Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 5/26/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Groups Name Niche TSCA Areas Needing Improvement
May 26, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Chemical industry trade groups have used the EPA's regulatory reform exercise to call for regulatory tweaks on a variety of lesser TSCA provisions. -
(ACC Mentioned) Environmentalists, Industry at Odds Over EPA's Plan for CBI Under TSCA
May 26, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmentalists are sparring with petroleum and chemical manufacturers over how broadly EPA should apply confidential business information (CBI) restrictions preventing disclosure of data on substances that companies submit to the agency in order to comply with the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
EPA Extends Deadline for Reporting Requirements for Certain Nanoscale Chemicals
May 26, 2017 | Lexology
By Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
On the day the rule was supposed to take effect, the EPA extended the effective date of its rule requiring manufacturers and importers of certain chemicals produced at the nanoscale size (1–100 nanometers) to report particular information to the EPA. -
EPA Submits Final Rulemaking on Procedures to Prioritize Chemicals for Risk Evaluation Under TSCA to OMB for Review and Approval
May 26, 2017 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On May 23, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted its final rulemaking on the Procedures for Prioritization of Chemicals for Risk Evaluation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. -
US Cities Act on Chemicals of Concern in Furniture
May 26, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Several US cities and a state are making efforts to restrict or discourage the use of substances of concern in furniture. -
US EPA Accepting Nominations to Science Board
May 26, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA is seeking nominations for technical experts to serve on its Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). -
Groups Warn EPA Against Pausing Oil and Gas Standards
May 26, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A coalition of environmental groups is urging the Trump administration to maintain upcoming deadlines for oil and gas operators to cut emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. -
Environmentalists Oppose Pause of Methane NSPS
May 26, 2017 | Inside EPA
More than 60 environmental, labor and other groups are urging EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to reverse his plan to pause certain requirements of the Obama-era methane emissions rule for new oil and gas drilling and reconsider provisions of the regulation, just one day after EPA appears to have sent for White House review a proposal to implement the stay. -
EPA Moves to Delay Power Plant Dumping Rule Compliance
May 26, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Mintz
U.S. EPA yesterday said it wanted to postpone compliance dates for an Obama administration regulation related to polluted water releases from power plants. -
Companies Look to Feds to Build N.Y. Projects
May 26, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Saqib Rahim
New York has denied two major natural gas pipelines in the last year, but the companies behind the projects say they'd like federal authorities to intervene and get the pipelines built anyway. -
Shortsighted Energy Gimmicks Blot Trump’s Budget
May 25, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Kate Kelly
Tucked away in the questionable math and egregious accounting tricks that make up President Trump’s first budget proposal is a provision that underscores a troubling trend for this administration — selling out public lands to the oil and gas industry. -
Anadarko Oil Tanker Fire in Weld County, CO, Kills One, Injures Three
May 26, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
One person was killed and three people were injured Thursday at an Anadarko Petroleum Corp. oil tanker site in Weld County, CO. -
Anadarko to Permanently Close Well Linked to Fatal Explosion
May 26, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. is permanently shutting down the well linked to a fatal home explosion in suburban Denver, along with two others in the same neighborhood. -
East Cheyenne Gas Storage Leak Prompts Colorado Evacuations
May 26, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Midstream Energy Holdings LLC employees and contractors were responding Friday to a well-control incident at East Cheyenne Gas Storage, an underground natural gas storage facility near Peetz, CO, in Logan County. -
Gas Industry Says 'Trust Us' on Tracking Cyberthreats
May 26, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr, Blake Sobczak and Hannah Northey
At the end of a Senate hearing last month, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) challenged Dave McCurdy, president of the American Gas Association, to say how Congress and the public can be confident about the cybersecurity defenses of the nation's natural gas infrastructure when no one is keeping score. -
G-7 Slow-Walk on Climate May Signal U.S. Will Stay in Treaty
May 26, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Eric J. Lyman
Delegations at the Group of Seven summit here are grappling with the wording of what looks likely to be a vague statement on climate change in their final communique. -
Trump Urged to Depart Paris Climate Deal Due to 'Risk' of EPA Rules
May 26, 2017 | Inside EPA
As President Donald Trump gets closer to a decision on the Paris climate agreement, a group of Republican senators is urging him to withdraw the United States from the deal, warning that it could bolster efforts by climate policy proponents to force EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. -
The Energy 202: Four Numbers That Will Impact Trump on Paris Climate Accord
May 26, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
It seems like a fool's errand to try to predict when exactly President Trump will make a decision, but momentum seems to be building toward a call on whether the United States will stay in the Paris climate accord.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
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) Industry Groups Name Niche TSCA Areas Needing Improvement
May 26, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Chemical industry trade groups have used the EPA's regulatory reform exercise to call for regulatory tweaks on a variety of lesser TSCA provisions.
The EPA's comment docket was opened in accordance with a Trump administration executive order tasking agencies with identifying regulations that can be repealed, replaced or modified. And it has received close to 200,000 comments from consumer, NGOs, and affected industries alike, as of press time.
Among the agency's many regulatory activities named in comments, several focused on specific rules under TSCA. These include those from half a dozen groups calling for amendments or a full repeal of thenanoscale materials reporting rule, as well as others urging substantive changes to the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products rule.
And groups like the American Chemistry Council (ACC) reiterated concerns and recommendations regarding the new chemicals programme since TSCA's reform.
But industry comments also named myriad smaller issues within the TSCA law that it would like the agency to revisit.
Socma, the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, asked the agency to abolish the section 5 requirement for producers of polymers exempt from pre-manufacture notice (PMN) to submit an annual report of exempt substances manufactured.
"EPA has been receiving these reports for over 20 years. We suspect that it has learned enough by now to be able to conclude that such reports are no longer needed," the society said.
The ACC asked that the agency conduct a "nomenclature equivalency exercise" in conjunction with the so-called 'inventory reset' to address the chemically identical substances that appear on the TSCA inventory multiple times with different names.
"Effective implementation" of the new TSCA’s nomenclature adjustment provisions "could yield meaningful and substantial regulatory burden reductions for industry, since companies may be able to streamline and aggregate numerous operations for chemically identical substances," it said.
The ACC’s Diisocyanates Panel asked the EPA to update its PMN guidance for isocyanate-based substances, in view of an increase in significant new use rules (Snurs) being issued for these. And it said toluene diisocyanate (TDI) should be removed from the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) list.
And Aperc – the Alkylphenols and Ethoxylates Research Council – urged the EPA to repeal a proposed Snur on certain nonylphenol (NP) and nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs), on the grounds it is "unwarranted and unnecessary".
Meanwhile, several downstream user groups requested specific exemptions from the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule. The Aluminum Association called the process "a particularly egregious example of the benefits of a regulatory activity not outweighing the costly burden it places on covered entities."
It suggested CDR reporting be eliminated entirely, or at least restricted in scope back to organic chemicals, as was in place prior to its 2010 expansion.
Citizens, NGOs condemn process
Despite industry requests for regulatory streamlining, hundreds of thousands of citizen commenters criticised the EPA's reform exercise.
And a coalition of more than a hundred NGOs blasted the process as "substantively flawed, transparently biased, and procedurally deficient".
"We see no reason to believe that, even after the arduous process for promulgating regulations and previous retrospective reviews, EPA's current framework of protections is filled with obsolete, ineffective or counter-productive rules. Rather, this exercise is driven by an ideological opposition to all regulation, no matter how needed," it added.
With regard to efforts to reform TSCA, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) commented that consumer confidence in the safety of chemicals is "at an all-time low".
"Taking anti-regulatory aim at TSCA's vital new protections, or tying the agency's hands in obtaining and using the best available science and scientific advice, will only further undermine public and market confidence in EPA and further erode trust in the industry and the safety of its products," it said.
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) agreed there should be no rollback of TSCA regulations.
"EPA should instead dedicate its limited time and resources to enacting the regulations required by the new statute".
https://chemicalwatch.com/56129/industry-groups-name-niche-tsca-areas-needing-improvement
-
(ACC Mentioned) Environmentalists, Industry at Odds Over EPA's Plan for CBI Under TSCA
May 26, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmentalists are sparring with petroleum and chemical manufacturers over how broadly EPA should apply confidential business information (CBI) restrictions preventing disclosure of data on substances that companies submit to the agency in order to comply with the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
At a May 24 meeting at EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C., officials from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) argued that the updated TSCA section 14 -- which details how EPA manages CBI -- clearly favors disclosure over secrecy. The representatives also argued that the lengths the agency appears to be going to in crafting a process to protect certain data is contrary to the spirit of the updated TSCA enacted last June.
But representatives from the American Petroleum Institute (API), the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and other industry trade groups argued that section 14 of the revised TSCA gives EPA significant flexibility to craft a system for balancing public disclosure with protecting agency-approved claims for CBI.
EPA held the meeting to seek input on how to balance public disclosure with section 14's specifications on how to handle and protect CBI that is submitted to comply with the law's various mandates.
Agency officials contend that a provision of the law that requires staff to apply a “unique identifier” to approved CBI claims fails to adequately specify a process for ensuring that related, publicly disclosed information, does not identify a chemical, or other related data, that is protected as CBI.
In a May 8 Federal Register notice, EPA floated two possible approaches for addressing the problem, and the agency is seeking public input on those and other possible approaches through July 7.
EPA has floated two possible approaches for balancing public access with protecting CBI. In one, EPA would ensure that non-confidential information it receives concerning a confidential chemical substance identifies the substance using only the unique identifier, so long as the confidential identity remains protected from disclosure. EPA says this approach would allow the public to identify the various submissions concerning a particular chemical, but not identify the specific chemical. But EPA acknowledges that under this approach “the fact that information not claimed as confidential would need to be treated as such might be viewed as inconsistent with policy (as reflected in the [Freedom of Information Act] and in TSCA amendments) to limit CBI protection to relatively narrow set of circumstances.
Under the second alternative, EPA would apply the unique identifiers to other data submitted on the same substance, but only when the other relevant data was submitted by the same company. Additional data on the same substance submitted by other companies would receive a different identifier.
'Significant Limits'
At the EPA meeting, EDF's Richard Denison said, “We acknowledge the need for certain trade secrets, but there are significant limits to that however,” adding that, “The solution cannot be for this system -- to still be consistent with the law -- to never have the possibility of disclosing any CBI. That's not viable.”
But EPA and industry officials, expressed concern that in certain situations, publicly disclosed data could allow rival companies or other members of the public to infer chemical information that is deemed to qualify for CBI protection.
ACC's Christina Franz said her organization generally supports public disclosure of chemical data “up to the point where it adversely impacts the ability for EPA to protect CBI.” And she faulted EDF's reading of the revised TSCA as favoring disclosure over CBI protection in certain cases.
“Congress would not have granted this authority to the agency to determine how to reconcile the nuances and competing interests if it thought it knew how to do it,” she said.
API's Derek Swick argued that EPA faces a significantly complex challenge that it should pursue a rulemaking to ensure the agency crafts an approach that strikes the appropriate balance.
Swick also floated a more complex approach that would involve EPA using additional, related “parent” or “daughter” unique identifiers to protect certain data.
'Unique Identifier'
According to the notice, section 14(g)(4) of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, requires EPA to, among other things, “assign a unique identifier to each specific chemical identity for which the Administrator approves a request for protection from disclosure."
EPA must then use that unique identifier “to protect the specific chemical identity in information that the Administrator has made public” and to “clearly link the specific chemical identity to the unique identifier in such information to the extent practicable."
Agency staff also told the meeting that the law also tasks the agency with various other responsibilities, including developing a system for assigning the identifiers, and publishing an updated list each year of the unique identifiers for which the agency has granted CBI status.
During the meeting, EPA staff outlined several scenarios where publicly released data could risk the release of protected CBI, and said they are wrestling with how to prevent that from happening, while still complying with disclosing data that does not qualify for CBI protection.
“We are trying to strike a balance between transparency and protecting valid trade secrets,” EPA's Ryan Wallace said. He added that while EPA has floated a few ideas, staff remains open to others.
“We are really looking for how to strike that balance. If you have an idea that hasn't been raised, we would consider other alternatives,” he said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-industry-odds-over-epas-plan-cbi-under-tsca
-
EPA Extends Deadline for Reporting Requirements for Certain Nanoscale Chemicals
May 26, 2017 | Lexology
By Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
On the day the rule was supposed to take effect, the EPA extended the effective date of its rule requiring manufacturers and importers of certain chemicals produced at the nanoscale size (1–100 nanometers) to report particular information to the EPA. The effective date was extended to Aug. 14, 2017, over three months beyond the original date of May 12.
The rule, promulgated under section 8(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, applies to substances that are manufactured or processed in a form where any particles are in the nanoscale size in at least one dimension and possess “unique and novel properties” due to their size. Additionally, manufacturers of different “discrete forms” of these nanoscale particles are required to report on each discrete form. However, the EPA excluded from the rule:Certain biological materials (e.g., DNA, antibodies, microorganisms).Chemicals that dissociate completely in water to form ions with a size of less than one nanometer.Chemical substances formed at the nanoscale as part of a film on a surface.Chemicals that are comprised of less than one percent nanoparticles by weight.
The rule requires one-time reporting of information that is known or reasonably ascertainable for subject chemicals, including:Specific chemical identity.Production volume.Methods of manufacture and processing.Use, exposure and release information.Available health and safety information.
The rule requires manufacturers and importers who have manufactured or imported a subject chemical within the past three years to report the required information within one year of the rule’s effective date. Manufacturers and importers who intend to produce a subject chemical in the future must report the required information at least 135 days prior to manufacture or import. The rule also requires manufacturers and importers to keep records of the reported information for three years.
The EPA decided to extend the effective date of the rule without notice and comment from the public because the “complex issues” regarding the rule’s reporting requirements and the “immediate pendency” of the effective date made it impractical to provide an opportunity for public comment before extending the effective date. Additionally, the EPA determined that the public interest is best served by complete and accurate reporting under the rule, “which would be greatly facilitated by publication of the guidance” that the EPA intends to issue within the next few months.
The Federal Register for the final rule may be found here, and the notice for the extension of the effective date may be found here.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1407831e-ce08-4541-945f-336eaed25286
-
May 26, 2017 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On May 23, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted its final rulemaking on the Procedures for Prioritization of Chemicals for Risk Evaluation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. In the proposed rule, EPA describes the processes for identifying potential candidates for prioritization, selecting a candidate, screening that candidate against certain criteria, formally initiating the prioritization process, providing opportunities for public comment, and proposing and preparing final priority designations. EPA also incorporates all of the elements required by new TSCA, but also supplements those requirements with additional criteria it expects to consider, some clarifications intended to provide greater transparency, and additional procedural steps to ensure effective implementation. Comments were due March 20, 2017; 70 comments were filed. Pursuant to new TSCA, EPA must publish the final rule in the Federal Register by June 22, 2017.
More information on the rule as proposed is available in our memorandum EPA Proposes Procedures to Prioritize Chemicals for Risk Evaluation under TSCA.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-submits-final-rulemaking-procedures-to-prioritize-chemicals-risk-evaluation
-
US Cities Act on Chemicals of Concern in Furniture
May 26, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Several US cities and a state are making efforts to restrict or discourage the use of substances of concern in furniture.
New York State recently adopted a green procurement specification restricting the chemicals permitted in furniture purchased by state agencies and public authorities.
This was developed under the authority of a New York State executive order on state green procurement and agency sustainability (executive order 4), which directs state agencies to focus on commodities that reduce or eliminate health and environmental risks.
The state's standard applies to the purchase of furniture for use in public spaces such as conference rooms, residence halls, libraries, offices and schools. It imposes certain limits and restrictions, including:
limiting polyvinyl chloride (PVC) to 1% by weight;
prohibiting lead, except in motorised parts and electronics;
barring intentionally added perfluorinated chemicals (PFC) used as stain, water, or oil resistant treatments;
requiring composite wood materials to adhere to California formaldehyde specifications;
banning most chemical antimicrobials;
encouraging the avoidance of certain phthalates, including DBP, DIBP, BBP, DnPP, DEHP, DnOP, DINP and DIDP; and
avoiding intentionally added flame retardants, where permitted by flammability requirements.
To decide which chemicals to restrict, the state looked at existing guidance developed by NGOs, industry certification standards and procurement standards developed by the healthcare industry. This included guidance from the NGO Center for Environmental Health (CEH) on flame retardants.
The green procurement specification for furniture was released for public comment last year. A New York spokesperson said respondents CEH, Clean and Healthy NY, the Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturers Association (Bifma) and furniture vendors "all made valuable contributions and helped us craft this specification".
New York is also taking action on chemicals in cleaning products. Earlier this year, Governor Andrew Cuomo announced a proposal for manufacturers to publicly disclose ingredients and identify chemicals of concern used in formulations.
Purchasing pledge
Meanwhile, San Francisco, California's environment department along with Oregon's city of Portland and Multnomah County are among the first to sign a CEH pledge on furniture purchasing.
Signatories commit to informing their furniture suppliers that they prefer to buy furniture made without antimicrobials, fluorinated compounds used as stain treatments, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as formaldehyde, PVC, and flame retardants.
Deborah Raphael, director of the San Francisco Department of the Environment, said that safer alternatives to these substances are already available. "By joining CEH and our agency partners in this pledge, we can protect our citizenry at home and move markets globally," she added.
Also signing the pledge are close to a dozen other organisations, ranging from healthcare providers to universities and corporations. These include:
LinkedIn Corporation;
Perkins + Will;
The Honest Company;
Kaiser Permanente; and
University of California, Santa Cruz
A CEH press release says the pledge signatories represent more than $92m in purchasing power for furniture.
Judy Levin of CEH said that with the major companies' commitments, she expects "furniture makers will move quickly to meet the increasing demand for safer products."
https://chemicalwatch.com/56131/us-cities-act-on-chemicals-of-concern-in-furniture
-
US EPA Accepting Nominations to Science Board
May 26, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA is seeking nominations for technical experts to serve on its Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC).
The 18-member board provides information and recommendations to the agency's Office of Research and Development (ORD) on technical and management issues related to its research programmes.
It is comprised of an executive committee and five subcommittees, including one for the Chemical Safety for Sustainability (CSS) research programme and another for the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) programme.
The agency says it will evaluate nominees based on several criteria, including:
scientific and/or technical expertise, knowledge and experience;
absence of financial conflicts of interest or an appearance of a lack of impartiality; and
background and experiences that "would contribute to the diversity of viewpoints" of the committees, such as workforce sector, social, cultural, and educational backgrounds, and professional affiliations.
Nominations are due by 30 June, although the Federal Register notice elsewhere says submissions should arrive by 21 July.
The advisory committee to the Office of Research and Development (ORD) has come under the spotlight in recent weeks, after the agency chose not to rubber stamp the second terms of nine members.
And Democratic committee leaders wrote to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt last week with concerns that the agency will seek to fill these vacated seats with industry members, "to the detriment of unbiased scientific expertise".
A spokesperson for the agency said earlier this month that it wanted to "ensure fair consideration of all the nominees – including those nominated who may have previously served on the panel – and carry out a competitive nomination process."
https://chemicalwatch.com/56135/us-epa-accepting-nominations-to-science-board
-
Groups Warn EPA Against Pausing Oil and Gas Standards
May 26, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A coalition of environmental groups is urging the Trump administration to maintain upcoming deadlines for oil and gas operators to cut emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
More than 60 conservation, health, labor and faith groups yesterday sent a letter to U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt urging him to keep in place Obama-era standards that require oil and gas companies to address methane leaks from new and modified sources.
EPA is currently reviewing the New Source Performance Standards as part of a broad reconsideration of several Obama administration rules. Pruitt wrote a letter to industry last month promising to postpone a June 3 deadline for the methane rule.
The agency is expected to formalize that pledge as soon as today. Environmental groups are likely to challenge that action in court.
The advocacy groups signing on to yesterday's letter argue that postponing the compliance deadlines will harm the climate, taxpayers and communities near oil and gas facilities.
"This stay will increase health risks for numerous Americans living in close proximity to wells and other facilities, which will emit significant amounts of additional hazardous and smog-forming pollution that would otherwise have been reduced," the groups wrote. "The stay will also add thousands of tons of methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas, to an atmosphere already overburdened with heat-trapping pollutants.
"Further," they added, "the stay will cause the waste of substantial volumes of valuable natural gas."
Opponents who took the Obama administration to court over the standards have denounced the rule as expensive and duplicative of existing state and industry efforts to reduce methane emissions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently paused the litigation while the Trump administration rethinks the rule.
"American businesses should have the opportunity to review new requirements, assess economic impacts and report back, before those new requirements are finalized," Pruitt told industry last month (Greenwire, April 19).
The environmental coalition pushed back yesterday, saying that oil and gas companies would incur "expenditures that represent a tiny fraction of these companies' tens of billions of dollars in annual revenues."
The letter's signatories include the Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund and many other national groups, as well as local organizations including PennFuture, the Ohio Environmental Council and the Wyoming Outdoor Council.
Several health, labor and faith groups also signed on, including Physicians for Social Responsibility, Interfaith Power & Light and the Utility Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/05/26/stories/1060055205
-
Environmentalists Oppose Pause of Methane NSPS
May 26, 2017 | Inside EPA
More than 60 environmental, labor and other groups are urging EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to reverse his plan to pause certain requirements of the Obama-era methane emissions rule for new oil and gas drilling and reconsider provisions of the regulation, just one day after EPA appears to have sent for White House review a proposal to implement the stay.
“This stay will increase health risks for numerous Americans living in close proximity to wells and other facilities, which will emit significant amounts of additional hazardous and smog-forming pollution that would otherwise have been reduced,” the groups write in a May 25 letter. They add the stay will allow “thousands of tons of methane” emissions and will cause “the waste of substantial volumes of valuable natural gas.”
Signatories on the letter include: BlueGreen Alliance, the Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Clean Air Task Force, League of Conservation Voters, Conservation Law Foundation, Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club, as well as several major labor groups.
The groups are opposing an April 18 letter from Pruitt announcing he was granting several petitions from energy industry groups to reconsider aspects of the rule. The letter also said EPA would delay a June 3 compliance date for the rule's “fugitive emissions monitoring requirements” by 90 days. “Sources will not need to comply with these requirements while the stay is in effect,” Pruitt wrote.
Pruitt is poised to follow through on this commitment, sending May 24 for White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) review a rule to stay “certain” mandates of the methane new source performance standards (NSPS), first-time limits of emissions of the potent greenhouse gas.
Alongside that rule, OMB had also listed as under review a proposal for a “partial stay” of the rule -- though the office later deleted all references to the second rule, raising a host of questions, including whether it indicates EPA is planning a broader stay of the entire methane NSPS.
In their letter, the environmental and other groups write the “leak detection and repair provisions that your letter threatens to stay are the cornerstone of EPA's methane standards.” They note EPA projected those requirements alone would “deliver over half of the rule's methane reductions and nearly 90 percent of its toxic air pollution reductions,” as well as “substantial reductions of volatile organic compounds.”
And the groups argue the measures are “highly cost-effective, even without accounting for the climate and health benefits of preventing leaks.” They add the methane rule would create jobs in the “methane mitigation industry, which represents over 130 U.S. companies with locations in almost every state.”
Beyond the reconsideration proceedings, EPA has also initiated a review of the methane NSPS, as directed by President Donald Trump's March 28 energy executive order. And the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently granted EPA's request to pause litigation over the rule while that review is underway.
But the environmental and other groups “strongly urge” Pruitt to “adhere to the rule's deadlines and not attempt to stay the leak detection and repair provisions.” They add that the rule is supported by “a broad and diverse set of stakeholders . . . including lawmakers in major producing states, small businesses, manufacturing workers' groups, investors, health professionals, public health groups, labor unions, and environmental organizations.”
https://insideepa.com/the-daily-feed
-
EPA Moves to Delay Power Plant Dumping Rule Compliance
May 26, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Mintz
U.S. EPA yesterday said it wanted to postpone compliance dates for an Obama administration regulation related to polluted water releases from power plants.
A proposal signed by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt calls for a 30-day public comment period on a plan to push back compliance dates for part of the rule, which requires companies to use the "best available technology economically achievable" for a variety of waste streams.
"This proposed rule is one of nearly two dozen significant regulatory reform actions I have taken during my short time as EPA Administrator to protect the environment, jobs and affordable, reliable energy," said Pruitt in a statement.
If finalized, he said, the action "will provide relief from the deadlines under the existing ... Rule while we carefully consider the next steps for this regulation."
EPA's decision comes after industry groups petitioned the agency to reconsider the rule, saying the wastewater guidelines were "inconsistent" with President Trump's agenda of regulatory reform (Greenwire, March 28).
On its website, EPA said that it was moving to push back "impending deadlines" as a "temporary, stopgap measure" while it reviews the regulation.
The rule, finalized in September 2015, amounts to the first federal guidelines for toxics and pollutants in power plant discharges in more than 30 years. They focus on dissolved pollutants like mercury, lead, selenium and other heavy metals.
Environmental groups criticized EPA's latest move. "The mere fact that EPA is now seeking comment on the illegal stay doesn't make it any less illegal," said Earthjustice attorney Thomas Cmar.
Activists sued EPA earlier this month after the agency announced it would halt the regulation (Greenwire, May 3).
"Scott Pruitt lacks the authority to arbitrarily roll back public health protections with the stroke of a pen," Cmar said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/05/26/stories/1060055228
-
Companies Look to Feds to Build N.Y. Projects
May 26, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Saqib Rahim
New York has denied two major natural gas pipelines in the last year, but the companies behind the projects say they'd like federal authorities to intervene and get the pipelines built anyway.
In April, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation denied a federal water permit to the Northern Access pipeline. In April 2016, the DEC denied a water permit to the Constitution pipeline, albeit for different reasons.
Both pipelines got approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission first. And the companies trying to build them, National Fuel Gas Co. and Williams Cos. Inc., are suing New York in federal court for what they claim are arbitrary decisions.
They're also telling their investors that Washington could be their ace in the hole.
"We think there's a possible avenue for pre-emption by the FERC," Ronald Tanski, president and CEO of National Fuel Gas, told analysts this month, according to a transcript from the company. "Unfortunately, in order to achieve that, FERC has to get back up to a quorum which we expect won't be happening until probably late summer — early summer, maybe late summer, for them to be able to do that."
"We continue to work closely with the administration to try and make sure they understand what levers they can pull," Alan Armstrong, Williams' president and CEO, told analysts this month, according to a transcript by CQ Roll Call. He said the Army Corps of Engineers has a "pretty clear opportunity ... to go ahead and waive the requirement for the certificate from the state and issue the permit."
The extraordinary comments offer a glimpse of how energy infrastructure companies think the field of play may have changed with President Trump in office. Trump was vocal about his support for oil and gas infrastructure on the campaign trail, and he has advanced two long-embattled oil pipelines, Dakota Access and Keystone XL, since his arrival.
The administration has also hinted that it's willing to intervene in states as aggressively as it claims the Obama administration did on climate. Last month, speaking in New York, Energy Secretary Rick Perry said baseload power — which mainly comes from coal, gas and nuclear generators — is a matter of national security and could justify federal intervention in states (Energywire, April 26).
Perry also took a swipe at New York, saying, "Parts of the country, like here in the Northeast, are being denied access to affordable natural gas for their homes because of political opposition to the needed infrastructure" (Energywire, May 5).
The New York cases may clarify the power of one key tool: the Section 401 permit under the Clean Water Act.
The New York DEC denied that permit for both the Northern Access and Constitution projects. The DEC said Northeast Access' proposal failed to meet the state's water quality requirements, and it said Constitution failed to provide enough information, according to a research note by Christi Tezak of ClearView Energy Partners.
"Environmental advocates and opposed landowners are increasingly urging governors to use the CWA §401 to deny natural gas pipeline projects approved at the federal level," Tezak wrote.
Exactly how federal authorities could — or would — override this is unclear as yet.
One possibility, Tezak wrote, is that the Army Corps would reduce the time it gives states to perform the Section 401 review. If a state doesn't finish in time, authority would revert to the Army Corps.
In a March filing to FERC, National Fuel Gas said the New York DEC failed to issue its Section 401 permit by an October 2016 deadline, thus ceding authority to FERC. The DEC disputed that claim, saying the mutually agreed-on deadline was April 2017.
Further clarity may come from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where both National Fuel Gas and Williams have cases against the DEC. National Fuel Gas has said publicly that its pipelines were being held to a higher standard than other kinds of infrastructure. Constitution has claimed that it provided all the information DEC asked for but was still denied.
Neither company expects an answer soon. Once, both projects were estimated to be in service by the end of 2016. Now they're on the shelf.
Tanski, of National Fuel Gas, estimated that the litigation will take at least a year "but likely longer." An ideal scenario would have the pipeline in service by fiscal 2020, he said.
"Constitution continues to be an upside for us," Armstrong said. "It's not in our plans right now in either capital or our earnings."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/05/26/stories/1060055206
-
Shortsighted Energy Gimmicks Blot Trump’s Budget
May 25, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Kate Kelly
Tucked away in the questionable math and egregious accounting tricks that make up President Trump’s first budget proposal is a provision that underscores a troubling trend for this administration — selling out public lands to the oil and gas industry.
Trump’s budget proposes opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling in order to generate a speculative $1.8 billion for the general treasury. This was a bad idea in the 1980s and '90s, and it's a bad idea now.
Drilling in the Alaskan refuge would not only exploit one of the last untouched, wild places in America, but it would also be a shortsighted solution to an imaginary problem.
The Arctic refuge is an incredible place. First protected in 1960 by Republican President Eisenhower, the refuge provides calving grounds for thousands of caribou and is home to more than 200 species of migratory birds who, every spring, mate and raise their young. The Gwich’in people call the region’s Coastal Plain “the sacred place where life begins.”
Oil and gas development — even with the smallest of footprints — would compromise the pristine wilderness with a web of pipelines, roads and other infrastructure. And despite industry claims that it can be done safely and with minimal impact, the track record in Alaska shows otherwise, with approximately 2,000 spills of oil and other hazardous materials occurring every year.
What’s most galling about Trump’s proposal is that, outside of a budget ploy, it’s wholly unnecessary. In Alaska, promising new oil fields in the National Petroleum Reserve west of Prudhoe Bay are beginning to come online. In the lower 48 states, the biggest oil plays are on private and state lands that hold the vast majority of our nation’s oil and gas shales.
On public lands, the oil and gas industry is already sitting on a glut of oil and gas leases and permits. Less than half of federal acreage under lease is currently producing, and there are more than 14 million acres of unused leases on federal lands. Last year, industry bid on less than a quarter of federal acreage offered for lease at auction.
Opening up the refuge to drilling would only add to the oil and gas industry’s massive surplus of leases and permits, and makes zero sense in light of the broader market forces that are trending toward cheaper, cleaner energy sources. What’s more, such a move is unpopular — recent polling by the Center for American Progress shows that Americans oppose drilling in the refuge by a factor of 2-to-1.
As the budget now moves to Capitol Hill, Americans should be aware that any attempt to sneak the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge into the budget process has nothing to do with the budget, but everything to do with the influence and power of the oil lobby. Congress should continue to protect the refuge from these backdoor attempts and strike any drilling language from must-pass legislation.
Notably, this is not the first time the Trump administration has moved to sell out the nation’s outdoor heritage to help line the pockets of the oil and gas industry. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke is currently conducting a review of all national monuments designated since 1996, with a legally unsound view to revoke or shrink them.
Undermining the Antiquities Act — the law that enables presidents to designate national monuments — is one of the American Petroleum Institute’s priorities. And it’s no coincidence that many of the monuments in the cross-hairs — such as Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante in Utah and Canyon of the Ancients in Colorado — have significant oil and gas or mineral reserves that the industry has openly expressed interest in developing.
Beyond drilling in the Arctic refuge, there are other shortsighted energy proposals included in Trump’s budget, including selling half of the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve to generate revenue. The stockpile of oil — nearly 700 million barrels —was set aside four decades ago to be used in emergencies, kind of like a security blanket against global price shocks and supply disruptions.
Selling off our nation’s energy insurance policy (especially when oil prices are low) to cover Trump’s severe budget cuts would be a bad deal for taxpayers, and exposes the U.S. to greater risks in the event of an energy crisis.
Instead of relying on fossil fuel budget gimmicks that could have long-term devastating consequences for the nation, a smart budget would invest in the future by advancing clean energy and protecting public lands and waters that sustain local economies.
Let’s hope Congress can get it right.
Kate Kelly (@katepkelly) is the Public Lands Director at the Center for American Progress. She previously was a senior advisor in the Department of the Interior during the Obama administration.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/335085-shortsighted-energy-gimmicks-blot-trumps-budget
-
Anadarko Oil Tanker Fire in Weld County, CO, Kills One, Injures Three
May 26, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
One person was killed and three people were injured Thursday at an Anadarko Petroleum Corp. oil tanker site in Weld County, CO.
The site in Mead is about four miles north of Firestone, where an investigation is ongoing into a house explosion in April that killed two men and severely injured a woman. The suspected cause of the Firestone explosion is a severed natural gas line that was connected to an oil and gas well operated by Anadarko.
According to the Weld County Sheriff's Office, the oil tanker blaze Thursday afternoon may have been sparked during maintenance activities. The first responders, Mountain View Fire and Rescue, said when they arrived on the scene near County Road 13 and Highway 66, the oil tank battery was fully engulfed in flames.
The tank facility ignited around 3:15 MT “as contract crews were doing maintenance," Anadarko spokeswoman Helen Wells told NGI's Shale Daily. "Local fire departments and law enforcement responded to extinguish the fire and secure the area. At this time, we can confirm one person was fatally injured and three others have been transported to local medical facilities for treatment.”
Work crews were finishing projects associated with a facility upgrade, she said. "The facility was not in operation at the time of the incident." The site had been secured early Friday and an investigation was initiated to determine the cause.
The unidentified person who was killed was found when deputies, firefighters and Anadarko personnel combed the area, the sheriff's department said.
No evacuations were ordered as there was no hazard to residents, Mountain View Fire said.
Three Firestone Wells Shuttered
Following the Firestone explosion in the Oak Meadows subdivision, Anadarko temporarily shut in all of its 3,000-plus operated vertical wells across northeastern Colorado. It is inspecting all of its wells, with a priority on wells and infrastructure in closer proximity to homes and communities. Anadarko's Craig Walters, vice president of Rockies operations, met on Wednesday with the Oak Meadows Homeowners Association. The Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission also participated.
The explosion in Firestone, which claimed the lives of Mark Joseph Martinez, 42, and his brother-in-law, Joseph William Irwin III, also 42, "has left us all shaken," Walters told the residents.
The incident severely injured Martinez's wife, Erin, who remains in the hospital. "We know nothing we can do or say can undo what has happened. We continue to pray for Mrs. Martinez’s recovery and for their families and loved ones."
In light of the Firestone explosion, also under investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board, Anadarko has shut in the three active wells near the Oak Meadows neighborhood. The Frederick-Firestone Fire Protection District's investigation determined that the wells were not the problem, nor was the one well's proximity to the Martinez home. Rather, the fire department said the issue focused on the one-inch diameter low-pressure return line that was severed near the home's foundation.
"To address that specific issue, we are disconnecting all similar one-inch low-pressure return lines from our vertical wells across the entire basin," Walters said. "This is a significant step beyond what the state has required in its notice to operators.
"We will cut the return lines off below the ground and plug the ends with cement. We will cap these lines so they cannot be reconnected again."
In addition, each of the three wells near the Oak Meadows neighborhood has since undergone more inspections.
"We are confident these wells would be safe to bring back on production at a future date," Walters said. "However, we recognize the special circumstances and sensitivity around this particular equipment, and therefore, made the decision to take these three wells offline, permanently."
At the homeowners association's request, Anadarko also agreed to pay for residents to buy natural gas detection devices.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110600-anadarko-oil-tanker-fire-in-weld-county-co-kills-one-injures-three
-
Anadarko to Permanently Close Well Linked to Fatal Explosion
May 26, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. is permanently shutting down the well linked to a fatal home explosion in suburban Denver, along with two others in the same neighborhood.
Craig Walters, the company's vice president for Rockies operations, announced the closures in remarks Wednesday to the homeowners association of the subdivision in Firestone, Colo., where the blast occurred.
"We are confident these wells would be safe to bring back on production at a future date," Walters said. "However, we recognize the special circumstances and sensitivity around this particular equipment, and therefore, made the decision to take these 3 wells off line, permanently."
The company is also paying for natural gas detectors for the people in the Oak Meadows subdivision, Walters said.
Investigators in Firestone determined that a severed pipeline connected to the gas well allowed raw gas to leak into the basement of a home built in 2015.
The April 17 explosion destroyed the home and killed one of the owners, Mark Martinez, and his brother-in-law, Joey Irwin. Martinez's wife, Erin, was severely injured.
The well was drilled in 1993. It is a vertical well, rather than the horizontal wells associated with the recent production boom often equated with "fracking." It is labeled as being owned by Kerr-McGee Corp., which is owned by Anadarko.
There are seven wells in the subdivision. All were shut in after the explosion. Ten days after the incident, Anadarko announced that it was voluntarily closing 3,000 wells in northeastern Colorado.
The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission has ordered companies to provide an inventory of similar pipelines, known as flow lines, and to verify that any abandoned pipelines have been properly cut off and capped.
Colorado is one of only two states that specifically regulate construction and testing of flow lines, the low-pressure pipelines that carry the raw mixture of oil, gas and other fluids that come out of oil and gas wells. Other states, like North Dakota, have rules on how to properly abandon old flow lines (Energywire, May 9).
Flow lines have been cited as the problem in more than 7,000 spills, leaks and other mishaps since the beginning of 2009, according to an E&E News analysis of state agencies' records. Most spills involved crude oil or produced water rather than gas (Energywire, May 16).
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/05/26/stories/1060055207
-
East Cheyenne Gas Storage Leak Prompts Colorado Evacuations
May 26, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Midstream Energy Holdings LLC employees and contractors were responding Friday to a well-control incident at East Cheyenne Gas Storage, an underground natural gas storage facility near Peetz, CO, in Logan County.
On Thursday afternoon contractors were working on a well used to inject and withdraw gas into and out of the underground storage facility, Midstream Energy spokesman Paul Raab told NGI.
"A safety device failed and as a result, natural gas from the well is being vented into the atmosphere," he said.
East Cheyenne has been in service since late 2011 and is considered to be the newest gas storage facility in the western United States, able to provide up to 19 Bcf of capacity, according to Midstream Energy.
Well-control contractors were onsite Friday morning to shut in the well and stop the flow of gas. Cranes, water tanks, trucks and other equipment had been staged at the location to assist.
"In the meantime, to keep the public safe, Logan County emergency responders have established a perimeter around the facility and have used reverse 911 to evacuate a number of homes nearby," Raab said. East Cheyenne plans to reimburse evacuated homeowners for their expenses.
First responders did not say how many people had been evacuated as of Friday morning.
Local, state and federal authorities had been notified, including the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and the U.S. National Response Center. The Logan County Emergency Management Department is managing the onsite response.
Midstream Energy in December said East Cheyenne had reached an operational milestone, hitting a peak withdrawal record of 180,000 Dth/d, with additional capacity available to support more withdrawals.
Midstream Energy said East Cheyenne Gas Storage "is the only independent gas storage field in the Front Range and has been designed and built to offer services to utilities, power generators, pipelines, producers and marketers that require storage to meet gas demand peaks, mitigate gas price volatility, gas supply/demand variability and long-haul pipeline throughput."
The interstate storage facility provides seasonal, daily and intraday load management to the Cheyenne Hub and interstate pipelines serving markets throughout the Front Range, West and Midwest regions.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110601-east-cheyenne-gas-storage-leak-prompts-colorado-evacuations
-
Gas Industry Says 'Trust Us' on Tracking Cyberthreats
May 26, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr, Blake Sobczak and Hannah Northey
Third in a series. Click here for part one and here for part two.
At the end of a Senate hearing last month, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) challenged Dave McCurdy, president of the American Gas Association, to say how Congress and the public can be confident about the cybersecurity defenses of the nation's natural gas infrastructure when no one is keeping score.
"We still don't have the metrics needed to measure the relative cybersecurity of our pipeline systems," Cantwell said, citing assessments by the Government Accountability Office.
The Transportation Security Administration and other agencies under the Department of Homeland Security were directed by the Obama administration in October 2014 to create those metrics, so the government can measure the strength of its defense against efforts to sabotage the United States' critical infrastructure. For its part, TSA is responsible for overseeing the security of more than 300,000 miles of natural gas pipelines.
In February, GAO told Congress that the agencies under DHS had not provided those metrics.
The Department of Energy revealed in January that it was in the dark, too. Although gas pipeline cybersecurity is not DOE's responsibility, DOE officials in the departing Obama administration surprisingly called for an audit of gas pipeline cybersecurity to determine whether mandatory regulations were needed. The safety of the nation's electric power grid is a national security priority, DOE said, and the grid is increasingly dependent on natural gas to fuel generators (Energywire, Jan. 11).
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the chief regulator of interstate gas pipelines, is also flying blind about the risks, which prompted Norman Bay, who was FERC chairman at the time, to ask DOE to request the pipeline audit, according to informed sources. Since then, FERC has offered to conduct voluntary cybersecurity audits of gas pipelines.
Industry officials interviewed by E&E News said they also are not systematically tracking the cybersecurity posture of interstate natural gas pipelines and local distributors.
AGA, which represents local distributors of natural gas, does not have a comprehensive scorecard of pipelines' cybersecurity performance, according to an association official authorized to comment but not by name. Nor does the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, whose members are the large, long-haul pipelines. Terry Boss, senior vice president for security at INGAA, was asked how many pipeline companies received TSA reviews on cybersecurity, and he replied: "We are just not sure. However, I do know of some audits that did include cybersecurity."
Inside the borders
The threat of a cyberattack against pipeline and power grid control centers was hammered home in 2014 by DHS's Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (Energywire, July 1, 2014). It held meetings at FBI field offices around the country to brief infrastructure operators about malware that secretly breaks into inventory network systems, like bank robbers casing a target.
Joseph McClelland, director of FERC's Office of Energy Infrastructure Security, said the supply of gas to the nation's power generators is becoming ever more critical. "Don't think our adversaries aren't well-aware of that fact," he told state regulators earlier this year.
"They are already inside our borders. We can assume they're already here," AGA's McCurdy said in an interview with E&E News, confirming warnings of cybersecurity professionals. "The major [cyberthreat] players are doing a lot of mapping. They have the capability. But do they have the intent?"
At last month's hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, McCurdy said the industry is on top of the cybersecurity threats, citing pledges by industry leaders. AGA companies' chief executives have signed a voluntary commitment to protect gas pipeline infrastructure, McCurdy said. "We have every investor-owned [gas] utility as a member of AGA," he told E&E News. "If they are holding out, they wouldn't be a member" (Energywire, April 5).
Shannon Bañaga, an energy industry attorney and member of the Trump energy transition team, said the companies fully understand that all of their necks are on the line.
"If a security event happens to one company, it happens to all of us, and it's up to us to make sure that doesn't happen," she added. "To believe that additional federal oversight is necessary simply because it isn't required misses the point. It isn't required because there hasn't been a demonstrated need."
The gas and pipeline industry repeatedly points to its close relationship with TSA as the foundation of its cybersecurity preparation. "The TSA does regular audits; they do cooperate and work closely [with the industry]," McCurdy told Cantwell at the hearing. "They are the subject matter experts."
But TSA has only six career staff members on duty for pipeline cybersecurity oversight, and not all of them are cyber experts. Congressional researchers have questioned the effectiveness of a voluntary system overseen by an underfunded and undermanned sliver of DHS. During a House committee hearing last year, the industry acknowledged TSA was operating on a shoestring. Speaking for AGA, National Grid security director Kathy Judge criticized a 2014 reorganization by TSA that "dismantled effective programs" on pipeline cybersecurity and said that TSA capabilities were "slowly recovering."
AGA conducts "peer reviews" of pipelines' security practices patterned after those in the nuclear power industry. "We did 25 peer reviews this year alone," McCurdy said, describing a weeklong visit to pipeline companies. AGA is concluding a three-year cycle of reviews that will have covered utilities that supply three-quarters of the nation's gas customers.
But how companies defend against cyberattacks is not part of the review, and there is no plan to add cyber questions, McCurdy said. The distribution utilities' threat-sharing organization, the Downstream Natural Gas Information Sharing and Analysis Center (DNG-ISAC), has a fraction of the capabilities of its grid counterpart, the Electricity ISAC, officials confirm.
E-ISAC, dating back to 1999, has a score of full-time staff on watch duty, threat analysis and response, and training for cyber and physical threats. Suspected cyberthreats are channeled to the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for state-of-the-art screening. Some security-cleared E-ISAC personnel are assigned to DHS's National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center, a top-secret hub in the Washington, D.C., area where analysts investigate cyberthreats and vulnerabilities to critical infrastructure.
A single threat analyst is on duty at DNG-ISAC. Around-the-clock staffing is not yet considered essential. "Our staff size does not dictate our effectiveness. Through partnerships we can scale to meet threats head on," said the AGA official. The official added that DNG-ISAC sprang into action when the WannaCry ransomware cyberattack spread across the country earlier this month. The ISAC said it worked with DHS, TSA, DOE and intelligence agencies to collect and share software patches, attack signatures and other data with its members. It confirmed within hours that the U.S. natural gas sector had not been compromised, the AGA official said.
Still, even as the natural gas ISAC binds more closely to the electricity sector's ISAC, the AGA official acknowledged that the threat-sharing process "is still in its infancy."
Mandatory standards? 'No'
FERC's unusual audit offer to gas pipelines — over which it has no regulatory authority — is also voluntary: The FERC teams must be invited in.
"We go out and work with some of the largest owners and operators of interstate natural pipelines, and we do a comprehensive [information technology] review," FERC's McClelland said at a regulatory conference this year.
"It takes two days to get through that, and we look at everything," he said. "At the end of the two-day review, we give them the results and tell them every place we think there are vulnerabilities, and we assist them to fix those problems. And without fail, they fix them."
But like TSA, FERC's capacity to do on-site reviews is limited, he told state regulators. "We have a significant backlog of folks who have asked for these reviews," McClelland said.
For more than a year, the natural gas industry has been digging in to oppose any suggestion of mandatory federal regulation of its cybersecurity readiness. In contrast to the gas industry's preference for a voluntary approach, operators on the high-voltage electric power grid must meet FERC's highly specific, mandatory Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) rules backed by potential fines of up to $1 million a day per violation.
National Grid's Judge praised TSA for having "strategically refrained from executing its regulatory authority" to adopt mandatory cyber rules. "TSA is to be commended for choosing the more constructive path, partnering with owners [and] operators."
TSA's inability to create a cybersecurity assessment for gas pipelines is partly the result of pushback from the industry. It said the industry and other companies operating critical infrastructure have been reluctant to share information TSA needs to monitor companies' cybersecurity performance "because they fear regulation," GAO reported in 2015.
McCurdy had a one-word answer ready on the issue during last month's Senate hearing.
"On the gas side, do you think the industry would be better with mandatory standards?" committee Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) asked McCurdy.
"No," McCurdy replied.
Since President Trump's victory, a gas industry that raised many millions of dollars to support him and then helped fill out his White House transition team is calling in its chits to defend voluntary cybersecurity standards and oppose any version of the federal rules for power grids drawn up by the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) and acted on by FERC.
The Obama DOE's recommendation for an audit of pipeline cybersecurity readiness, with mandatory cyber rules to follow if needed, made in DOE's Quadrennial Energy Review 1.2 report in January, was dead on arrival in a Trump administration committed to wiping out regulations affecting oil and gas production.
"I don't think anyone wants to raise a hand for more regulation," said Bañaga, the Trump transition team member.
"I don't know of anyone in those [downstream gas] companies saying we need to apply NERC CIP to this. We don't think that actually provides the confidence that we think is needed for us to do what we do," McCurdy said.
NERC CEO Gerry Cauley, on the same Senate hearing panel with McCurdy, disagreed. "I think mandatory requirements have a place. What was done in the bulk power system is an appropriate mix. We want to make sure everyone is meeting a threshold set of requirements," he said. "We can be harmed by the weakest link."
Paul Stockton, former assistant secretary of Defense for homeland defense and managing director of consulting firm Sonecon LLC, said regulation doesn't bar companies from going further than rules require. "Mandatory standards [in the electricity sector] have provided a valuable baseline for security initiatives, but many utilities, thank goodness, have gone beyond those minimal standards ... investing in their own resources to provide for additional resilience against cyberattack."
INGAA's Boss noted that U.S. pipeline infrastructure is much less interconnected and thus much less vulnerable to a cascading failure than the tightly synchronized electric grid. Power travels at near light speed, while gas moves at 20 miles an hour, giving gas system operators much more time to respond, Boss said.
But pipeline systems' vulnerabilities increase as the industry adopts more automated controls, said Sam Visner, senior vice president and general manager of cybersecurity at ICF International, a consulting firm that has analyzed gas system vulnerabilities.
"For better or worse, and hopefully for better, the nation's gas pipeline infrastructure is going to be increasingly IT-enabled, with more and more devices having internet protocol addresses used to manage this infrastructure," Visner said, referring to pipelines' supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems.
"If a SCADA system is in fact internet-facing, and if it were not protected properly, then certainly it could be vulnerable," he said.
Weak links
As last month's Senate hearing wound down, Cantwell asked McCurdy to join committee staff in creating a process for assessing pipeline cybersecurity defenses.
"Now, I know when you say something like that, people will tell you, 'Wait, wait. We don't want any new regulation,'" Cantwell said. "But at the same time, I'm for the collaborative effort, I am. But I think that we have to have some measurables here that we need to put in place. So we'll be looking at that."
Cantwell said she hoped she could count on the industry's support in creating benchmarks of cybersecurity performance. McCurdy didn't respond directly to Cantwell's request. Later, an AGA official reiterated the industry group's position that government mandates should be off the table.
"The best assurance is [for members of Congress] to get off the dais and actually see what is happening, and dig more deeply than five-minute testimony," McCurdy said. "They will learn. And I think they will have more confidence in us.
"I don't lay awake at night worrying about Southern Co.'s cybersecurity programs, ConEd [Consolidated Edison], Mid-American," three of the largest electric power companies that also have gas systems, he added. "They have the capabilities."
But officials in the electricity industry worry about power-sector and pipeline operators that fall short on cyber defense, particularly when so much of the nation's energy backbones are connected.
The elevated risk to natural gas and electricity supplies stems from their reliance on interconnected delivery networks where a sophisticated attack could have cascading effects. As the 2003 Northeast electric power blackout and other widespread outages showed, a company that cuts corners on reliability puts its neighbors in danger. A wide-ranging cyberattack on part of the power grid in Ukraine in 2015 did not take down all of its targets, just the weakest links.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/05/26/stories/1060055209
-
G-7 Slow-Walk on Climate May Signal U.S. Will Stay in Treaty
May 26, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Eric J. Lyman
Delegations at the Group of Seven summit here are grappling with the wording of what looks likely to be a vague statement on climate change in their final communique.
Some analysts, though, believe it could be a hopeful sign that the United States will choose to remain in the Paris Agreement.
The leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States will release a joint statement tomorrow, covering an array of issues including migration, terrorism, developmental aid to poor countries, and the threat of rogue states like North Korea and Syria.
A senior Italian official close to the talks said in an interview that the language on climate was likely to be "ambiguous and noncommittal" due mostly to resistance from climate-skeptical President Trump.
If that indeed happens, it will be in line with the outcome of United Nations climate talks in Bonn, Germany, ending two weeks ago and with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change meeting in Mexico in March — the two main multilateral climate negotiating forums since Trump took office in January. In both cases, specifics were left out of the final statements until the U.S. position on the Paris Agreement was clarified.
Paolo Gentiloni, Italy's prime minister and the host of the talks, said today he's "encouraged" that Trump was talking about climate issues seriously in Taormina.
"We hope there will be a positive decision announced in the next few days or weeks," Gentiloni said.
Theresa May, the U.K. prime minister, echoed Gentiloni’s remarks today: “There is no doubt that Donald Trump and the United States are taking the issue [of climate change] very seriously here,” she said.
Gary Cohn, one of Trump's senior economic advisers, said in Taormina that Trump is evaluating the issue closely.
"I think he's leaning to understand the European position," Cohn said, according to a White House pool report. "He knows that Paris has important meaning to many of the European leaders. And he wants to clearly hear what the European leaders have to say."
Key observers speculated that the longer the U.S. delayed a decision on the Paris deal, the more likely it was the U.S. would ultimately agree to stay within the Paris framework, at least in some form.
"If Trump were going to withdraw, then he'd just do it, wouldn't he?" asked John Kirton, director of the G7 Research Group at the University of Toronto. "Remaining takes more effort because it's almost guaranteed there will be terms."
Luca Iacoboni, head of the climate and energy team at Greenpeace Italia, agreed. "Maybe we are seeing the conversation about whether the U.S. will remain switch from one of 'if and why' to one of 'when and how,'" he said.
Added Gianni Silvestri, scientific director of the Rome-based Kyoto Club, "Everything we're hearing is that there is a lot of well-intentioned debate, and that can only be a good sign for those hoping for U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement."
Kirton speculated that the U.S. would ask for some concessions in order to remain part of the agreement under specific conditions, such as stronger rules on burden sharing, to make other countries take more action; credits for the U.S. and other countries that update infrastructure; or favorable consideration of the use of hydraulic fracturing based on the grounds that natural gas produces less carbon dioxide than oil or coal.
"It's a guessing game what the conditions will be, but it's my guess they will be palatable," Kirton said. "That's important, because I doubt other countries will be willing to give up too much."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/05/26/stories/1060055237
-
Trump Urged to Depart Paris Climate Deal Due to 'Risk' of EPA Rules
May 26, 2017 | Inside EPA
As President Donald Trump gets closer to a decision on the Paris climate agreement, a group of Republican senators is urging him to withdraw the United States from the deal, warning that it could bolster efforts by climate policy proponents to force EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
The nearly two dozen senators, led by Sens. James Inhofe (R-OK) and John Barrasso (R-WY), argue in a May 25 letter to Trump that remaining in the global climate deal would create “significant legal risk” and “could upend your Administration's ability to fulfill its goal of rescinding the Clean Power Plan.” The senators thus urge a “clean break” from the Paris Agreement.
Their claim echoes a concern said to be privately voiced by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, as well as publicly espoused by conservative opponents of the deal, that environmentalists, Democrats and state leaders could use continued participation in the Paris Agreement in legal arguments to force EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions or to fight the agency's rollback of Obama-era climate policies like the Clean Power Plan.
Ten Republican attorneys general (AGs) also raised this concern in a May 24 letter to Trump. Though they suggest such arguments would be unlikely to succeed -- a point made by industry and conservatives that back staying in the deal, but with a weaker GHG target -- the AGs nonetheless say the uncertainty of how a judge may react to the arguments creates “unnecessary risk.”
The GOP senators also claim the Paris Agreement risks providing environmentalists with a rationale to push an argument that EPA must use section 115 of the Clean Air Act to regulate GHG emissions. That section would allow for a broader, economy-wide regulatory framework.
“Leading environmental attorneys have been candid that they intend to use the Paris Agreement and the existing endangerment finding to force EPA to regulate under Section 115 of the Clean Air Act,” the lawmakers write, adding those attorneys “would certainly make this argument in court as they fight your efforts to rescind the Clean Power Plan rulemaking.”
The GOP senators also seek to allay concerns of some in the Trump administration who favor staying in the deal that an exit would mean the United States would lose its seat at the table in global climate and energy negotiations.
They argue that were the United States to just withdraw from the Paris deal but remain in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), it would “not take . . . away” a seat at the table. Rather, the UNFCCC provides the United States with a “permanent seat,” they write. “[T]his seat remains and will enable you to continue with other nations on this topic should you choose to do so.”
Twenty-two GOP senators in total signed the May 25 letter to Trump.
Just one day earlier, 40 Democratic senators signed a letter to Trump urging him to stay in the deal and warning that if the United States were to leave, it would join only Syria and Nicaragua as the only other countries not participating in the process.
The Democratic senators added that countries as part of the agreement will discuss “issues of longstanding bipartisan interest,” such as the transparency and verification of GHG emission reporting from other countries.
“Backing out of the Paris Agreement now, after the years of painstaking negotiations and strong U.S. leadership it took to get the world to this point, would be a self-inflicted injury to America's credibility and influence on the world stage,” their letter reads.
https://insideepa.com/the-daily-feed
-
The Energy 202: Four Numbers That Will Impact Trump on Paris Climate Accord
May 26, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
It seems like a fool's errand to try to predict when exactly President Trump will make a decision, but momentum seems to be building toward a call on whether the United States will stay in the Paris climate accord. Trump knows that his predecessor's landmark deal will be a prime topic of conversation at this weekend's G-7 summit.
But with typical reality-show panache, Trump is keeping the content of his deliberations -- whether to stay or leave -- close to his chest.
"He's interested to hear what the G-7 leaders have to say about climate," Gary Cohn, director of the National Economic Council, told pool reporters on the president's overseas trip. He added: "He's heard arguments that are persuasive on both sides. They're both good arguments."
But contestants (i.e. other countries) have not been standing on the sidelines in this key debate, calculating that a decision may be imminent and that Trump often appears to be swayed by the last person with whom he spoke.
Here are four numbers that could make a difference in whether the president decides to stay in the Paris climate accord:
SIX: That's the number of other major economic powers -- Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom -- in attendance at the G-7 summit.
What are they saying to Trump? "I am very concerned that a U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement would cause lasting damage to the long-standing mutual trust and close cooperation between our two countries and between the U.S. and other countries in Europe and elsewhere," Germany’s environment minister, Barbara Hendricks, wrote in a May 5 letter to the administration.
Why it matters: The implicit threat from Europe is that withdrawing from Paris to fulfill one of Trump's domestic goals -- bolstering fossil-fuel production -- will get in the way of the U.S. government's other goals abroad, where nearly 200 other nations have signed on to the accord. Everything from cooperating to fight terrorism to renegotiating trade deals could become harder.
THIRTY-THREE: That's the number of Fortune 100 companies that support the Paris agreement, according to a head count by the investor advocacy group Ceres.
What are they saying to Trump? "By expanding markets for innovative clean technologies, the agreement generates jobs and economic growth. 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," a group of some of those firms, including Apple, Google and Morgan Stanley, wrote in a full-page newspaper ad earlier this month. The firms also note that reducing the effects of climate change mitigates business risk.
Why it matters: Many of the 33 Fortune firms supporting Paris are manufacturers (like General Motors) or energy companies (like Chevron) that need regulatory certainty in order to make business decisions and, ultimately, create jobs. These companies know there will be another Democratic president someday who most likely will push for a Paris-like international accord, just as President Obama did when he picked up the pieces of the Kyoto Protocol. They would rather stick to an agreement that sets only voluntary emissions targets.
TWENTY-TWO: That's the number of GOP senators who signed a letterasking Trump this week to withdraw from the agreement.
What are they saying to Trump? The risk of litigation from environmental groups, should the United States stay in Paris but continue rolling back Obama-era greenhouse gas regulation is high on their list of concerns.
“Because of existing provisions within the Clean Air Act and others embedded in the Paris Agreement, remaining in it would subject the United States to significant litigation risk that could upend your Administration’s ability to fulfill its goal of rescinding the Clean Power Plan. Accordingly, we strongly encourage you to make a clean break from the Paris Agreement," wrote the GOP senators.
Why it matters: To have a chance of passing health care and tax rewrites, Trump will need the cooperation of every member of the narrow GOP majority in the Senate. The opinion of Republicans -- and those of Environmental Protection Agency Secretary Scott Pruitt and Energy Secretary Rick Perry, among others -- will outweigh that of the 40 Senate Democrats, who, in their own letter to the president this week, urged him to stay in Paris. Trump has to keep the rest of the GOP happy to enact his agenda.
EIGHTEEN: That's the percentage of Republican voters who said they were worried "a great deal" about global warming, according to a Gallup survey in March. Two-thirds of Democrats said they were also greatly worried in that poll.
What are they saying to Trump? Gallup wrote: "Republicans are more in agreement than Democrats about how the subject of global warming is treated in the news: 66% say it is generally exaggerated... Eighty-five percent of Republicans do not think global warming will pose a serious threat to them or their way of life in their lifetime."
Why it matters: This may be the most important number. Even though concern over global warming is at a three-decade high in the United States, the partisan divide on the issue is vast. Trump needs the continued support of his base, especially with the mounting cloud of controversy surrounding the Russia investigation swallowing up Washington. His core voters don't care about Paris except for perhaps wanting to withdraw from it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2017/05/26/the-energy-202-four-numbers-that-will-impact-trump-on-paris-climate-accord/5927b026e9b69b2fb981dba3/?utm_term=.6cb4c937e888
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
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