competitive internationally, that’s a win-win, and we ought to take a look at it.”
Martin Feldstein, a top economic adviser to former President Ronald Reagan, said a key piece of the proposal is to give the tax revenue back to Americans as “dividends.”
“The practical problem with implementing a carbon tax is and has been political. No one wants to pay an extra tax,” he said.
“But combining that tax with a carbon dividend, which is the unique and most important feature of this proposal … means that most — indeed about two-thirds of American households, according to a study done by the staff of the Treasury — will receive more in carbon dividends than they pay indirectly in carbon taxes.”
Still, the members of the group know the odds are against them.
“We don’t have any preconceived notion about where they may come down on this,” Baker said of the White House and Congress. “We know we have an uphill slog to get Republicans interested in this.”
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/318486-gop-former-officials-pitch-carbon-tax-as-repeal-and-replace-for
-
Carbon Prices Rise in California's Cap-And-Trade Program as Legal Certainty Grows
Feb 8, 2017 | Forbes
By Chris Busch
California’s cap-and-trade program, which anchors North America’s largest carbon market, is starting 2017 on a strong note ahead of its first quarterly auction on February 22. The market has generated more than $4 billion in revenue for carbon emission reductions and, despite an uneven performance last year, is strengthening through rising prices as legal certainty over the program’s future takes shape.
Last year, the program’s second and third quarterly auctions posted weaker-than-average demand for carbon allowances, the currency of compliance under the program. Some observers interpreted the results as a carbon market in a tailspin, but this failed to see the forest from the trees.
Falling Emissions Reduced Allowance Demand
Several events accounted for the less-than-stellar performance of these auctions. First, California has progressed toward its 2020 emission reduction target much faster than anticipated due to the success of other state policies like efficiency standards for cars and buildings. Faster-than-expected technology innovation, as well as the 2008-2009 economic slowdown that hit after most program design occurred, also contributed to sub-par auction performance. These factors reduced emissions and thus demand for carbon allowances.
The first time 2016 auction demand was low, analysts did not widely recognize secondary market data provided advance indications of what was to come in advance of the weak auction results. Prices for allowance trading on the secondary market had remained consistently below the auction price floor—the minimum price the California Air Resources Board (CARB) will accept for allowances at auction—before each auction.
The same secondary market data, which reflects transactions between allowance holders and buyers outside of government-managed auctions, now indicate the rebound that started in the November 2016 quarterly auction will continue in February’s auction. Allowance prices have recently risen to a high of $13.80 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted — $0.26 above this year’s auction price floor— which could portend strong demand in the upcoming auction.
Increased Legal Certainty Over Cap-and-Trade Authority Spurring Demand
The jump in secondary market prices is attributable to growing legal certainty over cap-and-trade authority. On January 24, a state appeals court heard arguments over whether the state’s auctioning of carbon allowances should be considered a tax (the purpose of which is revenue) or a fee (the purpose of which is regulation).
On one side, a lawsuit by the California Chamber of Commerce contends the cap-and-trade program’s auctions should be deemed a tax on businesses. On the other side, CARB defended the auction revenue as fees. The deciding factor is whether or not the spending is closely tied to the purpose of the program.
California’s cap-and-trade program, which anchors North America’s largest carbon market, is starting 2017 on a strong note ahead of its first quarterly auction on February 22. The market has generated more than $4 billion in revenue for carbon emission reductions and, despite an uneven performance last year, is strengthening through rising prices as legal certainty over the program’s future takes shape.
Last year, the program’s second and third quarterly auctions posted weaker-than-average demand for carbon allowances, the currency of compliance under the program. Some observers interpreted the results as a carbon market in a tailspin, but this failed to see the forest from the trees.
Falling Emissions Reduced Allowance Demand
Several events accounted for the less-than-stellar performance of these auctions. First, California has progressed toward its 2020 emission reduction target much faster than anticipated due to the success of other state policies like efficiency standards for cars and buildings. Faster-than-expected technology innovation, as well as the 2008-2009 economic slowdown that hit after most program design occurred, also contributed to sub-par auction performance. These factors reduced emissions and thus demand for carbon allowances.
The first time 2016 auction demand was low, analysts did not widely recognize secondary market data provided advance indications of what was to come in advance of the weak auction results. Prices for allowance trading on the secondary market had remained consistently below the auction price floor—the minimum price the California Air Resources Board (CARB) will accept for allowances at auction—before each auction.
The same secondary market data, which reflects transactions between allowance holders and buyers outside of government-managed auctions, now indicate the rebound that started in the November 2016 quarterly auction will continue in February’s auction. Allowance prices have recently risen to a high of $13.80 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted — $0.26 above this year’s auction price floor— which could portend strong demand in the upcoming auction.
Increased Legal Certainty Over Cap-and-Trade Authority Spurring Demand
The jump in secondary market prices is attributable to growing legal certainty over cap-and-trade authority. On January 24, a state appeals court heard arguments over whether the state’s auctioning of carbon allowances should be considered a tax (the purpose of which is revenue) or a fee (the purpose of which is regulation).
On one side, a lawsuit by the California Chamber of Commerce contends the cap-and-trade program’s auctions should be deemed a tax on businesses. On the other side, CARB defended the auction revenue as fees. The deciding factor is whether or not the spending is closely tied to the purpose of the program.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2017/02/08/carbon-prices-rise-in-californias-cap-and-trade-program-as-legal-certainty-grows
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested