Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 3/14/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) APR Releases Details on Its 2017 Plastics Recycling Educational Webinar Series
Mar 14, 2017 | Recycling Today
By Staff
The Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR), Washington, has announced the topics for its 2017 Plastics Recycling Educational Webinar Series. -
Inhofe's Priorities Could Offer Clues to Pruitt's Budget
Mar 14, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
What environmental programs could U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt support this year? Fellow Oklahoman Sen. Jim Inhofe (R) may have some answers. -
White House Eyeing Even Deeper EPA Cuts: Report
Mar 14, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Trump administration is weighing even deeper cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency than previous versions of their budget outline suggested, according to a new report. -
Trump Considering Gas Export Advocate to Lead CEQ
Mar 14, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
President Trump is considering Bill Cooper, a House staffer with years of experience lobbying for gas export companies, to head the Council on Environmental Quality, according to sources. -
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Republicans Introduce Regulatory Reform Bills
Mar 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Republicans in the US Senate have introduced four bills that they say would improve the federal regulatory process through greater transparency and accountability. -
EPA Denies Flame Retardant Testing TSCA Petition
Mar 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has denied an NGO petition calling for mandatory testing of the widely used flame retardant tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA). -
Draining the Junk Science Swamp
Mar 14, 2017 | Science 2.0
By Angela Logomasini
President Trump’s says he came to Washington to “drain the swamp,” and now his administration is looking for wasteful programs to cut. A great start would be pulling the plug on numerous federal “research” programs that, frankly, have been captured by Washington special interests. -
REACH Animal Testing Demands 'Contradict' Cosmetics Regulation - NGOs
Mar 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Demands by Echa and the European Commission for animal testing under REACH of substances that can be used in cosmetics products “contradict” testing bans in the cosmetics Regulation, NGO Cruelty Free International (CFI) says. -
Methane From Power Plants Far Exceeds EPA Estimates — Study
Mar 14, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
A new study shows that estimates of how much methane escapes from natural gas-fired power plants and oil refineries could be much too low, pointing to pollution from leaky industrial hardware. -
New Reports Raise Health Concerns about Emissions from California’s Oil and Gas Industry
Mar 13, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Irene Burga
For decades communities in California who live close to oil and gas facilities have reported experiencing unbearable odors of gas, headaches, nausea, respiratory problems, and even cardiac complications as a result of the industry’s emissions. -
Carper Urges Pruitt to Retain GHG Risk Finding, Power Sector Rules
Mar 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
The top Democrat on the Senate environment committee is urging EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to retain the agency's landmark greenhouse gas endangerment finding and its power sector GHG rules, arguing that reports that Pruitt might target those measures are “deeply troubling.” -
Waiting Game Continues for Clean Power Plan Order
Mar 14, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
The wait is on for President Trump's expected move to begin dismantling a major Obama-era climate rule. -
FERC's Quorum Problem Opens New Lines of Attack
Mar 14, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Federal regulators last month rushed to issue environmental decisions on major pipeline projects before their agency fell into a legal limbo, but their hustle has opened those projects to charges that they have not been fully vetted. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Heeds Industry Concerns, Freezes Safety Regs
Mar 14, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has frozen implementation of updated safety regulations for thousands of chemical plants, oil refineries and other industrial facilities, saying the delay is needed to consider an industry coalition's petition to scrap the new rules. -
EPA to Reconsider Chemical Plant Safety Rule
Mar 14, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Scott Pruitt on Monday delayed a safety rule for chemical plants and kicked off a formal process to consider repealing it. -
Sources of Cyberattacks Confound Energy Companies
Mar 14, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Last April, hackers locked up computer files at a small utility in Michigan and held the key hostage. -
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Hits Record Levels
Mar 14, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased at an unprecedented pace in the last two years, even as Trump administration officials discount the relevance of a number that many climate scientists find deeply disturbing. -
Chamber Sues EPA Over Haze Program Changes
Mar 14, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is suing U.S. EPA to overturn recent changes to the agency's regional haze program. -
Judge Sets Three-Year Deadline for EPA to Review 20 Air Toxics Rules
Mar 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
A federal district court is ordering EPA to within three years complete reviews of existing air toxics rules for 20 industrial sectors and determine whether to revise them, siding with environmentalists in a lawsuit that argued the agency is many years overdue on meeting Clean Air Act deadlines for assessing whether the rules are adequate.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) APR Releases Details on Its 2017 Plastics Recycling Educational Webinar Series
Mar 14, 2017 | Recycling Today
By Staff
The Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR), Washington, has announced the topics for its 2017 Plastics Recycling Educational Webinar Series.
The first webinar in the series, APR Plastics Recycling Showcase: Celebrating Innovations That Support the Growth of Plastics Recycling, is scheduled for Tuesday, March 21, at 1 p.m. EST. APR says it consistently seeks to recognize and promote innovations that enhance the recyclability of a new or existing package or container. This webinar will provide information about each of the 2017 APR Plastics Recycling Showcase Innovations:
The AMUT de-labeler for polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottle wash lines;
Avery Dennison’s CleanFlake adhesive technology;
Berry Plastics laminate postconsumer resin (PCR) tube;
The Dow Chemical Co.’s RETAIN novel polymer modifiers;
Ettlinger’s ECO continuous melt filter for pet extrusion; and
The Lush Black Pot: the first FDA PP PCR (postconsumer recycled) resin and rigid packaging application for cosmetics developed by KW Plastics.
Click here to register.
Recycling Rigid Plastics Beyond Bottles: Resources to Encourage MRFs and Municipalities to Expand Collection looks at a variety of topics over three webinars:
Nonbottle Containers, Tuesday, May 2, at 1 p.m. EST (register here);
Caps on Bottles and Containers, Tuesday, June 20, at 1 p.m. EST (register here); and
Residential Bulky Rigid Plastics, Tuesday, Aug. 1, at 1 p.m. EST (register here).
Since 2009 APR has conducted a survey to evaluate each state’s largest municipality’s residential plastics collection programs. Of those 51 cities (Washington is included in the survey), only five have bottles only collection programs. The growing trend continues to be recycling rigid plastics beyond bottles.
The APR says it strives to expand the recycling of plastic material through the development of resources to support state and local solid waste management and recycling officials to enhance their collection programs, increase the amount of material collected by those programs and add value to the bottom line. The webinars above provide an overview of each of the toolkits resources to support recycling rigid plastics beyond bottles, including: success stories, market information, education, flowcharts and videos, remanufacturing information and frequently asked questions.
The APR’s Recycling Rigid Plastics Beyond Bottles Toolkits can be accessed at http://plasticsrecycling.org/recycling-beyond-bottles.
Scheduled for Tuesday, Sept. 19, at 1 p.m. EST is the The APR Design Guide & The How2Recycle Label: A Partnership to Expand and Improve Plastics Recycling webinar.
How2Recycle is a standardized labeling system that provides specific instructions to consumers directly on packaging regarding whether a container is recyclable, not yet recyclable or if the consumer should check if their local collection programs accept the material.
Each How2Recycle Label is based on the most current recyclability data available, as well as critical technical insights from Association of Plastic Recyclers and the APR Design Guide for Plastics Recyclability. This webinar provides an overview outlining how brand companies can acquire the label for their products, how the program defines recyclable and how APR and The How2Recycle are working together to expand the effort to include more products into this valuable consumer education labeling system.
Click here to register.
The webinar 2016 National Postconsumer Plastics Bottle Recycling Rate Report Overview is scheduled for Tuesday, Nov. 7, at 1 p.m. EST.
The “2016 National Postconsumer Plastics Bottle Recycling Rate Report,” a collaborative effort of APR and the American Chemistry Council (ACC), quantifies the amount of high density polyethylene (HDPE) and polypropylene (PP) bottles collected for recycling, as well as the rate of recycling of those bottles. This study also includes postconsumer recycling values and comments for PET. This webinar will serve as an executive summary, featuring data and analyses from the report. It also will include data from the “Report on Postconsumer PET Container Recycling Activity in 2016,” a collaborative effort of APR and the National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR). Both reports will be available on the APR website once publicly released.
http://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/apr-2017-plastics-recycling-education-webinars/
-
Inhofe's Priorities Could Offer Clues to Pruitt's Budget
Mar 14, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
What environmental programs could U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt support this year? Fellow Oklahoman Sen. Jim Inhofe (R) may have some answers.
The former Senate Environment and Public Works Committee chairman could be well-positioned to see some of his environmental priorities come to fruition under the Trump administration. Not only are there a Republican in the White House and Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, but Inhofe also claims Pruitt as a close personal friend. Moreover, the senator's former staffers are scattered across the Trump administration, including at EPA.
Ryan Jackson, a former staff director at the EPW Committee, is now Pruitt's chief of staff. George Sugiyama, the panel's former chief counsel, is a political staffer at EPA. And Andrew Wheeler, a longtime D.C. insider and Inhofe's former chief counsel, is under consideration to be Pruitt's deputy administrator (Greenwire, Feb. 27). This week, sources say, Mandy Gunasekara, majority counsel on the EPW Committee, is coming to the agency to serve as a senior policy adviser to the EPA administrator (Greenwire, March 13).
While it isn't clear how much Inhofe or his former staffers will champion the Oklahoma lawmaker's specific proposals — or even how much the administration will listen — Inhofe's record could offer hints about the direction EPA will take in the coming years. Here are a few possibilities based on Inhofe's budget priorities for EPA over the past decade:
1. Cutting climate change funding
By now, this one is somewhat obvious. Climate change has already been a major target under the Trump administration, with proposed budget cuts zeroing out funding for climate voluntary programs, including the popular Energy Star program (Climatewire, March 6).
Inhofe is well-known for his critiques of climate science, and his views seem to line up with those of the White House and the new EPA administrator. Last week, Pruitt even said he does not believe carbon dioxide is the main contributor to climate change.
Attacking climate change funding at EPA has been a longtime goal of Inhofe's, and he has emphasized the need to return EPA to its core mission of protecting clean air and clean water, a talking point Pruitt has frequently repeated.
During last year's budget hearing, Inhofe criticized the administration's proposal to increase the agency's budget by $87 million, which included more than $50 million in funding for implementing the Clean Power Plan.
"EPA has at times been distracted from fulfilling its core missions due to the Obama administration's single-minded focus on remaking EPA into an agency that regulates climate change and the energy sector," Inhofe said.
The senator has suggested that the best approach to rolling back EPA's greenhouse gas regulatory regime would be through the creation of an authorization bill like the "Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011," which he brought to the Senate with Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.).
"This bill puts Congress in charge of deciding our nation's climate change policy, not EPA bureaucrats. And it will keep our focus on reducing real pollution, ensure people have jobs and allow our economy to grow," Inhofe said at the time.
A similar bill sponsored by Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.), the "Stopping EPA Overreach Act," has been introduced in the House.
2. Clean Water State Revolving Fund and regional water programs
Pruitt has stated that he would prioritize clean water as EPA administrator, and one way he might do that is by supporting the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which helps states finance water quality infrastructure projects ranging from building municipal wastewater facilities to creating green infrastructure and protecting estuaries.
The fund has strong bipartisan support, including from Inhofe, who has mentioned its importance more than once during EPA's annual budget hearings.
Inhofe has repeatedly pointed out that the fund is often a target for steep budget cuts that are then quickly reversed by Congress, so that few changes are actually made to EPA's overall budget. During the budget proposal committee hearing for fiscal 2008, he noted that nearly $400 million of the $500 million in cuts to EPA's budget came from the state revolving fund.
"My criticism is twofold: The programs are important and shouldn't be cut, and the administration knows that in most cases, Congress won't follow these cuts," Inhofe said.
Instead, Inhofe advocated getting rid of voluntary programs EPA had developed but that Congress had not authorized, as well as funding for international grants.
"While these programs may not add up to much money, they are a good starting point," Inhofe said.
3. Brownfield and Superfund site cleanup
Though Pruitt has shared few details about his plans for EPA so far, he has publicly expressed support for focusing attention on Superfund sites — uncontrolled or abandoned areas contaminated with toxic or hazardous substances, where the federal government is leading cleanup efforts. Last week, he also mentioned the need to remediate brownfield sites, contaminated properties where states or tribes typically lead cleanup.
That would come as no surprise to those who had followed Inhofe's policies. During the George W. Bush and early Obama administrations, the Oklahoma senator repeatedly called remediation of the Tar Creek Superfund site in Oklahoma one of his top priorities. The site was contaminated with lead and zinc by mining companies.
Inhofe has also expressed support for brownfield cleanup. This, too, has bipartisan support but may be a significant target under the Trump administration. Jackson, Pruitt's new chief of staff, also worked closely with the brownfields program, according to a former Capitol Hill staffer.
A leaked budget outline developed by the White House Office of Management and Budget suggests EPA should zero out funding for brownfield projects, a potential point of conflict with Inhofe's environmental priorities.
4. Particulate matter and reducing diesel emissions
The Oklahoma senator has a history of supporting clean diesel legislation. Most recently in 2016, he joined Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) in co-sponsoring the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, which authorized EPA to provide grants, rebates or loans for retrofitting or replacing engines in diesel vehicles or fleets.
He has also supported clean diesel grant program funding in 2009, which "significantly improves air quality for a fraction of the cost of trying to achieve reductions through regulatory mandates."
One of the main pollutants from diesel engines is particulate matter, or soot, which is linked to a number of health problems, including respiratory and cardiovascular disease and premature death.
Inhofe has referred to particulate matter as "real pollution" as opposed to carbon dioxide, which he said is "not a pollutant — despite what EPA says."
He has called for an improved monitoring network for particulate matter, which would reduce "unnecessary burden on the regulated community" in addition to providing improved health benefits.
The budget proposal outline also recommends zeroing out funds for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act.
5. Controlling toxic substances
The Oklahoma senator co-sponsored a reform bill to update the Toxic Substances Control Act. The changes included requiring that EPA evaluate existing chemicals with enforceable deadlines and creating a new safety standard.
Late last year, Inhofe was among a bipartisan group of senators who sent a letter to the Trump transition team urging it to continue work on implementing the chemical safety reforms (E&E Daily, Dec. 1, 2016).
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/03/14/stories/1060051416
-
White House Eyeing Even Deeper EPA Cuts: Report
Mar 14, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Trump administration is weighing even deeper cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency than previous versions of their budget outline suggested, according to a new report.
The EPA and agency chief Scott Pruitt did not fight the 25 percent cut the White House proposed in its first budget draft last month, Axios reportedTuesday, and officials are now considering cutting the agency’s $8.1 billion budget even further.
In talks with the administration, Pruitt only fought proposed cuts to the agency’s clean-up budget, something he told a group of mayors earlier this month he would do.
Instead, the ax looks set to fall hardest on EPA's climate change programs, with the staff there expected to leave the agency. Pruitt has repeatedly challenged the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, saying he doesn't believe carbon-dioxide is a major factor driving it.
"[EPA employees] just have to deal with it, because this was coming," one person told Axios.
But given Pruitt's acceptance of the rest of Trump’s budget plan, the administration is looking to cut the agency’s budget and its regulatory programs even deeper than before, according to the report.
An EPA official did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Trump’s EPA budget proposal is likely to run into opposition in Congress.
Even though Republicans have roundly criticized the agency’s regulatory work, Trump has proposed cuts to EPA programs that many lawmakers support.
Key House appropriators this month said they were uneasy with the depth of the cuts proposed for the agency. The GOP has cut the agency’s budget by about 20 percent since taking control of the House in 2011, but it's never proposed a one-year cut as deep as the one pitched by the White House.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/323874-report-white-house-eyeing-even-deeper-epa-cuts
-
Trump Considering Gas Export Advocate to Lead CEQ
Mar 14, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
President Trump is considering Bill Cooper, a House staffer with years of experience lobbying for gas export companies, to head the Council on Environmental Quality, according to sources.
The job could be among the most powerful environmental jobs in government, yet it remains to be seen what role the CEQ will play in the Trump administration.
Cooper is staff director for the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. Before joining the committee in 2015, he served as president of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas and filled a number of roles in the private and public sector.
Also rumored to be in the running for the job are former Texas regulator Kathleen Hartnett White, now working at the conservative think tank Texas Public Policy Foundation, and Marty Hall, who was CEQ's chief of staff during the George W. Bush administration.
White's name has long been mentioned, and she's being advocated by coal industry executives and members of conservative think tanks (Greenwire, Feb. 9).
Politico first reported the White House's consideration of Cooper this morning.
Cooper would be well-suited to play a role at CEQ should Trump decide to use the agency to advance new infrastructure.
He has nearly three decades of experience in different aspects of the energy industry, including a stint as a partner at the law office of Hunton & Williams LLP.
Cooper also served as counsel to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He helped draft and negotiate the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 and was a lead negotiator for the House on several provisions of the national energy policy bills in the 107th and 108th Congresses, according to his online bio.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/03/14/stories/1060051445
-
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Republicans Introduce Regulatory Reform Bills
Mar 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Republicans in the US Senate have introduced four bills that they say would improve the federal regulatory process through greater transparency and accountability.
James Lankford (R-Oklahoma), chairman of the US Senate Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management, introduced the four measures. They are:
the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2017 (S577), which would require agencies to provide a 100-word plain language summary with each general notice of proposed rulemaking;
the Better Evaluation of Science and Technology (BEST) Act (S578), which would amend the Administrative Procedure Act to apply the same scientific standards found in the revised TSCA to the entire federal government;
the Truth in Regulations Act of 2017 (S580), which attempts to end “agency abuse of guidance documents” by clearly outlining what information may or may not be included; and
the Early Participation in Regulations Act of 2017 (S579), which would require agencies to publish an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register for major rules, at least 90 days before publishing its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, with a few exceptions.
The latter also would require agencies to hold the comment period open for 60 days and include a written statement with the ANPRM that identifies the significance of the problem the rule seeks to address, legal authority for writing it, and the specific desired measurement to determine success.
The Administrative Procedure Act does not currently require ANPRMs.
Mr Lankford introduced a version of this bill in 2016 as well.
He said that the package of bills would result in better regulation and more efficient rulemaking, by “requiring earlier public engagement for proposed rules, curbing the abuse of agency guidance documents, and forcing agencies to analyse the total impact regulations have on small businesses.”
The bills come days after Lamar Smith (R-Texas) introduced two bills in the House to improve the use of science in the regulatory process. These have since passed committee.
In January, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said the Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA), which passed the House on 11 January, had the potential to “make the regulatory process more transparent [and] agencies more accountable for their decisions”.
However, NGOs have raised concern that regulatory reform measures could interfere with the implementation of TSCA.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54409/senate-republicans-introduce-regulatory-reform-bills
-
EPA Denies Flame Retardant Testing TSCA Petition
Mar 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has denied an NGO petition calling for mandatory testing of the widely used flame retardant tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA).
Filed under section 21 of TSCA, the petition had requested that the EPA order a variety of hazard and exposure testing on the work plan chemical. But the agency said it will not grant the request on the grounds that petitioners “have not demonstrated there is insufficient data on this chemical, and thus that the specific testing they requested is necessary.”
The petition was filed on 13 December by Earthjustice, the Natural Resources Defense Council and five other NGOs.
Under the reformed TSCA, petitioners can request EPA to require section 4 testing if they can demonstrate that:
information is insufficient to permit "a reasoned evaluation" of a substance's health and environmental effects; and
in the absence of such information, that the chemical may present an unreasonable risk, will enter the environment in substantial quantities, or is anticipated to result in significant human exposure.
The petitioners asserted there is insufficient information on TBBPA, based on the TSCA problem formulation – a process to decide if available data and current assessment approaches and tools will support the assessments – and initial assessment the EPA published in 2015 under the old TSCA.
They sought mandated testing to fill the assessment's data gaps for several types of exposures to communities and workers, as well as hazard endpoints like developmental and reproductive toxicity, endocrine disruption and genotoxic effects.
The petitioners also urged the agency to delay conducting a full assessment on the substance, under the risk evaluation provisions mandated by the new TSCA, until such data had been gathered.
EPA reasoning
In its response, the EPA agreed that TBBPA may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. It also agreed that the problem formulation and initial assessment were not comprehensive in scope.
But it said that TSCA work plan evaluations were not intended to be comprehensive, as risk evaluations under the new TSCA will be required to be. Thus, it said, a policy decision under the pre-amended TSCA not to evaluate a particular use, hazard, or exposure pathway “does not necessarily indicate, at this time, that EPA will need to require testing in order to proceed to risk evaluation.”
And it said that it did not find that the petitioners demonstrated, for each exposure pathway and hazard endpoint presented in the petition, that the existing information is “insufficient to reasonably determine or predict the effects on health or the environment from uses of TBBPA”. Nor did it find that the specific testing they identified is necessary to develop such information.
The agency’s 56-page response details its findings for each of the NGOs' named hazard endpoints and exposure pathways.
The NRDC and Earthjustice told Chemical Watch that it is still reviewing the EPA’s denial, but that its detailed response highlights the importance of comprehensively assessing the risks.
“EPA acknowledges that this flame retardant chemical, widely used in our everyday electronics, may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment,” said the NGOs.
“We look forward to working with EPA to ensure that the public is protected from this cancer-causing chemical.”
From this July, the sale of children's products and residential upholstered furniture containing 'additive TBBPA' – a form that has not undergone a reactive process and is not covalently bonded to a polymer in a product or product component – will be banned in Washington state because the state says the substance is persistent, bioaccummulative and toxic (PBT), is linked to kidney toxicity and it affects thyroid hormones.
The Danish Environmental Protection Agency is evaluating the potential hazards of TBBPA and says it is a potential endocrine disruptor and suspected PBT.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54404/epa-denies-flame-retardant-testing-tsca-petition
-
Draining the Junk Science Swamp
Mar 14, 2017 | Science 2.0
By Angela Logomasini
President Trump’s says he came to Washington to “drain the swamp,” and now his administration is looking for wasteful programs to cut. A great start would be pulling the plug on numerous federal “research” programs that, frankly, have been captured by Washington special interests.
In fact, much of taxpayer-funded research serves ideological agendas—especially environmental activism—at the expensive of legitimate scientific inquiry. Consider a few examples.
Housed within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is one of the most activist governmental entities: the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). Unlike medical research focused on finding cures for diseases and cancer, NIEHS studies phantom risks associated with trace chemical exposures, with a strong bias against private enterprise and chemical technologies.
A glaring example is NIEHS’s program related to the chemical Bisphenol A (BPA), which is used to make hard, clear plastics and resins that line food cans to prevent rust and the development of pathogens in food. Used safely for decades, BPA has been studied extensively by numerous research bodies around the world, which have deemed current uses safe. And it has enormous value in securing a safe food supply and improving public health thanks to its use in medical devices, among other things.
Yet during the past couple of decades, activist groups have targeted BPA, alleging a host of health risks based on small, often poorly designed and inconclusive studies that report weak associations between BPA and various health problems. Because activists were able to generate alarming headlines, Congress poured millions of dollars into research. The NIH doled out $172.7 million for BPA research grants between 2000 and 2014, according to a tally compiled by Citizens against Government Waste.
NIESH funneled much of that money to support activist science. In fact, NIEHS helped orchestrate a campaign to direct research dollars to anti-BPA researchers by cosponsoring a conference in 2007 with other government agencies and the left-of-center group Commonweal. Researchers met in Chapel Hill, N.C., where they developed what became known as the “Chapel Hill Consensus Statement,” which called for more funding of BPA research because participants claimed BPA likely posed serious health risks. Among the attendees was then-EPA employee Linda Birnbaum, who was appointed as the NIESH director in 2009.
Although organized and attended by a self-selected group of mostly anti-BPA activists, the participants marketed the meeting as an independent scientific review that demonstrated the need for more BPA research. Birnbaum noted in a December 2012 article for Environmental Health Perspectives that the “impetus” for NIEHS’s extensive BPA research funding was this “workshop” involving 38 “experts” in BPA science. Notably, more than half of the Chapel Hill Consensus contributors have received NIEHS grants to study BPA.
Many NIEHS research BPA grants have produced more small-scale studies with generally weak findings that weigh little when considering the larger body of research. And many of the authors refuse to follow good laboratory practices to ensure quality controls and transparency. Not surprisingly, these studies have generated more needlessly alarming headlines about alleged BPA risks, causing manufacturers to look for BPA alternatives and prompting lawmakers to introduce legislation to ban the chemical. As a result, the valuable life-saving and life-enhancing applications of BPA could be at risk as a result of NIESH-funded junk science promoting heavy-handed BPA regulation and market deselection.
Another program suitable for the scrap heap is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), part of the agency’s $750 million Science and Technology budget. Housed within the EPA’s Office of Research and Development, IRIS produces chemical risk assessments to identify potential health hazards that other agency programs use to set standards for drinking water, hazardous waste cleanups and air quality.
Reforming how IRIS conducts its business was a topic of discussion at recent congressional hearings to “Make EPA Great Again,” but the IRIS program has never been great. IRIS has consistently failed to meet even the most basic scientific standards. It tends to exaggerate chemical risks to increase the agency’s regulatory power, needlessly raising the costs of regulations based on these assessments.
For nearly a decade, congressional oversight committees, the Government Accountability Office and the National Research Council (NRC) have all urged the EPA to reform IRIS to address serious scientific and procedural deficiencies. A 2011 NRC review of the IRIS assessment for formaldehyde noted “recurring methodologic problems” that were “similar to those which have been reported over the last decade by other NRC committees.” It also noted that the assessment included “[p]roblems with clarity and transparency of the methods” that “appear to be a repeating theme over the years.” The committee provided advice on ways to reform the system, but problems persist.
The Trump EPA should eliminate IRIS, which could be done administratively, since the agency created the program in 1985 without any congressional mandate. Now is a good time to act. Last year Congress passed and President Obama signed a law reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which means necessary chemical research should be performed within the TSCA program and the scientific guidelines Congress established under that law.
Another counterproductive program that belongs on the chopping block is the EPA’s Safer Choice program (formerly called Design for the Environment). Like IRIS, Safer Choice is a non-regulatory program that has significant public policy and marketplace impacts. It calls on companies to eliminate certain chemicals from their products voluntarily, largely based on hazard rather than actual risk. “Hazard” represents the potential for danger given specific circumstances or exposures. For example, water is hazardous because excessive consumption can produce fatal “water intoxication” or hyponatremia. But we don’t need to ban or “voluntarily” phase out water.
Accordingly, Safer Choice pressures companies to phase out chemicals for no good reason, leading to expensive product reformulations that may produce less effective products.
The president and Congress should seize the opportunity to dismantle this quagmire of government-funded activist science. Not only are these programs a waste of taxpayer dollars, they can drive policy debates and produce costly and unhelpful regulations that hinder economic growth and human well-being.
http://www.science20.com/angela_logomasini/draining_the_junk_science_swamp-224971
-
REACH Animal Testing Demands 'Contradict' Cosmetics Regulation - NGOs
Mar 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Demands by Echa and the European Commission for animal testing under REACH of substances that can be used in cosmetics products “contradict” testing bans in the cosmetics Regulation, NGO Cruelty Free International (CFI) says.
The “policy intent” when REACH was drafted was that substances used in cosmetics would not be animal tested, so as not to fall foul of Cosmetics Regulation bans, CFI says in its comments on the European Commission’s second REACH Review.
But the agency and the Commission are “continuing to demand” the testing and the public is “being misled”, the NGO says.
It has raised the issue of this “inconsistency” between the two regulations on numerous occasions, it says, but it is still “largely ignored”.
In October 2014, Echa and the Commission put out a statement clarifying the animal testing ban under REACH. At the time, NGOs said the clarification meant that tests for worker safety are “identical” to those for consumer safety and it is “all too easy for companies to label a test as being for worker safety and thereby sidestep the bans”.
Commenting on the REACH Review, the UK branch of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) said the regulation is “failing catastrophically” in its aim to promote the use of alternatives to testing on animals.
The Commission must seize the REACH Review as an opportunity to accept cutting-edge technologies and become a global leader in non-animal testing, Peta told Chemical Watch.
"The prioritisation of arbitrary deadlines over animal lives, the reluctance to accept non-animal methods and the demand for testing cosmetics ingredients means that the requirement to use animals as a last resort is often not enforced," Dr Julia Baines, science policy adviser for Peta UK, says.
CFI says authorities are relying on registrants to avoid unnecessary testing, but companies have limited time to consider other options while only a few EU member states are proactively engaged in identifying unnecessary testing, it adds.
"Unnecessary testing can be requested simply because Echa acted primarily as administrator, the registrant did not engage in the process and neither did the member states," CFI says.
Limited responsibility is taken for ensuring validated methods are implemented as rapidly as possible, and while Echa has made good progress in the past two years it is still "very conservative" in its approach towards alternative methods, it adds.
A recent study from the Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) said greater sharing of existing knowledge is needed for non-animal testing programmes. Meanwhile, some EU member states includingSweden and the Netherlands are developing their own strategies to phase out animal testing.
Ombudsman complaint
A coalition of leading European animal protection organisations (ECEAE), which includes CFI, has complained to the European ombudsman about Echa's “refusal” to reject testing proposals where an alternative approach could be used.
ECEAE is challenging the agency’s adopted policy to reject animal testing only if the data is already available or not required at a specific tonnage.
Although in 2015 the ombudsman ruled in favour of the NGOs, the coalition claims Echa is implementing the decision "not in the way it was intended", according to Dr Katy Taylor, the coalition's senior science adviser.
A further response from the ombudsman is expected on 20 March.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54410/reach-animal-testing-demands-contradict-cosmetics-regulation-ngos
-
Methane From Power Plants Far Exceeds EPA Estimates — Study
Mar 14, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
A new study shows that estimates of how much methane escapes from natural gas-fired power plants and oil refineries could be much too low, pointing to pollution from leaky industrial hardware.
Researchers from Purdue University estimated that emissions from power plants fueled by natural gas could be 21 to 120 times higher than figures in U.S. EPA's most recent final greenhouse gas inventory. For oil refineries, emissions may be 11 to 90 times higher than EPA estimates.
The study was published yesterday by the journal Environmental Science & Technology.
The team used Purdue's flying atmospheric chemistry lab — a Beechcraft Duchess light twin-engine airplane equipped with an airflow measurement probe — to collect daily samples at three natural gas power plants and three refineries from July 30 to Oct. 1, 2015.
"Our objective was to collect reliable data to compare to the inventories," said Paul Shepson, director of Purdue's Climate Change Research Center.
EPA's greenhouse gas reporting program focuses on how much escapes from belching power stacks, without considering that methane could be leaking from compressors, valves and industrial hardware, Shepson explained.
"The good news from our study is that while emissions are greater than anticipated, natural gas-burning power plants are still cleaner, relative to burning coal," Shepson said.
The amount of methane escaping from the plants in the pilot study, combined with previous estimates of methane leakage in the supply chain, is still below the "breaking point" at which it would cancel out the positive climate impacts of switching from coal to natural gas, Shepson explained.
The study was conducted in collaboration with the Environmental Defense Fund, with funding provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. Researchers hope to form a partnership with utilities, offering their sophisticated measurement techniques to understand more about which components may be leaking.
"More measurements are needed to better understand the methane emissions from these sectors," said Joseph Rudek, a lead senior scientist at EDF and a co-author of the paper.
EPA did not respond to an inquiry about the study.
Shepson stressed in an interview today that he never wants to be critical of EPA and thinks the work the agency does is valuable and important. With the study, Shepson said, he hopes to contribute to the conversation around how to protect air quality and "make some positive headway" on climate change.
EPA published its draft greenhouse gas inventory last month, showing that total U.S. emissions declined 2.2 percent between 2014 and 2015, spurred by changes in the power sector (Greenwire, Feb. 14).
According to the draft version, natural gas systems in 2015 emitted a total of 166.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, down from 176.1 million metric tons in 2014 and 175.6 million metric tons in 2013.
Methane emissions resulted primarily from domestic livestock, EPA said.
Last year, the oil and gas industry accused EPA of playing politics with its estimates in an attempt to justify new methane rules for the sector (E&E News PM, April 19, 2016).
Seth Whitehead, a researcher for the industry group Energy in Depth, today stressed that study after study has shown that the transition to natural gas has dramatically reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
"Even if this study's methane emission estimates are correct, they show that emissions from power plants and refineries are still negligible and would account for just 0.09 percent of total 2014 methane emissions," Whitehead said.
"It is also important to understand the limitations and flaws that the authors highlighted," he added. "They note that there were 'high uncertainties' in the emission estimates for two of the three natural gas power plants studied and that this study includes only 'preliminary estimates,' which were collected during peak operating hours at these facilities, suggesting the estimates may be overstated."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/03/14/stories/1060051443
-
New Reports Raise Health Concerns about Emissions from California’s Oil and Gas Industry
Mar 13, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Irene Burga
For decades communities in California who live close to oil and gas facilities have reported experiencing unbearable odors of gas, headaches, nausea, respiratory problems, and even cardiac complications as a result of the industry’s emissions. The health impacts of oil and gas pollution were made crystal clear last year after a massive gas leak at a Southern California storage facility led to mass hospitalizations and forced hundreds of families to evacuate their homes.
But massive gas leaks like the one at Aliso Canyon aren’t the only cause for alarm. A string of new reports confirm what many concerned communities have known for years: oil and gas emissions from across the entire supply chain can wreak havoc on our health, and are often higher than experts previously thought.
Toxic chemicals, many sources
One report from the California Air Resource Board (CARB) looked at data collected from 39 different production facilities across the state. Of the 211 different gas leaks recorded, nearly half of them included the cancer-causing chemical benzene. According to the Centers for Disease Control, chronic exposure to this toxic carcinogen can also cause leukemia, blood disorders and reproductive problems. High levels can affect the central nervous system and even lead to death. While it is unclear from the report whether the leaks occurred near residential areas, the frequency at which toxic chemicals were measured is concerning.
This is not solely a problem at production facilities. A separate CARB study focused on emissions from the ponds where drillers store wastewater that comes from oil extraction. According to the report, some California wastewater ponds emit substantial levels of toxic air contaminants like benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene. This is problematic given that California allows some of this wastewater to be directly injected into aquifers that millions of Californians rely on for drinking water.
Emissions are higher than we thought
Not only are researchers finding toxic emissions coming from all segments of the supply chain, they are also measuring emissions at higher levels than previously estimated.
In one recent study, methane emissions from three different refineries were anywhere from 11 to 90 times higher than what had been reported to the federal government. In another study the South Coast Air Quality Management District conducted mobile monitoring around six different refineries and crude oil processing facilities in the South Coast air basin in 2016. In the study, they measured smog-forming pollutants at levels that were up to 12 times greater than what refineries reported to local officials. Smog and other types of air pollution reportedly kill more than 5.5 million people a year. These higher-than-expected levels of pollution not only threaten public health, it also verifies that the manner in which emissions have been reported may be inadequate and misleading.
Additionally, a 2017 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study found that methane emissions in California’s Bay Area are approximately twice as high as previously believed. While, not a direct threat to our health, this is particularly troubling news for our climate since methane is responsible for about a quarter of current global warming.
Emissions from transmission and distribution pipelines, as well as natural gas storage facilities, also are higher than previously reported according to a report commissioned by CARB and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The report finds that methane emissions increased 70% from 2014 to 2015 – most likely due to better reporting requirements and the use of new technology to find gas leaks that had been persisting all along.
Using the data to deliver results through smart regulations
California has made good faith efforts to try to fight dangerous emissions. The state’s signature climate legislation, SB 32 and its predecessor AB 32, aims to reduce 40% of California’s climate pollution by the year 2030, and part of that plan includes recommendations for oil and gas utilities to reduce emissions from leaky pipelines. According to CARB’s Scoping Plan, refineries may also be required to reduce emissions by 20%.
This progress is promising but there is more to do, especially since the impacts of runaway emissions can persist over time. Case in point: months after the Aliso Canyon leak was plugged, researchers detected trace levels of benzene, toluene and xylene in the air. Researchers also found traces of barium in the dust at homes near the leak. When combined, these chemicals may have produced symptoms like headaches, nausea, and nose-bleeds reported months after the incident occurred.
The fact that we continue to find toxic pollutants with such frequency near oil and gas facilities should be an alarm bell to the leaders in Congress who are trying to strip away protections that could directly benefit public health. It should also signal to CARB and the CPUC the need to finalize strong policies that reduce methane emissions and co-pollutants like benzene from the vast majority of oil and gas facilities and pipelines across the state. We’ve seen the data, now we must put it to work.
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2017/03/13/new-reports-raise-health-concerns-about-emissions-from-californias-oil-and-gas-industry/
-
Carper Urges Pruitt to Retain GHG Risk Finding, Power Sector Rules
Mar 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
The top Democrat on the Senate environment committee is urging EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to retain the agency's landmark greenhouse gas endangerment finding and its power sector GHG rules, arguing that reports that Pruitt might target those measures are “deeply troubling.”
A March 13 letter to Pruitt from Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the ranking member on the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, also says he was “deeply disappointed” to hear Pruitt's recent remarks that carbon dioxide is not a “primary contributor” to climate change.
That statement “is scientifically false and is in direct contradiction to your responses to scores of questions asked in the hearing and for the record by Democratic senators during your confirmation process.”
The bulk of Carper's letter defends mainstream conclusions about human-caused climate change, as well as EPA's 2009 finding that CO2 and five other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.
Carper also notes that Pruitt, during his confirmation hearing, said that finding means EPA has an obligation to regulate CO2 and that he did not know of anything that would cause a review of the finding.
“Statements like these clearly led me and others to believe that you would carry out your duties as EPA Administrator in accordance with both the Endangerment Finding and with the general views of the scientific community,” Carper says.
Despite Pruitt's March 9 comments on CO2 -- which signaled an aggressive move to target climate regulations -- Carper urges the administrator to “reject calls” to roll back the endangerment finding, as well as EPA's signature GHG rules for existing and new power plants.
“Ignoring climate change, or the science underpinning it, will not make it go away,” he writes. “Instead, it will only make solving the problem even more difficult and expensive.”
https://insideepa.com/the-daily-feed
-
Waiting Game Continues for Clean Power Plan Order
Mar 14, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
The wait is on for President Trump's expected move to begin dismantling a major Obama-era climate rule.
Trump was expected to sign off today on an order directing U.S. EPA to repeal the so-called Clean Power Plan rule to slash power plants' greenhouse gas emissions, but the order appears to have been delayed yet again.
A White House official today said there are no announcements to make regarding the timing of Trump's directive.
Both the timing and the rumored contents of the order have been in flux. The administration had planned to release the order last week but pushed back its plans.
Some stakeholders expect Trump to issue a broad order to topple several major energy policies, including the Clean Power Plan, a related rule to curb new power plants' emissions, the Obama-era moratorium on coal leasing on federal lands and potentially other policies.
Others are expecting the Clean Power Plan to be tacked onto a narrower directive that zeros in on the power plant rule.
Supporters and foes of the Obama-era rule are eager to see the contents of Trump's directive, which won't come as a surprise. Trump made the repeal of the climate change rule one of his top energy priorities, and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt helped lead the lawsuit challenging the regulation during his tenure as Oklahoma's Republican attorney general.
It still seems possible that the climate order could come this week, although much of Trump's schedule today is devoted to health care discussions. He is slated to talk about overhauling President Obama's health care plan this afternoon with Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price and top House Republicans.
Energy and climate issues are on Trump's agenda for tomorrow, however. The president plans to travel to Michigan, where he is expected to announce whether his administration will consider lowering vehicle emissions and fuel economy requirements.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/03/14/stories/1060051434
-
FERC's Quorum Problem Opens New Lines of Attack
Mar 14, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Federal regulators last month rushed to issue environmental decisions on major pipeline projects before their agency fell into a legal limbo, but their hustle has opened those projects to charges that they have not been fully vetted.
A group of local and environmental groups that is opposing the Atlantic Sunrise Project, a 183-mile, $3 billion venture by Williams Cos. subsidiary Transco, is arguing that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission failed to make critical environmental information available before it approved the project last month, in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act.
FERC approved the Atlantic Sunrise Project on Friday, Feb. 3, the last day of work for former Commissioner Norman Bay. Since then, the agency has been unable to make major decisions because only two of the five commissioner seats are filled, leaving it one member short of a quorum (Energywire, Feb. 6).
Project opponents including the Allegheny Defense Project, Sierra Club and Lancaster Against Pipelines filed a rehearing request, asking that FERC withdraw its environmental review and reconsider its decision. Several of the issues they raise have been challenged repeatedly around pipeline projects, including charges that FERC inappropriately "segmented" the project into smaller pieces to avoid considering its full impact, that it failed to consider the project's indirect impacts that would come with increased gas take-away capacity from the Marcellus and Utica shale basins, and that the agency did not fully examine the alternatives to completing the project as proposed.
Charging a rush to judgment
But the timing question is a new issue. In their filing, the opponents describe environmental information that is missing from the final environmental impact statement presented for public comment and weighed by FERC officials in approving the project. The groups charged that FERC's rush to approve the pipeline before losing its approval authority shortchanged the review process.
As an example, they point to a potential hazard from three active underground fires in coal mines that are burning within a few miles of the proposed project route, which FERC said would require Transco to submit an "abandoned mine investigation and mitigation plan" to identify and manage risk. FERC has asked that the plan be submitted later in the project process, putting it outside of the federal environmental review.
Other planning that has yet to be completed centers on how construction would affect forests along the route, soliciting input from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and certain noise studies, according to FERC's decision approving the pipeline.
In its own comments on the environmental review, U.S. EPA noted similar concerns. Officials there pointed to concerns with the project's documentation around geology, streams and wetlands, vegetation, endangered species, and cumulative project impacts, and said FERC should clarify "how the public will be notified when plans or additional information will be available, and if FERC will accept comments on any of these additional materials."
In their rehearing request, the project opponents said the rush was symptomatic of a bias toward industry by regulators. "FERC's decision to prioritize industry timelines over the public interest underscores the arbitrary and capricious nature of its decisionmaking," they wrote.
Last week, FERC issued a so-called tolling order on all rehearing requests for the Atlantic Sunrise Project, a move that acknowledges them and stops a 30-day countdown that would otherwise apply for FERC to weigh in on the concerns.
Constitutional challenge
In a separate rehearing request, a different group of landowners affected by the Atlantic Sunrise Project have raised an issue often described as a Catch-22 by pipeline opponents. In that challenge, the landowners are arguing that the practice violates their due process rights under the Fifth and 14th constitutional amendments.
Under the Natural Gas Act, challenges to a project cannot be raised in federal appeals courts until FERC has denied a rehearing request or it has been deemed denied by virtue of having gone unanswered for 30 days. The landowners charge that FERC has a "near uniform" practice of using tolling orders to indefinitely postpone deciding on such rehearing requests, leaving opponents in a legal limbo.
The result, the landowners charge in the recent filing, is that they and others "are deprived of any meaningful opportunity for judicial review of FERC's decisions regarding public use and the taking of their private property, which is unconstitutional."
In a response to several of the rehearing requests, Transco defended the scope of FERC's environmental analysis and the information on which it was based. The review included ample information to serve as a "springboard for public comment," the company said, and need not be held to a standard of "perfect information."
Transco also opposed a stay on construction of the pipeline, countering that the opposition failed to show that proceeding would lead to "irreparable harm," as required under the law.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/03/14/stories/1060051393
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Heeds Industry Concerns, Freezes Safety Regs
Mar 14, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has frozen implementation of updated safety regulations for thousands of chemical plants, oil refineries and other industrial facilities, saying the delay is needed to consider an industry coalition's petition to scrap the new rules.
"As an agency, we need to be responsive to concerns raised by stakeholders regarding regulations so facility owners and operators know what is expected of them," Pruitt said in a news release yesterday evening announcing the three-month postponement.
The controversial regulations, published in January, were set to take effect next Tuesday. Under the stay signed yesterday by Pruitt, the effective date is now June 19.
EPA issued the regulations in response to a 2013 Obama administration executive order after an explosion at a West, Texas, fertilizer storage and distribution facility killed 15 people, most of them firefighters.
They are intended to strengthen efforts to head off accidents, better protect first responders from chemical exposure and do more to keep the public informed of potential risks at plants. They would apply to as many as 12,500 facilities that have to file risk management plans (RMPs) under the Clean Air Act.
But industry organizations question whether they're even needed. In its reconsideration petition to EPA, the RMP Coalition — which includes the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Chemistry Council and five other industry groups — sought the stay and asked EPA to rescind the final rule.
It "undermines safety" and "creates significant security risks," they wrote. EPA should also reconsider the added requirements in light of last year's finding by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that the fire that led to the explosion at the Texas facility had been "intentionally set and was the result of a criminal act," they added.
The new rules are under a separate assault on Capitol Hill, where Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) and Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) have both introduced resolutions to repeal them under the Congressional Review Act.
Various labor organizations and safety advocates had backed stricter requirements, and in some cases wanted EPA to go further. After EPA spent years developing the new requirements, including extensive efforts to gather public feedback, the stay represents an attempt "to have industry further delay implementation of this important public health and safety rule," Ron White, an independent consultant, said today.
Welcoming Pruitt's decision was the American Petroleum Institute, another member of the RMP Coalition.
"This is an important step for providing regulatory certainty and supporting safety and security in the oil and natural gas industry," Frank Macchiarola, the institute's downstream group director, said in a news release. "Now, Congress must act to repeal this unnecessary rule, as the rule misses the mark on improving the safety and security of our nation's energy infrastructure."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/03/14/stories/1060051444
-
EPA to Reconsider Chemical Plant Safety Rule
Mar 14, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Scott Pruitt on Monday delayed a safety rule for chemical plants and kicked off a formal process to consider repealing it.
The rule, which was made final in December under the Obama administration, overhauls the standards that apply to chemical plants and similar facilities to prevent and mitigate accidental chemical release emergencies.
The decision comes just two weeks after a coalition of industry groups affected by the rule wrote to Pruitt asking for such action. Congressional Republicans have also objected, and Congress is considering legislation by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) to overturn the rule.
“As an agency, we need to be responsive to concerns raised by stakeholders regarding regulations so facility owners and operators know what is expected of them,” Pruitt said in a late Monday statement announcing the reconsideration.
As part of the Monday action, Pruitt delayed the effective date to June 19. It had been planned to take effect March 14, and was previously delayed a week as part of White House chief of staff Reince Priebus’s regulatory freeze issued on the day of President Trump’s inauguration.
Rolling back the rule was a key wish from the industries it affects.
“EPA’s data shows that the pre-existing [Risk Management Program] regulation promoted safety, with a significant decline in the rate of accidental releases and incidents in the last twenty years,” a coalition of chemical and manufacturing groups wrote in a petition to Pruitt two weeks ago.
“Unfortunately, the final rule undermines safety, creates significant security risks, and does nothing to further prevent criminal acts that threaten facilities.”
The coalition is also suing the EPA in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to try to get the rule overturned.
The EPA estimated that the rule could cost industry as much as $142 million annually to comply.
Changing or repealing the rule would require the EPA to go through a full rulemaking process, including an opportunity for public comment, which could take a year or more. Any final action could be subject to lawsuits by opponents.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/323853-epa-to-reconsider-chemical-plant-safety-rule
-
Sources of Cyberattacks Confound Energy Companies
Mar 14, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Last April, hackers locked up computer files at a small utility in Michigan and held the key hostage.
The victim, the Lansing Board of Water & Light, paid a $25,000 ransom to restore its networks, plus nearly $2.4 million in recovery costs (Energywire, Nov. 29, 2016).
The company has filed an insurance claim and moved on from the incident, but one question remains: Who did it?
The answer may lie behind technical, legal and even diplomatic roadblocks. While the attack on LBWL did not disrupt water or electricity services, it offers a rare public example of a U.S. utility hurt by nameless hackers.
As President Trump prepares a widely anticipated executive order on cybersecurity, his administration will have the chance to set a new tone for handling high-stakes hacking incidents. In the past, Trump has cast doubt on official findings that Russian operatives interfered with the U.S. election process by hacking into several Democratic political groups and leaking stolen files and emails.
However delicate and politically charged the attribution process can be, cybersecurity experts and law enforcement officials agree that knowing "whodunit" is crucial for any administration if hackers strike at critical infrastructure.
"If someone is touching the industrial control system network and there's some danger of a kinetic outcome, that's an enormous concern to the FBI ... that's going to be a priority investigation," said Bruce Barron, supervisory special agent in the cyber division of the FBI. "To do something about the threats, we need to know who's at the end of the keyboard."
Barron spoke from his personal experience overseeing investigations in the energy sector, not based on the LBWL case. (A regional FBI spokesman declined to comment on that example, and a utility representative said there was nothing new to report from the investigation.)
"From the private-sector side, we get a lot of questions about attribution," Barron said. "Generally speaking, everything related to attribution is classified."
That secrecy stems from the intelligence community's zealous commitment to protecting its "sources and methods," be they National Security Agency hacking tools or human sources handled by CIA operatives. Trump, who once said that "nobody knows exactly what's going on" in the digital era, may face tough choices about how and whether to declassify some of those sources to bolster the government's case for attributing a major cyberattack.
Barron said there have been only a "handful" of instances when the U.S. government publicly identified hackers. In one of those cases, federal investigators followed the tracks of a cyber intrusion at a small dam near Rye, N.Y., back to alleged Iranian hacker Hamid Firoozi. The Department of Justice last year accused Firoozi of causing $30,000 in damages during the 2013 Bowman Avenue Dam incident, in addition to committing other internet crimes.
Firoozi, who is thought to be at large in Iran, never actually tampered with the dam's sluice gate because the system was down for maintenance at the time, investigators say.
The dam itself was a "small target," John Carlin, former assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice's National Security Division, said in a recent interview.
But the detailed allegations signaled a "changed approach" from a U.S. government newly willing to name and shame specific cyber criminals, noted Carlin, who now chairs the global risk and crisis management team at the Morrison & Foerster law firm. He said he hopes the trend will continue as new online threats loom over critical infrastructure like the power grid.
"This is a sector where the consequences of a successful intrusion can be so grave," Carlin said. "It's hard to think of an area where it's more important for companies to be aware of the risks posed and be in close touch with the government about what threats they're seeing."
Tugging threads
In the turmoil following a major cyber incident, victims don't always see the value in dusting for digital fingerprints. At a House hearing last week, a cybersecurity expert from Intel Corp. likened attribution to "deciding what color carpet to put in your house while it's still on fire."
The bias toward resuming normal operations is especially pronounced in critical industries like energy or manufacturing, where more than mere data may be at stake.
"Attribution had its heyday a couple years ago, mostly because cyberattacks were new and the CEO would pound the table and say, 'I want to know who did this!'" said Ben Buchanan, a postdoctoral fellow at the Belfer Center's Cyber Security Project in Harvard University and author of "The Cybersecurity Dilemma." Today, he said, "maybe it matters a little less which group did it, and a little more what the consequences are for you and your customers, or for your industrial control systems."
Buchanan pointed out that attribution is still significant in a political context. "But I think there's probably less interest on the corporate side," he said.
That sets the stage for a subtle conflict when executives call in federal authorities for help.
"The FBI wants to do the investigation, and the private sector just wants to recover and get back in business," noted Barron. "For the FBI, there's a thread we want to tug in almost every case."
Barron said that "generally, there's a happy medium" that enables FBI agents to gather forensic data or safely isolate a compromised network to continue observing the hacker or hackers. In any event, he said, the FBI avoids twisting arms.
"We're not just going to march in there and say, 'Everyone stand away,'" Barron said. "We say to the victim company, 'Do what you need to do — stand yourself up.' We'd like to recover evidence, but we don't want the company to continue bleeding in some way, whether it's financial or operational."
Power companies have rehearsed how they would accommodate federal investigators during a grid hacking emergency. Berkshire Hathaway Energy, which owns several major utilities, including MidAmerican Energy Co. and PacifiCorp, said in comments to the Department of Energy that it has carried out "emergency simulations" in conjunction with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, among other government agencies.
Peter Grandgeorge, program manager at MidAmerican, said in the written filing that such simulations have shown "the need to balance restoration and investigative priorities." The company has even considered the value of a "several-hour restoration delay" to allow authorities to gather evidence from computers.
"Investigatory data could be critical in stopping an ongoing or future threat against multiple parts of the energy grid," he said.
Carlin, who oversaw many high-profile hacking cases during his time at DOJ and FBI, said attributing cyberattacks can often be presented as a win-win situation, despite the level of effort involved.
"From the point of view of those victimized, knowing whether it's a nation-state or a criminal group, versus a hacker who just likes to go around to prove that they can get in or an insider, makes a huge difference in how you defend yourself," he said.
He acknowledged that many companies may hesitate to reach out to federal authorities in the first place, given what he called an imbalance of "carrots and sticks" in cybersecurity oversight.
"There's a huge government incentive in having victims be treated as victims and feel that they can safely report information," he said. "At the same time, there's a government initiative to try to improve people's defenses."
Carlin cited an urgent need for "finding the right balance that encourages people to go forward without feeling they're going to be re-victimized by regulatory investigations or damage to the brand."
'Huge burden of proof'
Even with the classified resources available to the FBI and other U.S. intelligence agencies, reaching ironclad attribution isn't always possible.
"When there's a murder, you can prove that a person's fingerprints were on the gun — more than likely, that guy pulled the trigger," said Marshall Heilman, executive director of incident response and red team operations at cybersecurity firm Mandiant, part of FireEye Inc. "It's not so simple in cybersecurity."
Last summer, Heilman and his team analyzed malware uncovered from the networks of the Democratic National Committee. The samples had been provided by competing cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike Inc., which had been called in to investigate at the DNC.
Researchers at both companies found that "Russian intelligence-affiliated" groups were to blame for multiple intrusions at the DNC dating back to 2015. Other cyber intelligence and security software firms soon followed suit. There were many breadcrumbs to follow: attack infrastructure directly copied from an earlier Russia-backed attack on a European target, malware tools recycled from other suspected Russian espionage campaigns, and Russian language and cultural references stashed away in leaked documents.
The cyberattack had cleared the way for a series of politically damaging leaks engineered by the hacker persona "Guccifer 2.0," which U.S. officials later determined was a front for Russian intelligence organizations.
In October, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence concluded that the U.S. intelligence community "is confident the Russian government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations," adding the possibility that human sources had also backed up the private-sector reports. Months later, the government would present technical details of the allegedly Russian state-sponsored activity.
Heilman said he firmly believes in the Russian attribution but acknowledged that "I don't think we'll ever get" to the point where everyone agrees.
"There is a lot of science that goes into it, but at the end of the day, unless you are actually videotaping the person who had hands on the keyboard doing the hack at that moment, you cannot be 100 percent certain," Heilman said.
Still, he said that an attack on industrial control systems would likely elicit as strong an attribution effort as the U.S. government could muster.
"To say, 'We think there's a foreign government trying to do damage to an ICS device in the U.S.,' there's a huge burden of proof that would have to go into that kind of statement," he said. "That's a much more impactful statement — saying a foreign power could do something bad to our national infrastructure — than is saying a company lost their trade secrets."
Smoke and mirrors
Skilled hackers go to great lengths to conceal their activities, hiding behind proxy servers, using anonymizing technology and even planting misleading language or technical clues in their work.
The attribution challenge can be even more pronounced in industrial environments, where information technology managers may not log computer activity for later review, experts say.
Even if companies are aware of what's happening on their control networks, hackers try not to leave much malicious code to analyze. In perhaps the best-documented cyberattack on critical infrastructure to date, hackers briefly knocked out power to about a quarter-million people in western Ukraine in late 2015. But they didn't use specialized malware to cause the bulk of the damage, instead relying on stolen user credentials to simply log onto the distribution network and use the system against itself.
Even in cases where malware is glaringly visible on a victim's network — such as the ransomware attack on LBWL — backtracking can be murky.
"Ransomware authors will hack into other email servers and pose as people from different countries," said Amanda Rousseau, malware researcher at Endgame Inc., an Arlington, Va.-based cybersecurity firm that has won multimillion-dollar military contracts for its threat-hunting technology.
"For a lot of the malware these days, the code is licensed — it's a legit underground business," she said. That means investigators may need to choose between going after the group that bought a given ransomware tool or the author who built it.
While Rousseau no longer works in attribution, her role at Endgame gives her a front-row seat to hackers' latest techniques and exploits.
She cited a new trend of malware that sticks to a system's volatile memory, meaning all traces of an infection get erased if a user restarts the computer (Energywire, July 1, 2015). Such stealthy capabilities have "been around for a while, but I think malware authors are catching on," Rousseau noted.
"Applying that to critical infrastructure ... if you can find out where [the hackers] are and where they dropped their payloads or any indicator, that network segment needs to be quartantined," she said. "For instance, don't shut down the server, because if they're running in memory, then you're going to lose it all once that sucker shuts down."
Berkshire Hathaway Energy's comments on DOE's newfound grid emergency authority suggest the industry is aware of the ephemeral nature of hacking proof.
"Grid operators ordered to restore certain digital assets or physical locations might inadvertently destroy evidence of criminal activity that might have caused the outage," the filing said.
'Hard choices'
Hackers don't have to rely on advanced malware to break into U.S. infrastructure networks, according to a two-year study delivered to U.S. defense officials last month.
"Today, both China and Russia are able to cause disruptive attacks against the United States without resorting to highly advanced cyber tools," noted the report from the Defense Science Board's Cyber Deterrence Task Force.
The civilian cybersecurity experts in that group urged the U.S. government to "pursue enhancements to several different types of capabilities" in cyberspace, including detective work.
"With proper consideration (i.e., not exposing tradecraft or sources) the ability to share information supporting attribution with allies, partners, and the public is essential to maintaining support for actions taken by the U.S. Government," the task force concluded.
The report said the government would soon need to make "hard choices" about when to declassify and publish nontechnical intelligence to boost official claims.
In the meantime, experts say, the hacking blame game won't be going anywhere.
"You've seen [the government] try to move to a different type of attribution where, by name and by face, you can say exactly who did it," Carlin said. He claimed that the Justice Department's decision to unseal an indictment against five Chinese military officers in 2014 marked the start of a new era for attribution (Energywire, May 20, 2014).
Carlin said private-sector executives have historically underestimated the forensic capabilities, legal tools and intelligence that the government is prepared to offer them.
Attribution "can be done more often than people think," he said. "It's not just technical expertise; it's all the same investigatory techniques we use for any other type of crime.
"That said, it's not easy."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/03/14/stories/1060051409
-
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Hits Record Levels
Mar 14, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased at an unprecedented pace in the last two years, even as Trump administration officials discount the relevance of a number that many climate scientists find deeply disturbing.
The CO2 measured at the Mauna Loa Baseline Atmospheric Observatory in Hawaii hit 405.1 parts per million last year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced. That's an increase of 3 parts per million, which matched the record of 3 parts per million in 2015. It marks five consecutive years of CO2 increases of at least 2 parts per million, an unprecedented rate of growth, said Pieter Tans, lead scientist at NOAA's Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network.
"The rate of CO2 growth over the last decade is 100 to 200 times faster than what the Earth experienced during the transition from the last ice age," Tans said. "This is a real shock to the atmosphere."
The number is significant because the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 280 parts per million from about 10,000 years ago until the start of the Industrial Revolution. The monthly global average nosed above 400 parts per million for the first time in March 2015 and is now increasing at a faster pace, according to NOAA researchers. What's more, carbon emissions stay in the atmosphere for years, so even as some emissions have been reduced in recent years, the global average level continues to climb. In 1960, they were about 300 parts per million, suggesting a precipitous climb in a relatively short period of time since then.
That means carbon dioxide levels have dramatically increased by more than 40 percent in the lifetime of many people on Earth, said Ralph Keeling, director of the Scripps CO2 Program and a greenhouse gas expert. Keeling, whose father, Charles David Keeling, pioneered modern carbon measurement systems, said the carbon dioxide levels will continue to stay high as fossil fuel burning increases, and that they could hit 410 parts per million this year or next.
"As we twiddle our thumbs, CO2 just keeps going up and up; it's a lot of carbon dioxide compared to what the atmosphere has had in it over many, many thousands of years or even hundreds of thousands of years," he said.
The high rate of increase in CO2 levels was also observed at 40 other facilities in NOAA's Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network. The CO2 levels trap heat in the atmosphere and in the oceans, causing sea levels to rise, spurring drought in spots across the globe and increasing extreme weather, among many other effects observed by scientists.
Scientists: Yes, Mr. Pruitt, CO2 is the primary contributor to warming
For about two decades, climate scientists have agreed that the amount of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere by humanity, chiefly from the burning of fossil fuels, is causing the planet to warm at a rapid pace, Keeling said. The Mauna Loa results mark a troubling trend, as CO2 emissions continue at a record pace even as coal emissions in China decline and renewable energy use is increasing around the globe.
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt angered many researchers and environmental groups last week when he falsely claimed that humans are not the primary contributor to climate change.
Pruitt's comments also included his assertion that Congress should decide whether EPA should even regulate carbon dioxide.
"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see," he said on CNBC's "Squawk Box."
Pruitt's comments were one of the most direct indications yet that the Trump administration will ignore the federal climate scientists warning it about data points such as the rate of CO2 growth observed on Hawaii.
Yesterday, a group of more than two dozen climate scientists sent Pruitt a letter criticizing his comments and pointing out that most climate warming over the last few years is due to increasing carbon dioxide levels as well as other greenhouse gases. The scientists, who included researchers from Harvard University, Stanford University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, among others, pointed out that humans have increased carbon dioxide levels by 40 percent and that CO2 is continuing to drive warming.
"We know that if we continue to increase the atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, the Earth will continue to heat up, with serious consequences for economies and ecosystems across the globe," they wrote.
Pruitt's comments also alarmed American Meteorological Society Executive Director Keith Seitter, who also sent Pruitt a letter yesterday noting that thousands of independent scientists and numerous scientific institutions around the world have concluded that humans are driving the carbon dioxide levels now warming the world. Seitter said he does not know of any scientific institution that has reached a different conclusion.
"We understand and accept that individuals and institutions both public and private can reach differing conclusions on the decisions and actions to be taken in the face of this reality," he wrote. "That's the nature of the political process in a democratic society. But mischaracterizing the science is not the best starting point for a constructive dialogue."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/03/14/stories/1060051412
-
Chamber Sues EPA Over Haze Program Changes
Mar 14, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is suing U.S. EPA to overturn recent changes to the agency's regional haze program.
The petition for review, filed Friday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, does not detail the grounds for the legal challenge to the program changes, which EPA published in final form in January.
But in comments last August on the draft version, the chamber and other business lobbies said the proposal could allow EPA to unlawfully require states to further crack down on individual pollution sources to meet the haze program's "reasonable progress" goals.
They also voiced concern that states would be held responsible for pollution from wildfires and other "background" sources outside of their control.
The regional haze program, which dates back to 1999 in its current form, sets a goal of restoring natural visibility conditions to 156 national parks and wilderness areas by 2064.
The amendments published in January pushed back the deadline for states to submit the next round of implementation plans from 2018 to 2021.
They also strengthened consultation requirements intended to involve National Park Service employees and other federal land managers earlier in the planning process (Greenwire, Jan. 9).
The chamber's lawsuit, which was slow to show up in the federal courts' online records system, is at least the second challenge to the haze program changes. A suit filed in January by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) is pending, according to court records.
Seeking to intervene in the Texas case are the National Parks Conservation Association and Sierra Club, which, while supportive of some of the changes, opposed the three-year delay for submission of the implementation plans.
Although the two groups plan to bring their own lawsuit, they also voiced doubts about EPA's willingness to stand behind the changes under the Trump administration and said they should be allowed to intervene "to ensure that the rule is fully and vigorously defended," according to a motion filed last month. As of this morning, the court had not ruled on the motion.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/03/14/stories/1060051437
-
Judge Sets Three-Year Deadline for EPA to Review 20 Air Toxics Rules
Mar 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
A federal district court is ordering EPA to within three years complete reviews of existing air toxics rules for 20 industrial sectors and determine whether to revise them, siding with environmentalists in a lawsuit that argued the agency is many years overdue on meeting Clean Air Act deadlines for assessing whether the rules are adequate.
The March 13 ruling by Judge Tanya Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia sets a deadline that is later than the two years environmentalists sought for completion of the residual risk and technology (RTR) rulemakings, but much shorter than the five year deadline the Obama administration suggested.
Chutkan suggests that concerns EPA had raised about its ability to handle the workload of conducting all 20 RTR reviews in a short amount of time played into her decision to settle on a three-year deadline.
“[W]hile the court does not doubt the urgency of revising and promulgating standards to regulate emissions, addressing the ongoing health and environmental threats they pose, the court finds . . . that Plaintiffs’ timeline may be 'simply too compressed at this stage to afford any reasonable possibility of compliance,'” she writes, quoting from a D.C. district court ruling from 2006 in Sierra Club v. Johnson, another case on missed air toxics rule deadlines.
“Accordingly, the court will impose a schedule in between that requested by Plaintiffs and that proposed by the agency,” says the opinion, which only sets a three-year deadline for completing all 20 RTR reviews and does not specify any binding date by when EPA must issue notices of proposed rulemaking for the reviews.
The decision in California Communities Against Toxics (CCAT), et al. v. EPA appears to be the first court decision since the Trump administration took power that forces the agency to pursue new air toxics rules.
CCAT and other environmentalists have another case pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit claiming EPA has failed to meet a Clean Air Act mandate to regulate 90 percent of sources of seven hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). The Obama EPA rejected that claim and the Trump EPA is continuing to fight the suit, but a loss for the agency would force it to write new HAP rules for several sectors.
The district court case will at a minimum require the Trump EPA to assess whether to revise the 20 air toxics rules at issue in the suit, although the administration could propose to simply retain the existing rules.
Judge's Opinion
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA has eight years after issuance of a national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) rule to conduct the reviews. If it finds “residual” health risks, or cost-effective new technology to further control pollutants, or both, it can tighten the rules. The agency has fallen far behind this schedule, however, drawing several lawsuits from environmentalists seeking tougher rules.
CCAT and eight other environmental groups sued EPA in the D.C. district court over missed review deadlines for NESHAP rules in the following sectors: Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil; Boat Manufacturing; Surface Coating of Metal Coil; Cellulose Products Manufacturing; Ethylene Production; Paper and Other Web Coating; Municipal Solid Waste Landfills; Hydrochloric Acid Production; Reinforced Plastic Composites Production; Asphalt Processing & Roofing Manufacturing; Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing; Engine Test Cells/ Stands; Site Remediation; Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing; Surface Coating of Metal Cans; Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products; Organic Liquids Distribution; Stationary Combustion Turbines; and Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products; Surface Coating of Automobiles & Light-Duty Trucks.
Chutkan's decision agrees with environmentalists that EPA has missed the statutory deadline for conducting the RTR reviews for the listed sectors, but notes the agency's resource constraints.
The ruling sets a timetable that is therefore much tighter than that contemplated by the Obama administration. Completion of the rules on time will provide a key test of the Trump EPA’s capacity to produce rules required by the air law, in the face of planned massive budget cuts and policies limiting issuance of new rules.
Rulemaking Timeline
In her opinion and ruling on summary judgment motions for the court, Chutkan says she recognizes the urgency of the situation but also the challenge posed by environmentalists’ proposed timeline. CCAT and others argued the health risks of HAPs from the various sectors warranted the quick two-year deadline for the RTR reviews.
The judge says that federal agencies face a “heavy burden” to demonstrate that a remedial timeline is too strict, and “it must show that the timeline is ‘an impossibility,’” citing the D.C. Circuit’s 1979 ruling in Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, another Clean Air Act case.
Chutkan says she “agrees that more time could always result in a better product, but the relevant legal standard in this circumstance is ‘impossibility.' The EPA has nowhere stated that Plaintiffs’ timeline is ‘impossible,’ nor that producing an adequate rule under that time frame is ‘impossible,’ nor that public participation within that timeframe would be ‘impossible,'” but nevertheless sets three years as the deadline.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/judge-sets-three-year-deadline-epa-review-20-air-toxics-rules
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested