Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 5/10/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Groups Protest Choice of Industry Scientist for Chemicals Post
May 10, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Environmental and public health groups are protesting U.S. EPA's choice of an industry scientist to lead its Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. -
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Pipe Trade Groups Hope for 'A Stronger Voice'
May 10, 2017 | Plastics News
By Catherine Kavanaugh
The two major trade groups representing polymer pipe producers have been extolling the benefits of their non-corroding products for decades as they compete against each other and pipe materials that have been around for more than a century. -
(ACC Mentioned) In Other News: May 10, 2017
May 10, 2017 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Editorial Staff
The American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Plastics Division praised passage of a bill in Florida that aids the implementation of plastics conversion technologies -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Names TSCA Regulations It Wants Reformed
May 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Industry groups have named the new chemicals programme and the EPA’s proposed framework rules among areas of TSCA where it would like to see regulations reformed. -
EPA Delays Nano Reporting Rule Pending Potential Guidance For Clarity
May 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
EPA is delaying the effective date of an Obama-era nanomaterials reporting rule from May 12 to Aug. 14 while it considers crafting guidance on how to implement the rule, handing a win to the chemical sector that has called for the agency to repeal the rule... -
Toxic Exposures: 10 Americans Expose the Toxic Chemicals in Our Environment
May 10, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Lindsay McCormick
Every day we are exposed to potentially hazardous chemicals we can’t see —chemicals used in everything from the clothes we wear to the lotions we use and even the couch we sit on. Synthetic chemicals are used to make 96% of products in the United States. -
What Broke the Safe Drinking Water Act?
May 10, 2017 | Politico
By Annie Snider
It was 1997 when Californians began to worry in earnest about a chemical called perchlorate. -
In Victory for Environmentalists, Senate Keeps an Obama-Era Climate Change Rule
May 10, 2017 | New York Times
By Coral Davenport
In a surprising victory for President Barack Obama’s environmental legacy, the Senate on Wednesday voted to uphold an Obama-era climate change regulation to control the release of methane from oil and gas wells on public land. -
Interior to Take Aim at Methane Rule After Failed CRA
May 10, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Eric Wolff
The Interior Department is aiming to gut the Obama administration's methane waste rule that the Senate failed to kill off today. -
One Size Does Not Fit All with Energy Trade Models
May 10, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Brenda Shaffer
American practices of energy trade are considered the gold standard around the globe. When countries look for models of best practices, they usually adopt U.S. regulatory and legislative systems. -
Comey Firing Risks Compounding Cyber 'Disarray'
May 10, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr and Blake Sobczak
The firing of FBI Director James Comey, along with its unfolding political fallout, also leaves another hole in the Trump administration's policymaking team on cybersecurity until his replacement is confirmed. -
It’s Time for Congress to Act on Transportation
May 10, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Rep. Jeff Denham
With the first 100 days of the new administration and passage of the omnibus appropriations bill behind us, it’s time to focus on the serious transportation and infrastructure issues facing America, with big opportunities for Congress to lead on addressing... -
Supporters Relieved, See Hope in Delayed Decision
May 10, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick and Evan Lehmann
Supporters of the Paris climate deal welcomed yesterday's news that President Trump wouldn't decide whether the United States will withdraw from it until after this month's Group of Seven summit, hoping the extra time and exposure to foreign leaders will work in their favor. -
Congressman Seeks More Budget Information from US EPA
May 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Frank Pallone (D-New Jersey), ranking member of the US House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee, has sent letters to the administrators of 19 US EPA programmes and regional offices requesting a briefing on proposed budget cuts. -
Climate Change Legislation Rides Populist Wave in Calif.
May 10, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
As California lawmakers debate the future of their climate policies, anti-establishment resentment is proving a force to be reckoned with. -
Dems to Pruitt — Don't Close Regional Offices
May 10, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Democrats are urging U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt not to close any of the agency's regional offices.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Groups Protest Choice of Industry Scientist for Chemicals Post
May 10, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Environmental and public health groups are protesting U.S. EPA's choice of an industry scientist to lead its Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
More than two dozen groups told U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt yesterday they are "troubled and distressed" about his hiring of Nancy Beck of the American Chemistry Council.
Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families' letter says Beck "will be well-positioned to direct the EPA staff to implement the same science and policy agenda that she played a central role in developing for ACC and its members, presenting a serious conflict of interest."
he letter calls for an investigation into Beck's potential conflicts of interest and requests a list of EPA-related matters Beck handled at the trade group.
The groups also want the agency to make public any steps taken to ensure that "EPA's science and policy decisions affecting chemicals will remain unbiased and free from improper industry influence."
Beck most recently served as the senior director for regulatory science policy at ACC, where she has been since 2012. Before joining the group, she worked as a toxicologist and policy analyst for the White House Office of Management and Budget.
The letter says Beck was the primary author of a 2006 OMB risk assessment bulletin that was later rescinded after a report called it "fundamentally flawed."
The letter also says a House Science and Technology Committee report from 2009 criticized OMB's "suppression of environmental science" after Beck's efforts to "rewrite, weaken and delay" EPA Integrated Risk Information System assessments.
EPA didn't respond this morning to requests for comment on the letter. But ACC issued a statement supporting Beck.
"Dr. Beck is a dedicated scientist who brings with her to the Agency extensive expertise in chemical management policy and considerable government experience," the trade group said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/05/10/stories/1060054357
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Pipe Trade Groups Hope for 'A Stronger Voice'
May 10, 2017 | Plastics News
By Catherine Kavanaugh
The two major trade groups representing polymer pipe producers have been extolling the benefits of their non-corroding products for decades as they compete against each other and pipe materials that have been around for more than a century.
The directors of the Plastics Pipe Institute and the Uni-Bell PVC Pipe Association said they welcome the American Chemistry Council's effort to spur debate about what they see as outdated procurement policies and bidding specifications that protect legacy pipe products at the expense of taxpayers and innovative infrastructure.
"The ACC has the wherewithal to give us a stronger voice," Tony Radoszewski, president of the Plastics Pipe Institute, said in a telephone interview. "The ACC brings its reputation, political clout, and financial and human resources — they have boots on the ground — to give a voice that heretofore we may not have had the opportunity to express."
The message is simple: If a city, township or village receives state funds for pipe or any product, all the products that meet engineering requirements should be allowed in the bidding process.
"We call it fair and open competition. That's all we're asking for," Radoszewski said. "We're not forcing anyone's hand to use a product. We're not saying one product is better than another. We're saying at least allow the materials to compete."
Based in Dallas, PPI has 150 members that are mostly manufacturers of polyethylene pipe, which dominates oil-and-natural-gas gathering applications with its heat-fused, leak-free joints. PPI estimates PE pipe has about 15 percent of the sanitary sewer market and 8 percent of the potable pipe market in the United States. In Europe, however, PE is the No. 1 pipe material used in water systems.
PVC and ductile iron pipe are the major materials being installed in U.S. water and sewer systems, according to Bruce Hollands, executive director of the PVC pipe association, which also is based in Dallas and has about 45 business members and affiliates.
Hollands hopes ACC's effort raises awareness about plastic pipe in the northern Midwest and the Northeast — "areas where you have the most iron-only specification" — and challenge the "conservative bent" of civil engineers only comfortable with traditional materials.
"Think of it this way: If you were putting in a phone system, would you use telephone poles or go with a cellular network?" Hollands asked.
He isn't worried that question will be answered with PE pipe or any product but PVC.
"We're very confident of where our material stands in the mix," he said. "We have no problem competing with all materials."
Wanting a chance
he U.S. Department of Agriculture requires open material selection and bidding for rural water and sewer projects using federal funds in municipalities with populations of 10,000 or less, Hollands said.
"This is a long-standing policy of the USDA program for rural communities since the 1970s," he added. "It works well, so why don't we do the same thing with the funding that states provide localities? If the state is going to fund water or sewer projects, why not require all materials that meet the standards of the day in the project specifications? In the end, the engineers can decide."
Rural communities seeking out the lowest qualified bidders have installed a lot of PVC pipe and it's performing well, Hollands said.
"When you allow everyone to compete, then the materials that are the most cost-effective and durable have a chance to take their spot in the marketplace," he said. "There are some very large rural systems in the Dakotas with 6,000 miles of PVC piping in them — and large 36- and 42-inch segments — with extremely low break rates."
Both long-term operating and maintenance costs for plastic pipes are lower than iron pipes, which corrode then leak and break, polymer pipe advocates said.
Cold climates aren't a problem either, Hollands said, although the competition claims otherwise. For example, an April 4 comment on a Michigan news site by someone who describes herself as a marketer of concrete pipe says PVC isn't appropriate for areas with deep frost levels like the state's Upper Peninsula.
"Well, how do you account for the fact that PVC is used even more widely in Canada than the United States?" Hollands asked. "That completely negates that point."
The Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association also continues to lobby against open procurement legislation, portraying it on their website and at public meetings as an attempt to seek "preferential treatment" for plastic and a threat to local choice.
"This is not a fight among pipe materials. It is a fight to preserve local and professional control," DIPRA's website says.
Plastic pipe proponents argue they are seeking equal treatment for engineered products that will widen choices for municipalities.
"If we weren't a better product and a more economical product, they wouldn't care, but apparently they do," Radoszewski said. "When hearings come up, they bring all their buddies in for a show of force that this is a bad thing. They're pulling out all the stops they can to cause an emotional reaction to the legislation rather than a logical reaction to the legislation."
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20170510/NEWS/170519993/plastic-pipe-trade-groups-hope-for-a-stronger-voice
-
(ACC Mentioned) In Other News: May 10, 2017
May 10, 2017 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Editorial Staff
Florida lawmakers vote to remove roadblocks for plastics conversion efforts, and Envision Plastics announces it will source millions of pounds of material from regions prone to generating ocean plastics.
Conversion technologies bill: The American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Plastics Division praised passage of a bill in Florida that aids the implementation of plastics conversion technologies. House Bill 335 classifies post-use plastics as “recovered materials” instead of “waste,” ensures facilities converting them into fuels, chemicals and other products are not designated as solid waste facilities and counts the conversion activities as recycling that can contribute to the state’s 75 percent recycling rate goal, according to the ACC.
Preventing ocean plastics: Envision Plastics has announced its goal of sourcing 10 million pounds of plastics over the next two years from areas where the material is at risk of entering the marine environment. The company will recycle the recovered HDPE into its OceanBound Plastic, which can be further processed into various products.
Beyond bans: Instead of banning rarely recycled plastic items, some cities are embracing the idea of designating recyclable and compostable packaging, an expert at the Sustainable Packaging Coalition says. Charlotte Dreizen writes in Packaging Digest about how some cities are designating often-recycled plastics such as PET and HDPE as recyclable, although those listings often fail to recognize that product design and additive use can still inhibit recycling.
Petroleum plummets: Oil prices have fallen to their lowest level since late November, amid renewed fears about the oil supply glut, according to CNN. Prices hit $45.52 a barrel last week, off 15 percent from the peak in mid-April.
Marine plastics effort: The Ocean Cleanup, a project to deploy sprawling systems into the oceans to collect floating plastics, has raised nearly $22 million since November, Recycling International reports. Large-scale trials of the technology are expected to be launched in the Pacific Ocean by the end of this year.
HDPE collection strategy: While readily recyclable, HDPE milk jugs are generally not accepted in recycling collection centers in New Brunswick, Canada. IT World Canada reports on a collaborative effort that’s considering instituting a separate collection system for HDPE containers, potentially using public bins with RFID tags and sensors to optimize collections.
Sustainable packaging: As the packaging market grows steadily in the future, “sustainability will become an increasingly important factor for decision makers at all stages of packaging value chains,” according to research and testing firm Smithers Pira. Brand owners now consider sustainable packaging a necessity when it comes to attracting consumers and protecting market share, the researchers wrote.
EPS in NYC: After failing to successfully defend its ban on polystyrene foam food-service products in court in 2015, New York City may now consider mandating recycling EPS items, according to the New York Post. A Democratic New York City Councilman has introduced a bill requiring residents to separate EPS and the city’s sanitation department to develop a strategy to collect it for recycling.
https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2017/05/10/news-may-10-2017/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Names TSCA Regulations It Wants Reformed
May 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Industry groups have named the new chemicals programme and the EPA’s proposed framework rules among areas of TSCA where it would like to see regulations reformed.
Despite concerns from NGOs that the EPA’s hearing last week to identify regulations under TSCA that could be repealed, replaced or modified is a "distraction" from the more important work of its implementation, industry bodies identified areas where the agency could introduce new efficiencies and improvements under the recently reformed law.
The American Chemistry Council’s senior director of regulatory and technical affairs, Karyn Schmidt, was among those to point to the framework rules proposed by the agency, such as those on prioritisation and the inventory reset. Recognising that these have yet to be finalised, Ms Schmidt said they should "have the quality, and the robustness, and the integrated science standards that the statute demands".
Burdens imposed by the proposed prioritisation rule, for example, could be streamlined by identifying "a smaller subset of high priority chemistries and a larger set of low priority chemistries", she said.
And the ‘inventory reset’ proposal "also offers many opportunities for long-term efficiencies and significant reductions of burden on the regulated community", she said, especially when viewed in the context of the Lautenberg Act’s provisions related to inventory correction and nomenclature.
Jim Cooper, senior petrochemical adviser at American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, agreed that science provisions – as laid out in sections 4, 5,6 and 26 of TSCA – must be incorporated into these proposals, "because this is going to set the foundation for transparency in all the [EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics] actions moving forward".
Mr Cooper also criticised the "logjam" of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) that has accumulated under the new chemicals programme.
Echoing comments voiced by many in industry in recent months, he argued that EPA’s implementation of the programme is inconsistent with the statute’s intent.
Congress, he said, intended the EPA to make an affirmative decision and communicate that decision to the public. Had lawmakers intended to change the way EPA reviews new chemicals more substantively, they "would have dramatically revised all of the rest of the section 5 language, which they did not do".
Raleigh Davis, assistant director of environmental health and safety of the American Coatings Association, agreed that the agency’s implementation of the new chemicals programme to date is "simply unworkable".
The agency’s "over-reliance" on 5(e) consent orders "leads to duplicative requirements that unnecessarily increase compliance costs", she said. The agency could "effectively streamline section 5 by drawing analogy to the old 5(e) [significant new use rule] (Snur) process when developing a new PMN affirmative approval process".
But Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at NGO the Environmental Defense Fund, said in his testimony that Congress intended that the rigour of new chemical reviews be "significantly strengthened".
And he said that the new law’s requirement to consider reasonably foreseen, as well as intended, uses in making its risk finding is "not optional".
It is "simply not allowed under the new law", he added, for EPA to revert to its prior practice - as urged by industry - "of using Snurs in place of orders when it finds that reasonably foreseen uses may present unreasonable risk".
https://chemicalwatch.com/55731/industry-names-tsca-regulations-it-wants-reformed
-
EPA Delays Nano Reporting Rule Pending Potential Guidance For Clarity
May 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
EPA is delaying the effective date of an Obama-era nanomaterials reporting rule from May 12 to Aug. 14 while it considers crafting guidance on how to implement the rule, handing a win to the chemical sector that has called for the agency to repeal the rule in part because it fails to provide sufficient clarity on which substances are subject to its mandate.
In a final rule slated for publication in the May 11 Federal Register, EPA announces the delay for the rule that the previous administration issued in January. The rule established reporting and recordkeeping requirements for certain chemicals substances when they are manufactured or processes at the nanoscale, as defined in the rule.
While the Register notice is only six pages and provides scant detail on the reason for the delay, it does suggest that the agency needs more time to craft guidance on how to achieve adequate reporting under the rule.
“[T]he public interest is served by complete an [sic] accurate reporting under the rule, which would be greatly facilitated by publication of the guidance,” says the notice -- although this appears to be the sole reference in the notice to any guidance.
The rest of the notice discusses EPA's statutory authority to delay the effective date of the rule “for good cause” without taking public comment because of the lack of adequate time for such input before the delay takes effect.
Manufacturers that use nanomaterials in their products have urged the Trump administration to repeal the rule, issued under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), by arguing that it is burdensome and unclear.
“The EPA has failed to provide industry with a clear understanding of the substances that are subject to reporting,” said the Manufacturing Association in a March 31 letter to the Department of Commerce (DOC) recommending that EPA's Jan. 12 TSCA section 8(a) reporting rule be repealed under the Trump administration's deregulatory efforts.
“For example, in response to industry requests to provide exemptions for low risk products such as polymers and pigments, EPA simply withdrew the exemptions it had proposed so that reporting is exclusively based on subjective concepts that are open to challenge by EPA and that will result in uneven reporting, such as company intent and whether the reportable substance contributes one or more 'unique and novel' properties,” the letter says.
“Industry members risk wasting resources on reporting when not required because the agency has not sufficiently clarified the rule,” the association argued.
Similarly, James Votaw, of Keller and Heckman, LLP, says President Donald Trump's plans for cutting EPA's budget 31 percent suggests that the agency will lack resources for evaluating the swaths of data the rule would generate.
He notes that a nano-specific reporting rule appears to contradict the Trump EPA's recently-stated approach of considering all of a substance's uses when conducting reviews under the new TSCA. “The agency is now slated to be under considerable pressure to both downsize and find a way to still meet its statutory obligations,” Votaw says. “It's not clear there are going to be staff and resources in order to do this special reporting program.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-delays-nano-reporting-rule-pending-potential-guidance-clarity
-
Toxic Exposures: 10 Americans Expose the Toxic Chemicals in Our Environment
May 10, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Lindsay McCormick
Every day we are exposed to potentially hazardous chemicals we can’t see —chemicals used in everything from the clothes we wear to the lotions we use and even the couch we sit on. Synthetic chemicals are used to make 96% of products in the United States. Yet scientific research continues to link chemicals in common use to health effects like cancer, infertility, and asthma.
EDF selected 10 individuals across the country to wear a novel wristband technology designed to detect chemicals in their environment for one week – including Gordon, Karen, and Averi.
Gordon is a lieutenant for the Memphis Fire Department. Gordon’s wristband detected 16 chemicals, including gamma-chlordane, a pesticide that has been banned in the U.S. since the 1980s, and 3,4-dichlorophenyl isocyanate, a “chemical intermediate,” which is reportedly used exclusively for chemical manufacturing processes. While there were no fires to fight the week he wore the wristband, Gordon wondered if he came into contact with these chemicals from a site visit to a location that formerly housed chemical stockpiles, his local auto repair shop, the nearby highway – or even his fire suit.
Karen is an 8th grade science teacher who engages her students in citizen science projects like measuring air pollutants using portable air monitors. The chemical-detecting wristband was another great teaching tool for Karen's students. Among other chemicals, Karen’s wristband detected the flame retardant BDE 47, which was phased out of U.S. production in the mid-2000s due to health impacts on the developing brain and persistence in the environment. Karen hopes that personal exposure monitors like the wristband will become more available to the general public in the future, noting that her students would love to wear the wristbands themselves: “The students are very curious. They love this project!”
Averi is a student at The College of Wooster, currently doing her senior research project on sustainable interior design. Averi’s wristband detected several chemicals that can be found in personal care products – such as lotions, shampoos and conditioners – including the fragrance enhancer diethyl phthalate, the preservative benzyl benzoate and the synthetic fragrance galaxolide. After wearing the wristband, Averi reflected, “It struck me that I may be interacting with the most toxic chemicals when I am showering… in the place where I am trying to get clean.”
The wristbands and other emerging chemical monitoring technologies promise to transform our understanding of environmental exposures to chemicals – by making the invisible, visible – and in so doing, open up new opportunities for reducing exposures.
Learn more about the project and what our participants had to say about the experience here.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/05/10/toxic-exposures-10-americans-expose-the-toxic-chemicals-in-our-environment/#more-6479
-
What Broke the Safe Drinking Water Act?
May 10, 2017 | Politico
By Annie Snider
It was 1997 when Californians began to worry in earnest about a chemical called perchlorate. For decades, the ingredient in jet fuel had been seeping from missile factories and rocket testing sites into groundwater across the state and, thanks to a new testing method, it was suddenly clear it had reached hundreds of drinking water wells. Soon, researchers discovered that the toxic chemical had reached Lake Mead, the picturesque reservoir that supplies water to 25 million people in the American Southwest and irrigates the fields that grow the lion’s share of the nation’s winter produce.
Even in trace amounts, perchlorate can be dangerous, especially for pregnant women and young children. The chemical prevents the thyroid from absorbing iodine, which the gland needs to produce hormones that are critical for brain development. Although the military and its contractors dispute the level at which harm occurs, the companies that used the perchlorate settled a cascade of lawsuits with California communities and residents as the extent of contamination came to light, paying tens of millions of dollars toward compensation and cleanup efforts.
In 2006, California decided to limit the level of perchlorate in drinking water to 6 parts per billion, about the concentration you would get by mixing three teaspoons of the chemical into an Olympic-sized swimming pool. In Massachusetts, where a few communities had also discovered perchlorate pollution, the state set an even stricter standard of 1 part per billion.
But perchlorate hasn’t gone away, and unless you live in California or Massachusetts, you could be drinking it in unhealthy amounts. The Environmental Protection Agency has so far found the chemical in 45 states, tainting water supplies of roughly 16 million Americans. It has been found in the bodies of every single American who has been tested for it. But two decades after the seriousness of the perchlorate problem began to come into focus, the federal government is still just studying the issue, and still years from setting a national standard for drinking water — if it ever sets one at all.
In the meantime, there is no mandate that water utilities outside of California and Massachusetts test for the toxic chemical or let residents know when it’s in their tap water. That means that vulnerable populations would not know to take the few steps they can to reduce exposure, like not preparing infant formula with tap water containing perchlorate. Even people who take precautions like filtering their drinking water or buying bottled water are at risk, since perchlorate and many other chemicals aren’t removed by common household filters. And since bottled water is usually just a version of tap water; unregulated chemicals like perchlorate don’t have to be removed before the water is sold.
Washington was supposed to be the backstop for chemicals like perchlorate. Toxins are supposed to be managed under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the 1974 law that Congress passed after scientists discovered widespread contamination in American tap water. Under the law, the EPA has set national limits for 89 dangerous chemicals, bacteria and viruses. But nearly all of those limits were set between 1986 and 1996, when Congress required the EPA to analyze and regulate chemicals at a steady clip. Water utilities complained they couldn’t keep pace, and in 1996, Congress updated the law to leave it up to the EPA to decide when to set new regulations. It also required a new and extensive review process for any new standards.
In the 20 years since that update went into effect, not a single new contaminant has been regulated under the law. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of new chemicalshave come into use, with more than 85,000 now on the market. Advances in technology and science have shown that long-used chemicals can spread more than previously though, and can present dangers at even low levels. But little has been done at the federal level to set safer limits for older chemicals, assess the health impact of new substances making their way into the water supply, or even monitor regularly for potential contaminants in the drinking water that millions of Americans ingest every day.
The story of perchlorate is the story of how political pressure, scientific uncertainty and bureaucratic inertia can feed off one another to bring federal regulation to a halt. The expectation of cheap, clean, plentiful drinking water at every tap has perhaps never been realistic — at least not at the prices customers want to pay. Nevertheless, for decades Americans have taken the safety of tap water for granted. But as the recent lead contamination crisis in Flint, Michigan, showed, the nation’s foundational environmental laws do not guarantee that their water is safe to drink.
ORDINARY CITIZENS MAY assume that the government thoroughly tests chemicals sold in the United States for safety, but the system largely works the other way: Chemicals are assumed safe until proved otherwise. As a result, the onus is generally on the government to prove that a chemical is dangerous before it can be regulated. (By contrast, Europe has taken a precautionary approach to chemicals policy, requiring manufacturers to prove that a new substance is safe before it can come on the market.)
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the burden of proof is especially high. To issue a regulation, the EPA has to show that there is a “meaningful opportunity for health risk reductions” — a phrase undefined in the law, and which can evoke wildly different interpretations. The 1996 update also added requirements for complex economic analyses to prove that the benefits of a new regulation justify the costs.
It's important to note that American drinking water is still much cleaner than water in many other parts of the world. Cholera, typhoid and parasites, which kill tens of thousands of people around the world every year, have been virtually eliminated from the U.S., thanks to advances in water treatment.
But the contaminants that are left – not to mention the hundreds of new ones emerging each year – offer a different sort of challenge that has effectively stymied regulators. The effects of these substances on health are often indirect, and they can impact different populations in different ways. Compounding the issue is the fact that low doses of certain contaminants can actually be more harmful than larger ones.
“Every person in the U.S. has unregulated contaminants in their drinking water,” said Erik Olson, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s health program. “For some of these, we know that millions of people do have them at levels that are a public health concern.”
A 2009 database of state monitoring results compiled by the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit that focuses on environmental health issues, found more than 300 contaminants in tap water across 45 states, nearly two-thirds of which were unregulated. The group said an update planned for this summer found similar results.
And for virtually every contaminant in question there are powerful forces aligned against regulation. Since drinking water standards often become minimum cleanup standards for Superfund sites, companies and government agencies on the hook for cleanups have a vested interest in trying to stop new regulations. For drinking water managers, new regulations equal hefty new compliance costs — and political headaches, since they have to be paid for with rate hikes, which customers hate. It can cost a small water system a few thousand dollars annually to test for a chemical, only to find out the system doesn’t have it, said Alan Roberson, executive director of the Association of Safe Drinking Water Administrators. The cost of removing contaminants or switching water supplies can easily run into themillions.
Industries want to see clearly settled science about the risks and alternate options before the government issues a new regulation, and that has essentially become the bar under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The problem, public health experts say, is that science by its very nature is never complete. It operates on probabilities, and there is always another study to be done, always another model to be tested.
“EPA, since ’96, has gone into the endless loop of first review, second review, third review, so that people in the drinking water office are really quite busy, but they’re not breaking through this impasse of being able to set new regulations,” said Olga Naidenko, senior science adviser for the Environmental Working Group.
In the past two decades, the agency has listed hundreds of chemicals as priority concerns, a first step under the law, but has made final decisions about whether to issue a regulation on only 24 of them — all but one being decisions not to regulate.
And those chemicals were hardly the most widespread or worrisome ones. An EPA official described these chemicals as “the low-hanging fruit,” where a decision was easy because they are rarely found in water supplies, according to a 2011 report from a government watchdog.
Meanwhile, during the years that the EPA spends studying contaminants to determine whether a regulation should be set, millions of people are continuing to be exposed.
“It takes 10, 15, 20 years to do the epidemiology and basic biology, and people are being hurt — there’s absolutely no doubt about that. We’re producing effects on the population level, effects that aren’t going to go away,” said R. Thomas Zoeller, a biology professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
NOTHING ILLUSTRATES THE uphill battle it takes to set a drinking water regulation more vividly than the 20-year saga over perchlorate — the only new chemical the federal government has even attempted to regulate in the past two decades.
When new testing methods showed the contaminant cropping up in hundreds of wells and water supplies in the mid-1990s, the EPA stepped up its review of the chemical’s risks. The Defense Department and its contractors began pushing back immediately, promoting their own studies suggesting perchlorate wasn’t nearly as dangerous as regulators thought.
The thrust of the fight: What level of perchlorate can be considered safe?
While the basic science of perchlorate’s effect on the body is clear — it inhibits iodine uptake in the thyroid gland — what this actually means for human health is much more complicated. How does the body respond to small levels versus larger amounts of perchlorate? Are some people more susceptible than others to the harms? Is perchlorate the only substance that causes these effects, or are other environmental factors at play, too?
Research has shown that the chemical is most harmful for women of childbearing age who are iodine-deficient — about a third of all women. Some argued that problem could be fixed much more easily by prescribing iodine supplements for those at risk, rather than requiring utilities to spend millions of dollars each year to remove perchlorate from the drinking water supply.
Further complicating the picture is the fact that perchlorate isn’t just in water supplies: It’s also in our food. In recent years, it has been added to food packaging as a way of preventing static, after which studies showed that almost 75 percent of all food types were contaminated with the chemical. At the same time, bleach, which is widely used to clean food equipment and to disinfect produce, produces perchlorate when it degrades. Research suggests most people are exposed to more perchlorate through their food supply than through drinking water.
“Even if we were to regulate perchlorate with a standard in drinking water, are we really going to correct the public health issue?” asked Kevin Morley, manager of federal relations at the American Water Works Association. “The question is, are we really allocating limited public resources to the actual public health effect?”
The way the government’s attempts to answer these questions played out show how science and politics can become inextricably intertwined.
The EPA included perchlorate on its first list of priority chemicals in 1998, the initial step in the regulatory process under the updated federal law. But it took years for the agency to collect data about how widespread it was in drinking water supplies across the country. In the meantime, the EPA issued a draft risk assessment in 2002 that proposed 1 part per billion as the “health reference level” — the rule of thumb about a safe upper limit for the contaminant that the agency uses as it decides whether to regulate a chemical.
That risk assessment drew an outcry from federal agencies, including the Defense Department, NASA and the Department of Energy, which would all face massive cleanup requirements if 1 part per billion became the regulatory standard. The controversy that followed “was like nothing I had ever seen or have seen since,” one senior EPA official told investigators from the government’s watchdog office.
The fight over the health reference level was so fierce that the White House took the issue out of the EPA’s hands and instead ordered the National Academies of Sciences to study it. But the approach that panel took was also highly controversial. Several scientists with links to the defense industry won spots on the review panel, and the work was paid for, in large part, by perchlorate manufacturers and users.
EVEN MORE ALARMING to public health advocates was the panel’s scientific study itself. It tested perchlorate on human subjects, tracking the chemical’s effect on 37 healthy, non-pregnant adults over just a two-week period — an approach that raised not just ethical questions, but also concerns that it didn’t actually capture the effects on pregnant women, children and people with certain medical conditions. The result: a recommended safety limit that was 20 times higher than the one EPA had proposed in 2002. The panel defended this dose, saying it represented a level that prevented not just harmful effects, but any effects at all. But EPA staff experts, who were given just one week to review the panel’s study and weigh in with recommendations, raised major concerns that the panel’s recommendation didn’t sufficiently protect infants, children and adults with health problems. They also argued that the study’s short time frame could miss the chemical’s long-term effects on people. But just five weeks after the National Academies recommendation was released, the EPA adopted it as its own.
Meanwhile, the decision about whether perchlorate warranted federal regulation was also taken out of the hands of EPA staff experts by the George W. Bush administration. Instead, of collecting information and recommendations from the agency’s experts across the country, the process was run by a small handful of the agency’s top political officials in close coordination with a working group organized out of the White House that included officials from EPA, the Defense Department, and the White House’s regulatory unit. The government watchdog report and internal documents obtained by the Natural Resources Defense Council under open records laws showed that the group held major sway over the entire process, ultimately brokering an agreement not to regulate the chemical — even before all of the relevant data had been collected. EPA staff experts were then told to come up with a rationale to support that decision, which was issued in 2008.
Environmental groups and California lawmakers were outraged. “This is a widespread contamination problem, and to see the Bush EPA just walk away is shocking," Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, said at the time. The following year, when President Barack Obama’s nominee to lead the EPA faced Senate confirmation, Boxer, who chaired the committee of jurisdiction, extracted a promise to review the issue — a move that industry points to in suggesting that everything that came next was equally politically driven.
In 2011, the Obama administration formally reversed the Bush administration’s decision not to regulate the chemical, vowing to propose a standard within two years and finalize it by 2015.
AP Photo
But that timeline proved overly ambitious. The scientific process has continued to be a fierce battleground for proponents and opponents of regulation, effectively stalling the regulatory process. Now, more than six years later, the agency is still many steps from finalizing a standard for perchlorate. It currently is working on its second peer review of the modeling technique that the agency intends to use to determine the health risk perchlorate poses, which would then be used to inform a proposed regulation that would need to undergo the agency’s first major attempt at a complex new type of cost-benefit analysis. That proposal would then have to go through a round of public comment before it could be finalized.
The Natural Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit last year in a bid to speed the process, and the EPA signed a consent decree agreeing to finalize the perchlorate regulation by the end of 2019. But with a new administration now running the process, it’s unclear whether the Obama administration’s decision that it needs to be regulated will hold.
This, critics say, is how industry wins.
“Industry exploits the uncertainties and puts EPA in an endless cycle of analysis,” said Rep. Frank Pallone, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees drinking water issues.
Pallone and other Democrats blame the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, saying they took the EPA’s foot off the gas and posed new hurdles to setting regulations. They have introduced a bill to update the measure by removing some of the procedural requirements and mandating that the agency set standards for 10 new contaminants every three years, along with another measure to significantly increase federal funding to drinking water utilities.
But Republicans who control both houses of Congress have shown little interest in revisiting the law, and have been advancing bills that would create a similarly complex process for all environmental regulations. And while the Trump administration has expressed a desire to pass a major infrastructure package, it has yet to put forth a proposal or describe how significant new investments would be paid for.
The EPA did not make its staff available for an interview for this story. In a written statement an agency spokeswoman emphasized the Trump administration’s commitment to infrastructure improvements, but did not address questions about new regulations.
“Under new leadership, the EPA has made clear it is getting back to its core mission, which includes protecting America’s drinking water,” EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman said in the statement. The agency’s new administrator, Scott Pruitt, "is committed to helping modernize our country’s outdated water infrastructure in order to ensure we maintain safe drinking water for the more than 300 million people that depend on it daily.”
IN THE MEANTIME, new chemicals have captured the public’s concern.
PFOA and PFOS, compounds linked to cancer and other health problems, were initially found in the water supply of communities near where Teflon and other nonstick substances had been manufactured, like Hoosick Falls, New York. There, property values tanked after dangerous levels of the toxin were found in the water supply, and residents have joined a class-action lawsuit against the current and former owners of the plant the state says is behind the pollution.
But the problem with PFOA and PFOS turned out to be much broader, when it was discovered that the substances were also in the firefighting foam used in exercises at military bases around the country. An Environmental Working Group analysis of EPA data found that 5.2 million Americans’ water is contaminated with unsafe levels of the chemicals.
Last year, after years of promises, the EPA issued a health advisory for the toxic chemicals. But the advisory is meant only as guidance to state and local officials, and is not enforceable. Public health advocates fear that EPA’s work to protect the public from PFOA and PFOS could be headed down the same path as perchlorate.
Like perchlorate, people are exposed to that family of compounds from a number of sources, not just water. They’ve been used in carpets, clothing, food packaging and cookware. And like perchlorate, powerful interests, including the military, could be on the hook for massive cleanups if the federal government institutes mandatory drinking water regulations.
Already, there is talk on Capitol Hill of requiring additional studies of the chemicals, potentially through the annual defense authorization bill. And drinking water utilities are expressing concerns even about the health advisory that has been issued, arguing it is misunderstood by the public and did not get the level of expert input that it should have.
Olson, the health director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said he’s afraid the forces that want to stop regulation will once again win — through delay, if nothing else.
“They have a ready playbook if they look at what’s happened with perchlorate,” he said.
How much safety does the Safe Drinking Water Act really offer, he asked, if opponents can stave off regulation of something as alarming as jet fuel in drinking water for more than two decades?
Said Olsen: "It’s been, like, 20 years of banging my head against the wall."
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/05/10/safe-drinking-water-perchlorate-000434
-
In Victory for Environmentalists, Senate Keeps an Obama-Era Climate Change Rule
May 10, 2017 | New York Times
By Coral Davenport
In a surprising victory for President Barack Obama’s environmental legacy, the Senate on Wednesday voted to uphold an Obama-era climate change regulation to control the release of methane from oil and gas wells on public land.
Senators voted 51 to 49 to block consideration of a resolution to repeal the 2016 Interior Department rule to curb emissions of methane, a powerful planet-warming greenhouse gas. Senators John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine, all Republicans who have expressed concern about climate change and backed legislation to tackle the issue, broke with their party to join Democrats and defeat the resolution.
The vote also marked the first — and probably the only — defeat of a stream of resolutions over the past four months — pursued through the once-obscure Congressional Review Act — to unwind regulations approved late in the Obama administration.
In anticipation of Republican defections, President Trump had dispatched Vice President Mike Pence to the Senate floor to break a tie vote. But with three members of his own party breaking away, Mr. Pence stood aside.
“We were surprised and thrilled to win on this,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld, senior vice president of the League of Conservation Voters, which, along with other environmental groups, has been lobbying Republicans for weeks to vote against the repeal of the methane rule. “This is clearly a huge win for our health and our climate.”
The Independent Petroleum Association of America, which represents smaller oil and gas producers, criticized the vote. “We’re disappointed the Senate wasn’t able to stop President Obama’s unworkable rule by a federal agency that does not have the congressionally-granted authority to regulate air quality,” said Barry Russell, the group’s president.
The failure of the effort to roll back the methane rule represents a small but significant victory for environmentalists in the Trump era, as the president has pushed aggressively to dismantle most of his predecessor’s environmental legacy.
The methane rule was one of a suite of environmental regulations implemented by Mr. Obama as he sought to use his executive authority to tackle climate change across the economy. While methane vented from oil and gas wells accounts for only a small portion of the nation’s greenhouse gas pollution, environmental advocates had urged Mr. Obama to tackle the emissions, because the methane is over 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide in trapping heat in the earth’s atmosphere.
The failure to repeal the methane rule, which required a simple majority of 51 votes to pass, comes as the Senate nears the end of its window to use the Congressional Review Act to undo major regulations. Under that law, which had only been used successfully once before this year, Congress can vote to erase new executive-branch regulations within 60 legislative days of their completion. Since Mr. Trump’s inauguration, the White House has successfully pushed Congress to roll back more than a dozen Obama-era rules, including four other environmental regulations.
Under President Trump, lawmakers have used the Congressional Review Act to roll back Obama administration environmental regulations that would have:
■ Limited the way coal mining companies could dump debris into streams after blowing up mountaintops to gain access to coal deposits.
■ Required oil, gas and mining companies to disclose payments made to foreign governments in exchange for access to drilling or mining rights.
■ Revised the way the federal government conducts land-use planning on public lands, in ways that critics said reduced access oil, gas and mining resources.
■ Tightened restrictions on efforts by state officials to allow hunting of certain animals, like wolves and grizzly bears, on some Alaskan federal wildlife refuges.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/politics/regulations-methane-climate-change.html?_r=0
-
Interior to Take Aim at Methane Rule After Failed CRA
May 10, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Eric Wolff
The Interior Department is aiming to gut the Obama administration's methane waste rule that the Senate failed to kill off today.
"As part of President Trump's America-First Energy Strategy and executive order, the Department has reviewed and flagged the Waste Prevention rule as one we will suspend, revise or rescind given its significant regulatory burden that encumbers American energy production, economic growth and job creation," said Kate MacGregor, acting assistant secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals, in a statement.
The Obama-era rule required companies drilling on public land to take steps to eliminate methane leakage or flaring from their operations. The rule was attacked by the industry and many Republicans as too expensive to comply with, but Republican Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Susan Collins (Maine) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.) today joined with Democrats to defeat a resolution under the Congressional Review Act that would have nullified it.
"The vote today in the Senate doesn't impact the administration's commitment to spurring investment in responsible energy development and ensuring smart regulatory protections," MacGregor said.
"The rule is expected to have real and harmful impacts on onshore energy development and could impact state and local jobs and revenue. Small independent oil and gas producers in states like North Dakota, Colorado and New Mexico, which account for a substantial portion of our nation's energy wealth, could be hit the hardest," she added.
WHAT'S NEXT: Interior will have to issue a proposed rule to revise or withdraw the rule.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
One Size Does Not Fit All with Energy Trade Models
May 10, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Brenda Shaffer
American practices of energy trade are considered the gold standard around the globe. When countries look for models of best practices, they usually adopt U.S. regulatory and legislative systems.
However, as many countries around the globe are discovering, transplanting American systems of natural gas and electricity trade into their own markets creates its own set of energy security challenges. In recent months, several foreign states that adopted U.S. market-based models of energy trade decided extra state intervention is needed to promote local energy security.
The most noteworthy of these policy reversals is the recent decision by the government of Australia to limit liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports and examine the building of a major domestic gas pipeline. While U.S. models of energy trade may work in large and liquid markets, where most energy is not imported, they create many policy challenges when transplanted to smaller, often energy-importing markets.
Consequently, foreign states should be cautious in their wholehearted adoption of these models. At the same time, it makes sense for Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, as he reviews the utility of various United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and State Department programs, to weigh the wisdom of continuing to fund the foreign export of U.S. models of energy trade.
Beginning in the second half of the 20th century, significant changes have taken place in the role of the state in energy trade and energy supply infrastructure. Many market-oriented states, including the United States and countries of the European Union, have significantly reduced government involvement in the energy sector; beginning first with oil trade, then power generation and natural gas trade.
The trade and supply of oil and coal, as fungible commodities, was amenable to market deregulation. However, the deregulation of trade and supply of natural gas, which requires extensive permanent infrastructure and large-scale investments in both production and transport, presents significantly different policy questions. Achieving security of supply of these vital utilities is rarely achieved without government intervention.
The energy trade regulatory system in Australia, like that of the U.S., has a very low level of government intervention. Despite being one of the world’s major natural gas producers and exporters, Australia has in recent years experienced domestic gas shortages.
In addition, natural gas prices there are so high that many Australian utilities and industries have continued to consume coal, even while the country’s gas was exported to markets in Asia, mainly China. In the last year, Australia has experienced several power outages and experts anticipate that, without a major policy change, there will be even more extensive power outages beginning in the summer of 2018.
In response to popular demands, the government of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull recently decided to reverse Australia’s long-standing non-intervention policy and authorized limiting if need arises of LNG exports (beginning July 1). Leaders are also considering tendering a 1000-mile, cross-country natural gas pipeline that would help more gas reach different parts of Australia’s domestic market.
Echoing U.S. President Donald Trump’s America-first approach, Turnbull justified the new policy by saying, “Australian demand, Australian businesses, Australian jobs and Australian families have to come first. It is ridiculous for us to be on the edge of becoming the largest LNG exporter in the world and not to have enough gas for our businesses and households.”
Last year, Australia exhibited further protectionism when it barred Chinese companies for bidding for ownership of Australia’s largest electricity grid, due to national security considerations.
As Secretary Tillerson reviews the utility of various State Department and USAID projects related to energy trade, it would be useful to study the lessons from Australia and other natural gas and electricity markets that have adopted a U.S.-type regulatory model.
As these countries realize that this approach does not necessarily keep the lights on, or at least keep energy affordable, it’s becoming clear that regulatory approaches that work in the U.S., may not work well elsewhere. This is especially true in smaller markets and those with national security considerations related to their energy infrastructure.
Brenda Shaffer is a specialist on energy and foreign policy. She is a visiting researcher and professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/332728-one-size-does-not-fit-all-with-energy-trade-models
-
Comey Firing Risks Compounding Cyber 'Disarray'
May 10, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr and Blake Sobczak
The firing of FBI Director James Comey, along with its unfolding political fallout, also leaves another hole in the Trump administration's policymaking team on cybersecurity until his replacement is confirmed.
Coordinating intelligence, law enforcement response and recovery operations in a large-scale cyberattack on critical infrastructure sectors requires policy direction from the White House and personal leadership from presidentially appointed officials at key federal agencies, infrastructure company executives and cyber experts agree.
One private-sector executive, speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid jeopardizing a close relationship with the FBI, said cybersecurity policy appears to be "in disarray right now," owing in part to a host of competing priorities and political controversies facing the Trump administration.
A report from a Department of Homeland Security advisory council last July said the United States was poorly prepared to recover from a concerted cyberattack simultaneously targeting more than one key sector, such as electric power and telecommunications, each drawing on a different federal department for cybersecurity support.
The FBI would likely play a role investigating and responding to any large-scale cyberattack on critical infrastructure, though a severe enough event could also elicit a response from the Department of Defense.
President Obama sought to coordinate federal responses to a concerted cyberattack on infrastructure with Presidential Policy Directive 41, also issued in July, which spelled out different roles for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, responsible for threat identification and assessments; the FBI, leading threat response; and DHS, heading federal agency departments in responding to attacks.
A new cybersecurity policy order from President Trump would build on the Obama order, according to drafts that have circulated among security industry leadership, but it is three months since the initial draft was leaked, with no word on when the order will be issued.
Now the FBI seat on cyber policy must be filled, and that may be a long time coming in the aftermath of Comey's firing.
Comey and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper Jr., heading two of the agencies singled out in the Obama order, had developed a close relationship, bonded most recently by their assessment in January of Russia's intervention in the U.S. presidential election to discredit Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, to Donald Trump's benefit. That assessment was shared by the CIA and the National Security Agency.
Clapper said yesterday that Comey's firing "is a tremendous loss for the FBI and the nation."
Comey's confirmation that the FBI was investigating whether members of Trump's campaign colluded with the Russian hacking and political intrusion made him a target for Trump. The president said he fired Comey because the FBI director's handling of the investigation into Clinton's emails had damaged public trust in the bureau.
Empty chairs
Administration vacancies affect other high-level cybersecurity responses. Electricity-sector executives say they were encouraged after a meeting with Energy Secretary Rick Perry in March that he would revive a cyberthreat-sharing partnership with the power sector named the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council.
"We have to make sure the ESCC partnership continues," said Steven Naumann, vice president for transmission at Exelon Corp., speaking at a recent conference. "We may have access at the secretary's level. That's good."
But the council owed much of its effectiveness to the participation of top-level officials from DOE and DHS, ESCC leaders say, and some of those key appointments are not yet in place, said Kevin Wailes, CEO of Lincoln Electric System in Nebraska and a co-chair of the ESCC.
"We have been very pleased that they [Trump administration officials] understand the scope and gravity of what we're doing. But they have not yet filled all the slots," meaning the senior DHS and DOE officials who meet with the utility executives, he said in an interview last week.
"It's hard to say you will have the same relationship when you haven't met the people yet," Wailes said.
The sharing of sensitive cyberthreat information between government officials and company leaders has succeeded because of personal relationships built on trust, he added. "It makes a difference if you know, I can call this person on the weekend," he said of his federal counterparts on the ESCC.
Trump has largely drawn praise from professionals in the industrial cybersecurity community for choosing as his cyber "czar" former National Security Agency official Rob Joyce, who claimed to have met face-to-face recently with CEOs from an unnamed critical infrastructure industry (Energywire, April 25).
DOD role
Concerns about the lack of top-level policy guidance flared up at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday to examine the U.S. Cyber Command, the DOD component tasked with defending and deterring hacking incidents that jeopardize national security.
Navy Adm. Michael Rogers, who heads up the Cyber Command in addition to his role as director of the National Security Agency, said he's getting to "feel very comfortable" about how DOD would respond to a major cyberattack that clearly demanded an active military response.
"What I'm curious about is: What happens if it's not something catastrophic?" he said. "How do we make sure the capabilities are there? How do we apply them? What's the command-and-control structure that's in place?"
Rogers credited a "very mature" planning process for defense support to civil authorities in the event of a natural disaster, but told lawmakers, "I'm trying to argue we've got to spend a little more time on the cyber piece of this," particularly as it applies to the military's coordination with private critical infrastructure companies it relies on to carry out its mission.
To that end, Rogers said DOD would pursue a "different relationship" with its suppliers, including power providers, perhaps foreshadowing more participation from the Cyber Command alongside appointees from DHS and DOE.
At several points in the hearing, Rogers alluded to the military's heavy reliance on privately owned and operated electric utilities.
That dependence is especially acute at U.S. bases in Guam and Hawaii, where Rogers said DOD has run "test cases" for partnering with critical infrastructure providers (Energywire, Aug. 28, 2015).
"There's no alternative generator capability, for example, that we're going to pipe in power," Rogers said. "If we have problems with power on the island distribution system, we've got major problems for DOD."
'Convoluted' information sharing
Rogers also spoke of the need to provide actionable information on cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities back to the private sector. But the civilian Department of Homeland Security, not DOD, takes the lead on spreading such information. Rogers said that's in part because private organizations have been "less comfortable" directly communicating with a U.S. intelligence agency or branch of the military.
In the FBI's case, the agency's dual role as a law enforcement and intelligence agency means agents are routinely alerted to private-sector cybersecurity threats that trickle in through 56 field offices or via outreach programs such as InfraGard.
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) decried the "pretty convoluted setup that we have right now" for bridging government and private-sector cybersecurity efforts.
Democratic senators at yesterday's hearing pressed Rogers on the need for a coherent cyber policy in light of last year's series of cyber intrusions and leaks surrounding the election, before news broke that Comey had been fired.
"It seems to me that when someone is impacting our elections, that overlooks all," said McCaskill. "Our national policies certainly impact chemical, communications, manufacturing, dams ... I mean, everything gets impacted."
Comey had been overseeing an investigation into Trump campaign officials' potential ties to the Russian hacking activity.
Andrew McCabe, formerly deputy director at the FBI, will serve as acting director until Trump can appoint a replacement for Comey.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/05/10/stories/1060054330
-
It’s Time for Congress to Act on Transportation
May 10, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Rep. Jeff Denham
With the first 100 days of the new administration and passage of the omnibus appropriations bill behind us, it’s time to focus on the serious transportation and infrastructure issues facing America, with big opportunities for Congress to lead on addressing our nation’s faltering infrastructure. By fostering an all-of-the-above funding approach, cutting inefficiencies and building our partnership with states for ensuring local projects are built quickly and at appropriate levels, we can help the president fulfill his $1 trillion promise to build a 21st-century system in America.
My top priority is creating an environment to build big things and sustain projects and programs that will last far behind my lifetime. America became the country it is today by having the wherewithal to build, fund and maintain legacy systems such as the railroad and transit networks, the interstate highway system, our aviation dominance, inland waterways, ports and intermodal facilities. We need to create, fund and set a regulatory structure for success, not bureaucracy, delay and neglect. We must look to leverage emerging technologies and install a regulatory structure that is prepared for the ever-changing landscape of innovation.
We must also ensure that safety remains top-of-mind as these new technologies and policies are implemented, and I was particularly heartened to see a focus on safety included in the budget. In the final appropriations bill, we increased funding for pipeline safety, included funds for 32 new safety personnel through the Federal Railroad Administration, and directed the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to issue a final rule by Aug. 1, 2017, to require that railroads have comprehensive oil spill response plans for certain mixed freight trains carrying tank cars of crude oil — a concern that the whole Congress shares.
However, as the federal government continues to fund worthwhile improvements around the country, we need federal programs to be nimble and assist project proponents with reasonable timelines for approval, clear operating guidelines and reliable funding sources to plan and execute small projects to ones of significant magnitude. This is why I’m a proponent of a private, independent infrastructure bank so that annual appropriations are not relied upon to build transformative systems for our 21st-century needs and so mega-projects know a funding source is reliable. Additionally, states must own their role in bringing regional and local systems online, along with clearing the way for project delivery. I have a bill in the House right now that would present a model for how to accomplish this. H.R. 434, the “New Water Available To Every Reclamation State Act” (New WATER Act) would authorize a pilot project to help finance development of water resources infrastructure in reclamation states, such as California. The bill encourages private investment in systems that serve the public interest by providing low-interest, government-backed loans with a long repayment period. In order to be approved, projects must be capable of generating sustainable revenue streams, whether through user fees or other dedicated sources. It can be done, and the New WATER Act would be a great way to demonstrate that.
Lastly, to ensure a transparent process with competitive spending with state and local projects, earmarks should be a thing of the past. Congressional authorization should be done in committee where members of Congress must explain and defend the merits of a bill from the federal perspective. This would create a working relationship between Republicans and Democrats to help get bills passed, as well as a fairer process that keeps the politics out of legislating. It would also put congressional oversight and authorization where it belongs rather than having an administration — of either party — picking winners and losers across the country.
Overall, I am encouraged by the steps we have taken toward modernizing our nation’s transportation systems, and it’s time to build off of this momentum while Congress works with the administration in the coming months on comprehensive infrastructure legislation and reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration. When drafting this package, I will continue to push for more leveraging of state and local governments as well as private investors, but the recent prioritization of federal dollars is a good start.
Denham is the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials, and he represents California’s 10th District.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/transportation/332682-its-time-for-congress-to-act-on-transportation
-
Supporters Relieved, See Hope in Delayed Decision
May 10, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick and Evan Lehmann
Supporters of the Paris climate deal welcomed yesterday's news that President Trump wouldn't decide whether the United States will withdraw from it until after this month's Group of Seven summit, hoping the extra time and exposure to foreign leaders will work in their favor.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer said at a media briefing yesterday that Trump will announce his choice after the G-7 meeting instead of before it because he "wants to make sure that he has an opportunity to meet with his team, to create the best strategy for this country going forward." A meeting between Trump and key White House staff set for yesterday was postponed indefinitely.
But even before Spicer's news, Paris Agreement backers in Washington, D.C., and Bonn, Germany — where U.N. climate talks are underway — were expressing hope that Trump wouldn't rush it.
"This is a crucial issue and one that deserves careful consideration," Thoriq Ibrahim, a minister from the Maldives who leads the Alliance of Small Island States negotiating bloc to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, said in a statement yesterday morning. "If more time is needed to make an informed decision, we absolutely support that."
The White House had previously set itself the deadline of the May 27 G-7 leaders' summit in Taormina, Sicily, which Trump will attend with heads of state from other powerful developed nations.
The G-7's Italian presidency had hoped to reaffirm the Paris Agreement, as the group did last year. The White House's move means its final communiqué is unlikely to mention Paris directly because that would require a consensus by all seven members.
But where that might have disappointed Paris proponents weeks ago, when White House Paris backers appeared to have the upper hand in an internal tug of war, it now seems the best option. News reports last week held that Trump was on the brink of making good on his campaign pledge to "cancel" U.S. Paris membership, spurred on by U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's and chief strategist Steve Bannon's arguments that it would let foreign bureaucrats dictate U.S. policy.
"Since the difficult Cabinet-level meeting on April 27th, every day that we don't get an announcement that the U.S. is pulling out of Paris is somewhat of a relief," said Andrew Light, a distinguished senior fellow at the World Resources Institute.
The president's daughter and adviser Ivanka Trump has taken a personal role in steering internal discussions. She joined with other administration proponents of Paris, including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, sources say, to persuade the president not to meet his self-imposed G-7 deadline.
Tillerson's likely No. 2 at the State Department appears to share his would-be boss's view on Paris. John Sullivan, the nominee for deputy secretary of State, told a Senate committee during his confirmation hearing yesterday that "as a general matter ... the United States is best served and its interests protected when it has a seat at the table" (see related story).
But he referenced "complex issues, including legal issues with respect to Article 4.11," that might factor into Trump's ultimate decision.
Opportunities for international persuasion
Delegates gathered in Bonn were cautiously optimistic that the move would give pro-Paris factions in the administration a chance to counter legal arguments for leaving Paris. Those — pushed by Pruitt and Bannon — hinge on an interpretation of Article 4.11 of the Paris Agreement and another passage that environmental lawyers have called inaccurate.
It also means Trump heads to Italy without having committed himself on the climate deal. He will be surrounded by world leaders who have committed their nations to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to the business opportunities those actions could provide.
And Trump has shown in the past that he can be persuaded by other heads of state, as when the prime minister of Canada and president of Mexico drew him back to the negotiating table on the North American Free Trade Agreement and when Chinese President Xi Jinping convinced him that China was not, in fact, a currency manipulator.
Light noted that other developed countries will now have a chance to highlight the consequences of a Paris departure, including for Trump's ability to achieve the rest of his foreign policy agenda.
"But if this message is not made crystal-clear to President Trump at the G-7, it will be one of the biggest missed opportunities in the continuing struggle of how the world is trying to move forward on this issue," said Light.
Other countries and U.S. proponents of multilateral engagement stepped up their outreach to Trump over Paris in recent days, as a withdrawal appeared to be overwhelmingly likely. Climate Home reported that Chai Qimin, director of international cooperation at the Chinese government's National Center for Climate Change Strategy and International Cooperation, warned from the Bonn summit that a Paris retreat could affect Trump's clout at the G-7 and larger Group of 20 meetings.
Meanwhile, former Secretary of State George Shultz, who served under President Reagan, argued that the decision will "echo across his presidency" in an op-ed published yesterday by The New York Times. Shultz and his co-author, Ted Halstead, president of the Climate Leadership Council, said leaving the Paris accord would close foreign markets to American businesses.
'Hamlet on the world's stage'
Also this week, more than 200 institutional investors with $15 trillion in assets urged Trump and other world leaders to stand by their promises outlined by the Paris Agreement. They said climate change poses financial risks for their firms. Separately, a group of large businesses pressed Trump to stay in the agreement in full-page ads this week in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post. They include Apple Inc., Google, National Grid PLC and Tiffany & Co.
"By expanding markets for innovative clean technologies, the agreement generates jobs and economic growth," the ads say. "U.S. companies are well positioned to lead in these markets. Withdrawing from the agreement will limit our access to them and could expose us to retaliatory measures."
Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said, "International and business pressure to stay in Paris seems to be having an effect, at least in terms of taking more time to weigh the decision.
"It's obviously not a guarantee of anything, but it's better than a hasty, ill-thought-out decision," he said.
Lisa Jacobson, president of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, claimed some credit for the delay for the business interests that have urged Trump to reconsider.
"The fact that it's still being considered is [based on] the strong call from many sectors in the business community that this is in the U.S. commercial interest," she said.
But Climate Hawks Vote's R.L. Miller paraphrased the most indecisive character in Shakespeare's canon to note that remaining in Paris would mean a less ambitious U.S. commitment.
"What does he want, points for playing Hamlet on the world's stage?" she asked in a statement. "To destroy the treaty or hollow it out from the inside, that is the question."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/05/10/stories/1060054322
-
Congressman Seeks More Budget Information from US EPA
May 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Frank Pallone (D-New Jersey), ranking member of the US House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee, has sent letters to the administrators of 19 US EPA programmes and regional offices requesting a briefing on proposed budget cuts.
The letters follow a separate letter Mr Pallone sent to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt on 20 April following the leak of an internal memo from EPA acting chief financial officer David Bloom that detailed proposed cuts, based off a ‘budget blueprint’ that President Trump released in March. Mr Pallone says the committee has yet to receive the requested briefing.
Congress recently passed a 2017 federal fiscal year budget that cuts $81m from the agency’s budget. While the cuts fall short of what Mr Trump originally proposed, it is likely he will continue to fight to reduce the agency’s funding in future budget submissions.
"Every day, EPA’s programme and regional offices perform vital functions that, among other things, help ensure American families have clean air and safe drinking water," Mr Pallone says. "The committee has serious concerns that such severe budget and personnel cuts would undermine the agency’s critically important work at the expense of human health and the environment."
Mr Pallone’s letters were sent to the acting regional administrators for each of EPA’s ten regions, and the acting assistant administrators of the following programme offices:
· Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention;
· Research and Development;
· Air and Radiation;
· Water;
· Land and Emergency Management;
· Administration and Resources Management;
· Environmental Information;
· Enforcement and Compliance Assurance; and
· International and Tribal Affairs.
He has requested that they brief the committee on proposed budget and spending breakdowns, future state and regional funding, current and future employment numbers, elimination and consolidation plans and timelines for implementing the changes brought about by the reduced budget.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55730/congressman-seeks-more-budget-information-from-us-epa
-
Climate Change Legislation Rides Populist Wave in Calif.
May 10, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
As California lawmakers debate the future of their climate policies, anti-establishment resentment is proving a force to be reckoned with.
The marquee program dealing with climate change — and the target of reforms — is the state's quasi-economywide cap-and-trade system for large emitters. Set in motion by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and tapped for funds by Gov. Jerry Brown (D), it has been beset by legal and political hiccups that have amplified into shock waves. Lawmakers and interest groups are sparring over its future, and traditional political lines are blurring.
The legislative push is being fueled by Brown, who wants a two-thirds vote to insulate the auctions from legal challenges that have dampened demand for permits. But rather than simply reapproving the program as it was designed by the California Air Resources Board, lawmakers have introduced proposals to dramatically reshape the program.
State Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León (D) is making the case for starting a new emissions market altogether as a way to unite lawmakers behind the program, which was originally authorized in 2006. A bill introduced last week by Senate Environmental Quality Chairman Bob Wieckowski (D), S.B. 775, would end the current program after 2020, including its current and pending links to other governments' markets. It has alarmed businesses that were hoping to carry over cheap allowances and other compliance tactics to the post-2020 era, when the statewide cap will tighten significantly on the way to 40 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2030.
That's not the main concern of de León, who portrayed those worried about the market's seamless continuation as rapacious "Wall Street" profiteers.
"We're not in the business here for energy speculators to make money for Wall Street," de León said. "Our job is not for those who are speculating on the market right now, who are trying to profit and buy low and sell high. That's not our responsibility."
Rather, the lawmakers are focused on smoothing erratic auctions enough to provide steady revenue flows, most of which would go directly to state residents as a dividend, instead of to a fund that is currently devoted to further reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
"We're going to give it back to the people," said Wieckowski, who will discuss the bill at a committee hearing today.
Letting cap and trade 'die on the vine'
Besides S.B. 775, lawmakers have introduced A.B. 378, which would tie businesses' ability to receive greenhouse gas allowances to their emissions of toxic pollutants. It's backed by environmental justice groups, which argue that climate policies should also address the conventional air pollution that tends to be clustered in poor neighborhoods and communities of color.
The proposals are in part a reflection of the state's relatively short term limits for lawmakers, which restrict legislative buy-in and promote distrust of powerful executive-branch agencies like the Air Resources Board.
"None of these members were around 10 years ago," one observer said. "Even real progressive champions are increasingly leery of giving ARB that much deference. That means we need to be open to ideas and potential changes that legislators want to see."
Environmental justice groups praised Wieckowski's bill yesterday, saying that it marks an evolution in carbon pricing.
"Now more than ever, California needs to continue leading the nation and the world in creating serious climate policies, and it has done so by closing long-standing loopholes in the current cap-and-trade system," the California Climate Equity Coalition, which includes among its 150 groups the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, the Greenlining Institute and the Coalition for Clean Air, said in a statement.
Parties on all sides are now jumping in to defend the status quo ahead of today's hearing. A law professor said S.B. 775 could jeopardize California's leadership role on climate policy and wall the state off from influencing other governments.
The Senate bill "basically allows the current cap-and-trade program to die on the vine and replaces it with a program that may well cause many more problems than those it attempts to solve," Ann Carlson, co-director of UCLA's Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, wrote yesterday in a blog post.
"And it does so in a way that embraces a 'California alone' philosophy that is fundamentally at odds with California's approach over the last decade to be a global leader on climate change. At a time when the federal government is rejecting climate change altogether and backing out of a leadership role on the most pressing environmental challenge we face, California should be increasing its connection to the rest of the world in its climate policies, not turning inward."
Comparisons with Obamacare fight
An economist who has worked with California industry and environmental groups compared the proposal to congressional Republicans' attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
"I would characterize this as parallel to what's happening in Washington with Obamacare," said Harvard University economist Robert Stavins. "775 is a repeal and a replace of the state's progressive, effective and, for that matter, low-cost cap-and-trade system."
Even a member of the state's Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, which opposes the use of cap and trade, is speaking up in defense of the current program.
"The potential downstream and upstream consequences from the key elements of this bill have the ability to destabilize the progress made by the state since inception of the cap-and-trade program," Mary Petit, co-executive director of the Incredible Edible Community Garden, wrote in comments last week. "Let's be smart rather than aggressive with changes."
The Canadian province of Ontario, which plans to link markets with California next year, put out a statement last week pointing out that it "wouldn't be appropriate to comment" on a draft bill but emphasizing the importance of the link.
"Ontario is committed to partnering with California and Quebec as we work together to responsibly fight climate change," the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change said in a statement. "As expert third-party economic modeling from EnviroEconomics has shown, a linked program provides emission reductions at the lowest price for Ontario and its economy."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/05/10/stories/1060054324
-
Dems to Pruitt — Don't Close Regional Offices
May 10, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Democrats are urging U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt not to close any of the agency's regional offices.
All 10 senators who caucus with Democrats and serve on the Environment and Public Works Committee last week sent a letter, obtained by E&E News, to the agency chief. Led by Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Tom Carper (D-Del.), the panel's ranking member, they requested that Pruitt commit to not shuttering any of EPA's regional and program offices.
"We ask you to reaffirm your commitment to the agency you are tasked with leading and to the families you took an oath to protect by ruling out the possibility that any regional or program EPA office will be closed or consolidated," they said in the letter.
They added that if Pruitt dismisses EPA's regional staff, "the agency would lose irreplaceable institutional knowledge and a deeper understanding of highly technical and regionally specific environmental issues."
In their letter to Pruitt, the senators said they were "deeply troubled" by an internal EPA budget document that hinted at potential closures and consolidation for some of the agency's regional offices.
"Funding levels incorporate rent cost avoidance from several regional and headquarters offices (Potomac Yards North, Region 1, Region 5, and Region 9), the decommissioning of part of the Las Vegas laboratory, and the release of the headquarters warehouse in Washington D.C.," said the document.
Further, the Office of Management and Budget has reportedly told EPA it must close two regional offices as it prepares the budget for the next fiscal year.
Much of the speculation regarding which office could be closed has centered on EPA's Region 5 branch, based in Chicago. It is the agency's largest regional office, with more than 1,000 employees on its payroll.
Lawmakers have pushed back on that possible closure, with both Democratic and Republican House members from Michigan writing a letter to Pruitt last month urging him to keep Region 5 open.
EPA officials in Chicago and at headquarters in Washington have denied reports that the agency plans to close the Region 5 branch, calling them false and just rumors (Greenwire, April 18).
Pruitt has repeated those denials himself. In an interview with the Tulsa World last week, the EPA administrator said rumors that EPA will close the Chicago office are "pure legend" and that the move "has not been discussed."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/05/10/stories/1060054361
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested