Preview Newsletter

ACC AM 6/13/17

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) ACC: UN Forum Too Focused On Plastic Bans, Not Enough On Waste Management
Jun 12, 2017 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken

The American Chemistry Council is criticizing a major U.N. conference on the oceans for pushing bans or reductions in the use of some plastic products, saying it would have liked to see more attention on broader solutions to ocean pollution like improving waste management.
(ACC Mentioned) WWF Environmental Effort Gains Plastics Industry Backing
Jun 12, 2017 | Plastics News
By Jim Johnson

A nonprofit group known for work with endangered species is launching a new effort to promote reuse of materials, including plastics.
(ACC Mentioned) High-Performing Materials Featured At NeoCon Show
Jun 12, 2017 | ChicagoNow (blog)
By Lira

This week, 50,000 design professionals are gathering in Chicago to see the latest products and prototypes at NeoCon. NeoCon offers an inside look at new trends transforming commercial design, such as enhancements in the offices of the future and the benefits of wellness-focused designs.
Dow-DuPont Deal Clears India, Leaving U.S., Canada to Sign Off
Jun 13, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Eleanor Tyler

DuPont Co. and the Dow Chemical Co. have cleared a major hurdle to their tie-up with conditional approval from the Competition Commission of India for their $78.5 billion merger. There are only two major countries left to approve the deal — Canada and the U.S.

LCSA News

Easing EPA Chemical Reporting Could Promote Recycling
Jun 13, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

Companies want to enlist the EPA's help so they can recycle valuable metals and other inorganic chemicals and cut down the amount of time and money they're spending filling out paperwork.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Satire: Dow Purchases Naming Rights for EPA’s Toxics Office
Jun 12, 2017 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Daniel Rosenberg

In a joint statement this week, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris announced a new “partnership” under which Dow purchased the naming rights for EPA’s Toxics Office. Formerly known as the Office for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, it has been renamed the Dow Office of Endorsing Chemicals and Promotion of Toxics (DECEPT).
US EPA Received 44 PMNs in March
Jun 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch

The US EPA received 44 pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) in March. Of these, 37 saw the manufacturer or importer withheld as confidential business information (CBI).
Dutch Health Officials Investigating GenX
Jun 12, 2017 | Star News Online
By Kevin Maurer

Dutch officials have launched an investigation into GenX as researchers both in the United States and Europe struggle to wrap their arms around the long-term health effects of the man-made compound that’s been found in the Cape Fear River and the water supply of the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA).
Scientists Claim Furniture Gave Woman Fatal Thyroid Cancer
Jun 13, 2017 | Deccan Chronicle

When Juliet Shand developed a gravely voice she didn't think much of it. The recruitment manager from Kent thought it was a result of her issues with swallowing food and didn't find it necessary to get it checked, the Daily Mail reports.

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) West Virginia's Senators Urge Appalachian Natural Gas Hub
Jun 13, 2017 | AP

West Virginia's U.S. senators have introduced legislation intended to help establish a major natural gas storage and distribution hub in the Appalachian region.
(ACC Mentioned) Capito Unveils Second Bill to Push Appalachia Hub
Jun 13, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Dylan Brown

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) introduced a second bill yesterday to encourage the development of a natural gas storage facility in Appalachia.
(ACC Mentioned) Is Big Oil’s Bet On Petrochemicals A Bust?
Jun 12, 2017 | Oil Price
By Haley Zaremba

Thanks to the last years’ unstable crude markets, peak oil demand looming around the corner, rising use of renewable energy and electric vehicles, and flooded markets, big oil is looking to corner new markets and it has its sights set on plastics. Petrochemicals have a promising future, with need for plastics continuing to grow worldwide, but is it a business model built to last?
(ACC Mentioned) Manchin, Capito Introduce Natural Gas Storage Legislation
Jun 12, 2017 | West Virginia MetroNews
By Alex Thomas

Two pieces of legislation were introduced Monday regarding the possible establishment of a natural gas storage facility in Appalachia.
Ethane Cracker Tops Pennsylvania's Top Construction Projects — By Far
Jun 12, 2017 | BIzJournals
By Paul J. Gough

The ethane cracker that is about to be built in Beaver County is by far the largest construction project in Pennsylvania announced last year, according to a new ranking.
Efficiency Measure Falls Off House Energy-Bill Express
Jun 12, 2017 | Roll Call
By Jeremy Dillon

The House passed Monday a passel of energy infrastructure and efficiency bills that were marked up last week, although the chamber left out the only one with a small hint of controversy, a measure to encourage the development of energy-efficient federal office buildings.
Utility Group Suggests CPP Replacement Plan As EPA Advances Rollback
Jun 12, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith

Even before EPA decides whether or how to replace the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP), a coalition of 13 electric utilities that serve 25 states is pitching a replacement to the power plant greenhouse gas rule, with an attorney representing the group describing the plan as a more flexible and effective alternative than the rule EPA is poised to repeal.

Chemical Security News

(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt Delays Chemical Plant Regulation Changes to 2019
Jun 13, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson

Chemical companies, oil refiners and other industrial sites will see a reprieve from an Obama administration regulation that would have imposed new safety requirements, the Environmental Protection Agency said.
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Delays Safety Rule Until 2019
Jun 12, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder

U.S. EPA has delayed implementation of a chemical safety rule for nearly two years to allow the agency to reconsider it.
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Delays Risk Management Program Amendments To '19
Jun 13, 2017 | ICIS
By David Haydon

HOUSTON (ICIS)--Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Scott Pruitt has signed a final rule delaying amendments to the nation's Risk Management Program (RMP) until 19 February 2019, the regulator said on Monday.
Delaying Policy, EPA Signals Significant Changes To Obama RMP Rule
Jun 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds

EPA is suggesting it plans to make significant changes to an Obama-era facility safety rule, arguing in its announcement delaying the regulation for an additional 20 months that the rule is based on “policy preferences” that could vary between administrations, and that the agency intends to raise concerns with the rule not cited in industry petitions.
Powerful N.J. Republican Asked to Back Colleagues Over Trump
Jun 12, 2017 | NJ.com
By Jonathan D. Salant

A bipartisan majority of the New Jersey congressional delegation wants one of their own, Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, to preserve funding for the agency that investigates chemical accidents.
Why Congress Should Get Behind The Bipartisan 'U.S. Call Center Worker and Consumer Protection Act'
Jun 12, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Gene Green and David B. Mckinley

There’s a growing and bipartisan consensus that Congress needs to do more to strengthen American industries and put American workers first.
Electric Sector, Feds Rush To Thwart 'Milestone' Cyber Weapon
Jun 12, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Eric Geller

Government officials and energy sector leaders scrambled Monday to analyze a newly discovered cyber weapon that researchers are calling a “milestone” for hackers hoping to cripple power grids.

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

DC Circuit Schedules Arguments Over EPA Boiler Rule
Jun 12, 2017 | Inside EPA

A federal appellate court has scheduled Sept. 15 arguments in a case brought by environmentalists against aspects of EPA's air toxics rules for industrial boilers not already addressed by the court, even as the Supreme Court prepares to decide whether it will hear arguments over the rules' provisions on industrial malfunctions.
Facing Regulatory Uncertainty, ECOS Seeks To Redefine State-Federal Roles
Jun 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves

Facing significant uncertainty about EPA's future budgets and its regulatory role, state environmental leaders are launching a new campaign to redefine state and federal roles overseeing pollution control requirements while setting principles for how to do so.
Is NSR Next On The Trump Deregulatory Agenda?
Jun 12, 2017 | Inside EPA

The Commerce Department is slated to issue its report later this week targeting EPA and other agencies' rules that burden manufacturers, a document that is expected to focus heavily on EPA's new source review (NSR) permit program that many industry groups strongly criticized in their comments.
EPA Air Pollution Model Gets Inspector General Scrutiny
Jun 13, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers

The EPA's process for approving the air pollution modeling methods it recommends for state regulators is slated for review by the agency's inspector general.
EPA Reopens Public Comment On Air Monitoring Settlement
Jun 12, 2017 | Inside EPA

The Trump administration is reopening public comment on an Obama EPA proposed settlement agreement with environmentalists that would require EPA to issue two “non-binding” guidance documents aimed at ensuring public involvement in state air quality monitoring plans, citing adverse comment from Texas and Ohio.
U.S. Finds Isolated Climate Change Stance at G-7 Talks
Jun 13, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Chiara Albanese and Jessica Shankleman and Eric J. Lyman

Two days of talks among Group of Seven environment ministers confirmed a crack between the world's other leading industrial nations and the U.S. over climate change issues.
California Budget Bills Fail to Extend Cap-and-Trade
Jun 13, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel

California budget bills on June 12 didn't include legislation Gov. Jerry Brown (D) is seeking to reauthorize the state's greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade program.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) ACC: UN Forum Too Focused On Plastic Bans, Not Enough On Waste Management

Jun 12, 2017 | Plastics News

By Steve Toloken

The American Chemistry Council is criticizing a major U.N. conference on the oceans for pushing bans or reductions in the use of some plastic products, saying it would have liked to see more attention on broader solutions to ocean pollution like improving waste management.
The comments from Washington-based ACC came as the United Nations wrapped up its first-ever conference on the health of the oceans June 9 in New York.
The five-day forum finished with a 22-point nonbinding statement from the 193 member countries, including a call for "long-term and robust strategies to reduce the use of plastics and microplastics, particularly plastic bags and single use plastics."
ACC said the plastics industry is committed to preventing marine letter and praised the U.N. for the "tremendous work" of the conference, which ran from June 5-9, but expressed disappointment the event did not, in ACC's view, put more emphasis on strengthening waste collection systems.
"We had hoped the outcomes would focus more on building political and financial support for improved waste management, or on deploying innovative recycling and energy recovery," said Steve Russell, vice president of plastics for ACC.
"Recommendations to instead ban or reduce the use of specific products may give the illusion of progress, but in fact don't help us solve the bigger problem," he said.
While the conference dealt with a wide range of ocean problems, from overfishing, coastal acidification, sea-level rise and climate change, the afternoon of the first day included sessions that delved heavily into plastics.
A U.N. document summarizing that session, for example, noted that many countries made presentations on their efforts to reduce plastic use, including bags and other packaging, and microplastics, along with discussions about improving waste management.
In the leadup to the conference, the non-governmental organization Ocean Conservancy and its partners in the plastics industry unveiled a plan to raise $10 million by 2020 for research and public efforts to reduce plastic pollution in the ocean.
ACC said the plastics industry has 260 projects around the world either planned or under way to reduce marine litter, and it said it was offering technical expertise to the U.N. It said plastics provide benefits like resource savings and preventing food waste.
"Solutions require the cooperation of industry, civil society and other stakeholders to effect meaningful change," Russell said.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20170612/NEWS/170619986/acc-un-forum-too-focused-on-plastic-bans-not-enough-on-waste

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) WWF Environmental Effort Gains Plastics Industry Backing

Jun 12, 2017 | Plastics News

By Jim Johnson

A nonprofit group known for work with endangered species is launching a new effort to promote reuse of materials, including plastics.
The World Wildlife Fund is out with what it calls the Cascading Materials Vision, an effort that seeks to minimize barriers for increased use of recycled materials.
The American Chemistry Council, the American Institute for Packaging and the Environment, DuPont Co., the Recycling Partnership, and the European Bioplastic Association are among the initial group of organizations and companies supporting the idea.
With global population continuing to rise, WWF sees efficient materials management as a way to ease the use of resources and decrease waste disposal, which the group says "negatively impacts ecosystems and communities."
While businesses seek to use more secondary materials, there are what the non-profit calls systematic barriers influencing both quality and quantity. And that's where the new effort hopes to have an impact.
Steve Russell, vice president of plastics at ACC, said while the set of guiding principles are broad and ambitious, he said they also are well thought out.
"ACC has been involved in discussions around recycling policy and waste management, waste minimalization for many years. And, more recently, those discussions have taken on a new imperative because of the marine debris work. There's a lot of ideas out there. There is the zero waste movement, sustainable materials management, circular economy. In all of those discussions, it strikes us that there are some common themes," he said.
"And we were really intrigued that WWF took the initiative to pull many of those, we thought, most helpful streams together," Russell said. "They thought through this pretty deeply and their vision aligned very well with our policy objectives."
Global food giant Nestle, which has an extensive bottled water business, is one of the initial supporters of the program.
"Continually improving the environmental performance of our packaging following a life cycle approach is a key driver in our product and packaging development process. The guiding principles described in the WWF's Cascading Materials Vision are therefore fully aligned with Nestle's ambition to prevent littering and packaging going to landfill," said Marco Bernasconi, global head of packaging, at Nestle.
There are 10 guiding principles for the vision, including one that stresses maximizing benefit for both the environment and society while measuring impact.
"Solutions," ACC's Russell said, "need to be evaluated by the effect they have on the environment and people."
Another principle addresses designing products to account for waste management.
"If we are making design decisions, we should be doing that in connection with an understanding of how the product gets used. In the past, that hasn't been as frequently linked," Russell said.
The guiding principles also call for a "systems approach" toward waste management.
"In order for a waste management system to function well, you got to have optimized collection. You have to have stakeholder outreach. You have to have an end-use market in place. None of the pieces can be done by themselves. So a systems approach, we think, is particularly critical," Russell said.
Those signing on to support the Cascading Materials Vision platform "agree to abide by a set of guiding principles for decision making that align materials management practices, allow for greater collaboration across industry and create easier sourcing of secondary materials," WWF indicated.
Other guidelines address sharing responsibility, inclusive solutions, effective policy, adaptability, diversity and science.
"The vision includes many of the philosophies upon which our organization is based," said Ameripen President Lee Anderson in a statement, "including science-based decision making, a systems approach, effective policies and adaptability."
"We can quite literally do more with less simply by using materials more than once," said Erin Simon deputy director of packaging and material science at WWF, in a statement. "By bringing stakeholders together onto one cohesive platform, the Cascading Materials Vision will help reduce the burden on our natural systems and enable creation of the global markets needed to make quality secondary materials accessible and reliable."
More information about the Cascading Materials Vision, including the guiding principles, is available at https://www.worldwildlife.org/projects/cascading-materials-extending-the-life-of-our-natural-resources.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20170612/NEWS/170619985/wwf-environmental-effort-gains-plastics-industry-backing

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) High-Performing Materials Featured At NeoCon Show

Jun 12, 2017 | ChicagoNow (blog)

By Lira

This week, 50,000 design professionals are gathering in Chicago to see the latest products and prototypes at NeoCon. NeoCon offers an inside look at new trends transforming commercial design, such as enhancements in the offices of the future and the benefits of wellness-focused designs.
As architects and interior designers imagine and create sleek, modern buildings and office environments, chemistry is at the root of the high-performing materials that help make innovations possible. The products of chemistry contribute to the durability and functionality of walls, roofing, floors and insulation that make up a building structure, the energy efficiency of lighting and the aesthetics of stylish décor.
Here are a few examples of how chemistry is key to high-performing materials:
§ Light-emitting diode (LED) lighting is a frequent choice for illuminating commercial spaces and offices, offering energy efficiency, durability and long life. In the future, LED lighting could cut global energy demand by 30 percent.
§ Vinyl flooring is moisture-resistant, durable and easy-to-clean — helping to provide a hygienic and safe environment in healthcare facilities, offices and restaurants. Luxury vinyl tile (LVT) offers high-end aesthetic designs and patterns for flooring surfaces that can be both warm and comfortable underfoot.
§ Sustainable surfaces and countertops are made using a composite blend of epoxies, recycled glass, and other post-consumer materials. The end product can be composed of up to 90 percent recycled content, helping designers and architects attain LEED credits for their projects.
Designers and architects can learn more about innovative materials at the Material ConneXion Library, sponsored by the American Chemistry Council, which opened last year at the American Society of Interior Designer’s (ASID) new corporate headquarters in Washington, D.C. The library features 300 samples of innovative materials and products with an emphasis on health and wellness in the built environment.
Learn more about how chemical materials help make design bright.

http://www.chicagonow.com/arch-x-perience/2017/06/high-performing-materials-featured-at-neocon-show/

Return to headline | Return to top
Dow-DuPont Deal Clears India, Leaving U.S., Canada to Sign Off

Jun 13, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Eleanor Tyler

DuPont Co. and the Dow Chemical Co. have cleared a major hurdle to their tie-up with conditional approval from the Competition Commission of India for their $78.5 billion merger. There are only two major countries left to approve the deal — Canada and the U.S.
DuPont confirmed on June 12 that it has received conditional clearance from the Indian antitrust watchdog. India is one of a few big jurisdictions that had yet to clear the deal, and it is an important market for both companies. The companies said in a statement that they remain on track to close the merger in August, the contractual deadline for the deal.
The companies said in an email to Bloomberg BNA that they agreed to “remedies” in Indian markets related to grape fungicides targeting the sac funghi Ascomycota and those handling of “low graft” maleic-anhydride (MAH) grafted polymers, a type of plastic.
The companies “continue to engage constructively with regulators in the remaining jurisdictions,” Dow media relations leader Jarrod Erpelding said in an email.
The U.S. and Canada stand out as two jurisdictions that have not yet cleared the deal, but it has garnered many of the clearances necessary to proceed with the first stage of the planned merger and spin-off into three separate industry-based companies.
Because the process in the U.S. and Canada is confidential, information on where the companies stand in those merger reviews is unavailable. Canada's antitrust agency publicly announces its merger decisions on a monthly basis only, but a spokeswoman confirmed June 9 that the bureau is still reviewing the merger.
The deal has already cleared several other barriers. China and Brazil approved the merger conditioned on divestitures in May, and the European Commission cleared it with substantial divestiture requirements in March, including the sale of major parts of Dupont's global pesticide business.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114143855&vname=dennotallissues&fn=114143855&jd=114143855

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

Easing EPA Chemical Reporting Could Promote Recycling

Jun 13, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

Companies want to enlist the EPA's help so they can recycle valuable metals and other inorganic chemicals and cut down the amount of time and money they're spending filling out paperwork.
Some businesses said it's easier to simply dispose of manufacturing byproducts such as wastewater rather than go through the process of determining if the materials must be reported under the primary chemicals law.
“If we could avoid having to figure out all this—whether to report—that would alleviate a substantial burden,” said Mark Duvall, a chemicals attorney with Beveridge & Diamond, P.C. He represents Guardian Industries on the Environmental Protection Agency's newly formed Inorganic Byproducts Negotiated Rulemaking Committee.
Power utilities, electronics makers, and other businesses may not think of themselves as chemical manufacturers, but chemicals in their wastewater and other byproducts of their manufacturing processes may have to be reported the EPA—not only as wastes and released materials but also as newly manufactured compounds.
During the next two years, the committee aims to identify strategies that would allow the EPA, states, and other parties to get the exposure data they seek to oversee the safety of chemicals while making it easier for coal-fired power plants, printed circuit board manufacturers, and other industries to continue recycling inorganic chemicals they produce incidentally as they make something else.
While the committee aims to ease industries’ burdens, state regulators, tribal representatives, and public interest groups said they still want to ensure that the EPA collects data about worker, public, and environmental exposures that could occur as metals and other inorganic chemical byproducts are recycled.
The committee met for the first time June 8–9 and includes representatives from the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group; Guardian Industries, which makes glass, automotive, and building products; TTM Technologies, which makes printed circuit boards and serves as a member of the IPC-Association Connecting Electronics Industries; and the American Coal Ash Association, which represents companies including the Dairyland Power Cooperative, Duke Energy, and the Lehigh Hanson Heidelberg Cement Group. It will regroup Aug. 16–17 to ready its recommendations to the EPA for improving the reporting process before the next batch of chemical disclosures are due in 2020.
Focused on Metals
Metals are the main type of inorganic chemical the committee is focused on because metals are commodities that can be sold and reused.
Petroleum refiners, for example, use platinum as a catalyst to break down crude oil into chemicals, committee member Derek Swick, manager of regulatory and scientific affairs for the American Petroleum Institute, told Bloomberg BNA. Refiners want to recapture and reuse the catalyst, he said.
Copper is commonly used in making electronic parts.

Reclaiming such metals from rinse waters, spent etching fluids, or other manufacturing leftovers benefits the environment and helps companies’ bottom line.
There's a good story to be told, Susan Sharkey, a chemical engineer in the EPA's Existing Chemicals Branch, told the committee. Recycled inorganic byproducts are not thrown into landfills and recycling cuts down on new mining, she said.
Extent of Reporting Unknown
But neither the EPA nor trade associations officials on the committee could describe the extent of inorganic byproducts that companies report to the agency under the regulation they are negotiating, which is called the Chemical Data Reporting, or CDR, rule.
Data from the Toxics Release Inventory suggest manufacturers generate a substantial amount of chemicals as byproducts of their other manufacturing activities, according to information the EPA shared at a committee organizational meeting in May. “Over 20 percent of TRI forms submitted each year include byproduct-related data,” the EPA said. In 2015, the most recent year for which national TRI data is available, 21,849 facilities reported under that program.
Nevertheless, the extent of inorganic chemical byproducts manufactured and reported under the CDR rule isn't known. The form that chemical manufacturers fill out and give the EPA to comply with the CDR rule doesn't distinguish between intentionally produced chemicals and chemicals that are byproducts of the manufacturing of something else, said Lynn Vendinello, deputy director of EPA's Chemical Control Division.
Some companies, such as mom-and-pop electronic parts manufacturers, may not think of themselves as chemical manufacturers and may not have recognized that the Toxic Substances Control Act defines them as such, said Fern Abrams, director of regulatory affairs for IPC-Association Connecting Electronics Industries. Those companies may not have reported because they didn't know they had a CDR rule obligation, she said.
Yet manufacturers of goods and services other than chemicals can become chemical manufacturers—which must submit the CDR form—when they or the recyclers with whom they work process inorganic byproduct wastes in ways that cause chemical reactions. Those reactions constitute chemical manufacturing, and that triggers the Chemical Data Reporting rule requirement.
Process May Double Cost, Time
Providing the EPA with byproduct production volumes and other mandated information under the CDR rule isn't the main problem, committee members representing diverse industries stressed—it's the labyrinth of questions that manufacturers and recyclers have to answer to determine whether a particular waste that contains inorganic chemical byproducts has to be reported under the CDR rule, they said.
The roughly $10,000 and 90 to 140 hours it takes a company to fill out a CDR rule form for a single chemical could easily double because it's so hard to figure out whether an inorganic byproduct must be reported, committee member Kathleen Roberts executive director of the North American Metals Council, told Bloomberg BNA.
Labyrinth
Not all chemical manufacturing that results from processing inorganic byproduct wastes is reportable, Roberts told the committee.
If the wastes are burned as fuel, used to enrich soil—as sulfur-containing wastes generated by petroleum refiners can be—or meet certain other criteria then neither manufacturer nor the recycler would have to report the inorganic byproducts under the CDR rule, she said.
If the inorganic chemical byproducts must be reported under the CDR rule, then the manufacturer and recycler have to figure out who reports or if both companies do, Roberts said. She described situations when one or the other or both companies would have to report.
Byproducts often are chemical mixtures, which adds even more complexity to the reporting challenge, said Roberts. The metals council she manages includes organizations and companies such as the Battery Council International, Barrick Gold of North America Inc., Copper & Brass Fabricators Council, Fertilizer Institute, Sporting Arms & Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute, and Treated Wood Council.
Not Much Time
The committee discussed dozens of ways the EPA might be able to simplify the reporting process. Committee members intend to pare down that list to a more manageable number of ideas before their next meeting Aug. 16–17.
The committee doesn't have much time to flesh out its ideas into specific actions, such as adding a checkbox that identifies inorganic byproducts on the CDR rule form, and possible regulatory changes. The next CDR rule forms are due in 2020.
The TSCA amendments gave the committee up to three years after the law's enactment on June 22, 2016, to develop and publish a proposed rule. A final rule must be published within 31/2 years of the law's enactment.
The committee would have to agree on regulatory changes before the statutory deadlines, the EPA's Sharkey said. The agency needs time to propose a rule, take public comments, consider those comments, issue a final rule, and let industries know ahead of time what information they'll have to report in 2020, she said.
In addition to regulatory procedures, the EPA will likely have to develop and work with companies to test revised CDR reporting software, Sharkey said.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114143842&vname=dennotallissues&fn=114143842&jd=114143842

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Satire: Dow Purchases Naming Rights for EPA’s Toxics Office

Jun 12, 2017 | Natural Resources Defense Council

By Daniel Rosenberg

In a joint statement this week, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris announced a new “partnership” under which Dow purchased the naming rights for EPA’s Toxics Office. Formerly known as the Office for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, it has been renamed the Dow Office of Endorsing Chemicals and Promotion of Toxics (DECEPT). “We wanted to be truthful with the American people, rather than pretend that the chemical industry, and particularly Dow, isn’t in charge of the Agency’s decisions on toxic chemicals,” Administrator Pruitt said in a statement.
“We’re excited about this new branding opportunity,” Liveris commented. “People will know for certain that every decision coming out of the DECEPT Office, whether it is on pesticides or chemicals used in consumer products, is one developed and endorsed by Dow.”
The announcement was not entirely unexpected by those who have been following recent EPA actions on toxic chemicals. In March, Administrator Pruitt ignored the findings of Agency scientists that there is no safe level of exposure to the pesticide chlorpyrifos, and walked away from a proposed ban on its use outdoors (it was banned for indoor use nearly twenty years ago). Dow is the main manufacturer of the neurotoxic chemical, which has been associated with developmental delays in children and has been found widely in food and drinking water as well as in the homes of schools in agricultural communities where it is sprayed.
In April, Dr. Nancy Beck, formerly a senior lobbyist for the chemical manufacturers’ trade association, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), of which Dow is one of the leading members, was appointed as Deputy Assistant Administrator for EPA’s toxics office. Although the details have not yet been made public, she was apparently hired under an obscure legal provision that Trump officials argue exempts her from being subject to the Administration’s “Ethics Pledge.” Because her position is at the Deputy level, Dr. Beck will not be subject to confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Absent the nomination of anyone to the Assistant Administrator position, Dr. Beck is now in charge of the now-renamed Toxics Office.
Dr. Beck’s installment comes at a crucial time for federal chemicals policy, as the Agency is in the critical early stages of implementing revisions to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) which were signed into law in June 2016. Among the key activities currently underway are the development of two “Framework rules” that will set the terms for how EPA will prioritize chemicals for evaluation, and determine whether chemicals are “high” or “low” priority for review, as well as how such evaluation of the chemicals will be conducted. Dr. Beck has been active in the past year testifying on behalf of Dow and the other chemical manufacturers she represented, including submitting recommendations to the Agency on the industry’s preferred approach to the framework rules being developed by EPA’s Toxics Office. The latest indications are that since joining EPA as an advance team for Dow and other chemical manufacturers, she has been actively engaged in reversing the Agency’s proposed positions and directing her staff to re-write the rules along the lines sought by chemical manufacturers.
The outcome of the final framework rules is important, not only because they will impact how EPA approaches prioritizing, evaluating and potentially restricting toxic chemicals, but determinations by EPA that a chemical does not pose an unreasonable risk, or decisions not to restrict a chemical’s use, will, for the first time, have preemptive effect on the ability of states to take restrictive action on those same chemicals.
“Dr. Beck has been a great friend and ally of the chemical manufacturers for many years and we see her as the perfect person to meld Dow and EPA into a single indistinguishable entity,” said Administrator Pruitt. “Whether she is playing the inside game or the outside game, Dr. Beck will always be a key member of our Team,” Liveris added, “putting her in charge of EPA’s toxics office couldn’t come at a better time for us.”
Dow is in the midst of a merger with chemical manufacturer DuPont, and the merged companies will soon operate under the name DowDuPont, with Liveris serving as Chairperson for the next 18 months. Administrator Pruitt suggested that even closer ties between EPA and Dow may also be in the works. “We see this as a great first step, and we’ll continue to explore the potential co-benefits of a complete merger in the months ahead” he said. “The only question is whether we’ll brand it as DowDuPontEPA or EPADowDupont” Liveris added, “either way, the name speaks for itself!”
** In this age of #AlternativeFacts my wet-blanket media folks want me to note that some of this post is satire.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/daniel-rosenberg/dow-purchases-naming-rights-epas-toxics-office

Return to headline | Return to top
US EPA Received 44 PMNs in March

Jun 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch

The US EPA received 44 pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) in March. Of these, 37 saw the manufacturer or importer withheld as confidential business information (CBI).
These include several intermediates, a flame retardant, substances for use in coatings and paints and a variety of polymers.
The agency also received 12 notices of commencement (NOCs) during this period.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56762/us-epa-received-44-pmns-in-march

Return to headline | Return to top
Dutch Health Officials Investigating GenX

Jun 12, 2017 | Star News Online

By Kevin Maurer

Dutch officials have launched an investigation into GenX as researchers both in the United States and Europe struggle to wrap their arms around the long-term health effects of the man-made compound that’s been found in the Cape Fear River and the water supply of the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA).
The Dutch public health institute RIVM study started after GenX produced at the Dordrecht chemical plant was found in the Merwede River, according to Dutch media reports. Officials said the chemical “poses a ‘significant’ risk” to the 750,000 people who rely on the river for drinking water.
GenX was found in a recent study of CFPUA water, with the utility unable to filter out the compound. The chemical is commercially produced at Fayetteville Works, an industrial site on the Cape Fear River, about 100 miles upstream from Wilmington. The Chemours Co., a spinoff from DuPont, operates the Dordrecht plant and has a facility at the sprawling Fayetteville Works complex.
GenX is in the fluorochemicals family of man-made compounds used in a wide range of industrial processes and consumer products -- including Teflon and some cosmetics. GenX replaced PFOA -- commonly called C8 -- in 2009 after lawsuits that drinking water contaminated with C8 caused cancer. Its manufacturer says GenX has a “favorable toxicological profile,” a term that describes its toxicity and adverse health effects.
“GenX is better water-soluble, so we will find it in surface water and also in our drinking water,” said Jacob de Boer, director of the department of environment and health at the University of Amsterdam in The Netherlands. “That means you’ll find it more in the water. It comes into the drinking water.”
History repeating itself?
Fluorochemicals like GenX tend to resist decomposition in the environment and elimination from the body. Concerns about chemicals like GenX led 200 scientists from 38 countries -- including the United States -- to call for a limit on fluorochemicals and the creation of safer alternatives. Called the Madrid Statement, it lays out a plan for further research. It was published in the Environmental Health Perspectives journal in May 2015.
De Boer said researchers haven’t identified any public health effects in The Netherlands, but U.S. Environmental Protection Agency testing reports show GenX caused cancer, liver and kidney disease and fertility issues in mice and rats.
A 1963 study -- revealed in 2006 -- found adult rats given 7,500 milligrams of substances that make up GenX died “gasping, convulsive deaths,” according to a February story in The Columbus Dispatch. Rats that received a smaller dose survived, but had slightly enlarged livers. A 2013 study where rats were given a lower dose of GenX developed tumors, the paper reported, but the “findings are not considered relevant for human risk assessment,” according to DuPont. The company told the New York Times the tests used GenX levels intended to cause health problems.
Researchers and activists argue DuPont said the same thing about C8. In 2005, the company reached a $16.5 million settlement with the EPA. The agency said DuPont knew about PFOA-related risks at its Parkersburg, West Virginia, site as early as 1981, but failed to report them as required under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Per terms of the settlement, DuPont did not admit liability.
Earlier this year, Chemours and DuPont struck a settlement agreement regarding 3,500 lawsuits involving the Washington Works plant in Parkersburg, where the company produced Teflon. Each company agreed to pay $335.35 million of the $670.7 million -- an amount that could rise up to an additional $250 million more during the next five years depending on additional lawsuits.
“What it comes down to is that we’re supposed to take their word for it that this chemical (GenX) is safe,” Jeffrey Dugas of Keep Your Promises, a community-based group that wants DuPont and Chemours to pay for medical care for residents affected by C8, told the The Dispatch in February. “Talk about history repeating itself.”
Long-term concern
In order to understand the impact, researchers need data from a “natural experiment,” said Dr. Alan Ducatman, a professor at West Virginia University’s School of Public Health.
“The concept is unpleasant, I think it is also accurate and useful,” Ducatman said in an email. “Where contamination exists, the inadvertent experiment starts. To know the outcome, much scientific work must be done. For natural toxins causing acute diseases, such as infectious contaminants, that can sometimes happen quickly. For man-made toxicants that cause physiologic changes that may lead to chronic diseases, the amount of planning, energy, time (and investment) required to provide answers about the outcome is long, large, and daunting to communities (and all of us) who would naturally prefer fast answers.“
The RIVM and a German study into the effects of GenX are ongoing. De Boer said some of the RIVM study’s work will be presented at a conference in Vancouver in August.
“The worry is on the long term,” de Boer said. “For the moment, I cannot say much else. My concern is the increase and long term effects.”
http://www.starnewsonline.com/news/20170612/dutch-health-officials-investigating-genx

Return to headline | Return to top
Scientists Claim Furniture Gave Woman Fatal Thyroid Cancer

Jun 13, 2017 | Deccan Chronicle

When Juliet Shand developed a gravely voice she didn't think much of it. The recruitment manager from Kent thought it was a result of her issues with swallowing food and didn't find it necessary to get it checked, the Daily Mail reports.
The 44-year-old decided it was time to see a doctor in April 2016 when she started feeling exhausted and getting join pains. Her GP recommended she have an ultrasound of her thyroid gland after he examined her neck and felt a bump. A few months later Juliet learned she had thyroid cancer.
Cancer Research UK reveals this kind of cancer has increased up to 139% since the 90s. A controversial study by the Duke University claims chemicals used in fireproofing just may be the cause. Researchers linked flame retardants used to treat sofas and mattresses to a higher rate of thyroid cancer.
They came to this conclusion when they analysed dust samples from homes of thyroid cancer patients and compared them to a control group. Higher levels of two flame retardant chemicals were discovered in cancer patients' homes. Researchers determined people living with the highest levels of the chemical , decabromodiphenyl were twice as likely to develop thyroid cancer.
However UK scientists say the study was too small to prove its findings and did not show any direct link between the chemical and cancer . The reason for the rising cases in thryroid cancer is due to better imaging that can detect smaller tumours, a Dr Kristien Boelaert, an endocrinologist is quoted as saying in the Daily Mail. He also explains that many people diagnosed show no symptoms of the disease like Juliet's case. The cancer, instead is mostly detected during routine scans for something unrelated.
Juliet's case however was fatal as the cancer was stage T2 and there was a possibility of it spreading to other parts of the body. A few weeks after finding out the results, the mother of two had an operation to remove her thyroid gland. For the rest of her life she has to have a dose of levothyroxine to replace hormones produced by the thyroid gland everyday.
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/lifestyle/health-and-wellbeing/130617/scientists-claim-furniture-gave-woman-fatal-thrydoid-cancer.html

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) West Virginia's Senators Urge Appalachian Natural Gas Hub

Jun 13, 2017 | AP

West Virginia's U.S. senators have introduced legislation intended to help establish a major natural gas storage and distribution hub in the Appalachian region.
Their legislation would designate it a "critical energy infrastructure" project, which they say would make it eligible for expedited federal permits.
It would also direct federal agencies to expedite grant and loan applications.
Sens. Joe Manchin and Shelley Moore Capito cite an American Chemistry Council study that an Appalachian hub could attract $36 billion in new chemical and plastics industry investment and create 100,000 new jobs.

Last month they urged the White House to examine the benefits of putting a natural gas liquid-storage and distribution hub in the region with growing but still underutilized reserves of underground natural gas.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/west-virginia/articles/2017-06-13/west-virginias-senators-urge-appalachian-natural-gas-hub

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Capito Unveils Second Bill to Push Appalachia Hub

Jun 13, 2017 | E&E Daily

By Dylan Brown

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) introduced a second bill yesterday to encourage the development of a natural gas storage facility in Appalachia.
"The Appalachian Energy and Manufacturing Infrastructure Revitalization Act," S. 1340, would streamline permitting for a regional facility storing natural gas liquids: ethane, propane and other chemical manufacturing feedstocks separated from what is used to produce electricity.
The bid to buoy West Virginia's flagging chemical industry would classify an Appalachian regional energy hub as "critical energy infrastructure."
The legislation would identify federal and state liaisons to work with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and expedite federal grant and loan program applications for a hub proposal.
"The benefits of establishing a regional energy hub in Appalachia cannot be overstated," Capito said in a statement. "This important infrastructure project would help create much-needed jobs for West Virginians and grow our state's economy in meaningful ways."
In a recent report, the American Chemistry Council estimated that building the $10 billion facility would spur $35.8 billion in petrochemical, plastics and other investment by keeping natural gas and associated jobs from the Marcellus, Utica and Rogersville shales closer to home.
Capito and West Virginia counterpart Sen. Joe Manchin (D) sponsored S. 1075 to study the feasibility of building the hub (E&E Daily, May 19).
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/06/13/stories/1060055928

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Is Big Oil’s Bet On Petrochemicals A Bust?

Jun 12, 2017 | Oil Price

By Haley Zaremba

Thanks to the last years’ unstable crude markets, peak oil demand looming around the corner, rising use of renewable energy and electric vehicles, and flooded markets, big oil is looking to corner new markets and it has its sights set on plastics. Petrochemicals have a promising future, with need for plastics continuing to grow worldwide, but is it a business model built to last?
With online shopping beginning to boom in China, there will be a huge demand for plastics used in product packaging and shipping materials, and you can guess that other developing countries will not be far behind. Even “green” alternatives, such as electric cars, need specialty plastics in their manufacturing.
According to numbers published by management consulting firm McKinsey & Co., they project an annual increased demand of 1.4 percent for oil in the petrochemical sector between now and 2050, which translates to about 60 percent of total projected increases for oil demand. This is a significant number, since oil demand for light-duty vehicles is expected to flatline or even decrease by 2025.
Big oil is trying to cash in, and quickly. Exxon Mobil, suffering from its high-cost assets in the oil sands of Canada, recently announced to shareholders that they’ll be investing about $20 billion in refineries, petrochemicals and other projects around the Gulf of Mexico.
In an attempt to compete with the Gulf Coast, where companies already have a head start in petrochemical production, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) proposes that Appalachia could be developed to compete for a top spot in domestic petrochemicals. In a plan presented on Capitol Hill last month, ACC would utilize low-cost natural gas production in Appalachia to produce chemicals. If greenlighted, ACC estimates that their development project would create 100,000 permanent jobs by 2025 and $2.9 billion annually in federal and local tax revenue.
Canadian petrochemical producers are calling for policy changes aimed at incentivizing investment in domestic petrochemical projects as projected demand continues to rise.
While investors are focused on major projects in the U.S., local producers claim that Canadian industries also have major petrochemical production potential.
Meanwhile, last month’s Asia Petrochemical Industry Conference (APIC) in Sapporo, Japan showed that alongside the U.S. the east is also undergoing major changes, with China and India at the forefront of the new petrochemicals landscape. In China, there is currently a major push toward developing petrochemical production, starting with seven ?refining and petrochemical bases along the coast from Dalian to Guangdong.
India is also aiming big, showcased by a major expansion of Reliance Industries’ massive Jamnagar petrochemical complex with a 1.5m tonne/year refinery due to be completed in the next few months and three more on the west coast of India using imported U.S. ethane.
The Middle East is also determined not to be left behind by oil’s next big production wave, but they’ve turned to the U.S. for help. Saudi Aramco, the world’s biggest oil producer, has partnered with U.S.-based Dow Chemical to develop the groundbreaking Sadara petrochemicals complex near Jubail, now nearing completion. Now they’ve also pledged to build two additional plants in Saudi Arabia. During President Trump’s recent visit to the Kingdom, Dow announced plans for a new plant built to manufacture a range of acrylic-based polymers for coatings and water-treatment applications.
Around the world there is a race to get into petrochemicals while the getting’s good, but there’s a significant risk to this strategy. Peak oil consumption is a continued threat, and many places in the world, as they move away from oil, are also making moves to cut down demand for plastic, one of the world’s biggest environmental pollutants.
The World Economic Forum, in conjunction with the United Nations, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey & Co., published numbers that suggest at least 8 million tons of plastics leak into the ocean annually by a conservative estimate. Because of this flood there are about 150 million tons of plastics pollution in the ocean today, and if the trend continues, by 2025 oceans would contain one ton of plastic for every three tons of fish. By 2050, fish would be outnumbered by plastic waste.
We’ve already seen plastic bag bans in progressive cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles, but it’s likely that stricter policies are in store. As environmental pollution due to plastics becomes a more serious problem, government policies around the world will surely ramp up in response.
Also, as recycling becomes more accessible worldwide, it could be a huge blow to the projected increased petrochemicals demand that big oil is banking on. McKinsey has released a study on peak oil demand that suggests that widespread recycling alone could eliminate one quarter of oil use from plastics. If we can even come close to that, big oil’s newest plan is sure to be a major disappointment.
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Is-Big-Oils-Bet-On-Petrochemicals-A-Bust.html

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Manchin, Capito Introduce Natural Gas Storage Legislation

Jun 12, 2017 | West Virginia MetroNews

By Alex Thomas

WASHINGTON — Two pieces of legislation were introduced Monday regarding the possible establishment of a natural gas storage facility in Appalachia.
U.S. Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., proposed the Capitalizing American Storage Potential Act, which would make a regional storage hub eligible for the Department of Energy’s Title XVII loan guarantee program. The loan focuses on supporting early commercial use of certain technologies.
According to a statement from Manchin’s office, securing the loan would allow West Virginia to reap the opportunities association with the region’s natural gas resources, the Marcellus, Utica and Rogersville shale formations. The facility would store natural gas and expand the region’s energy infrastructure.
“This storage hub will create jobs and expand the economy in the Appalachian region, which has been affected by the decline in energy production and manufacturing in the region,” Manchin said. “The Title XVII loan program is a perfect way to help move this project forward.”
“Not only would a regional storage hub help us make the most of our energy potential, but it would create jobs and spur economic growth, benefiting communities across the state,” Capito said.
The American Chemistry Council released a report last month detailing how the facility would create more than 100,000 permanent jobs by 2025 in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Kentucky. In addition, federal, state and local governments would receive $2.9 billion in new revenue annually.
The council presented the study with Manchin, Capito and Rep. David McKinley, R-W.Va.
The trade association represents chemical companies across the United States. Dow Chemical Co, Bayer Corporation and 3M Co. are listed as regular members on the council’s website.
The senators introduced May 17 the Appalachian Ethane Storage Hub Study Act of 2017, which would conduct a feasibility study on establishing a facility.
Capito also introduced Monday the Appalachian Energy and Manufacturing Infrastructure Revitalization Act of 2017, which directs the Energy and Commerce secretaries to designate the energy hub as a “critical energy infrastructure” project to accelerate federal permitting.
“This important infrastructure project would help create much-needed jobs for West Virginians and grow our state’s economy in meaningful ways,” Capito said in a press release. “By reducing regulatory burdens, the Appalachian Energy and Manufacturing Infrastructure Revitalization Act will bring us one step closer to making the Appalachian energy hub a reality.”
According to the release, the legislation is supported by the American Chemistry Council and the Mid-Atlantic Technology, Research and Innovation Center.
http://wvmetronews.com/2017/06/12/manchin-capito-introduce-natural-gas-storage-legislation/

Return to headline | Return to top
Ethane Cracker Tops Pennsylvania's Top Construction Projects — By Far

Jun 12, 2017 | BIzJournals

By Paul J. Gough

The ethane cracker that is about to be built in Beaver County is by far the largest construction project in Pennsylvania announced last year, according to a new ranking.
AreaDevelopment.com ranked Royal Dutch Shell's petrochemical plant in Beaver County as its top development project in the commonwealth. Shell plans to begin construction on the plant and have it operational by early next decade with 600 jobs created.
The $6 billion price tag for the project far outweighs the second project on the list, FedEx Corp.'s planned distribution center in Northampton, which is a $227 million investment, according to AreaDevelopment.
You can see the entire list here.
http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2017/06/12/ethane-cracker-tops-pennsylvanias-top-construction.html

Return to headline | Return to top
Efficiency Measure Falls Off House Energy-Bill Express

Jun 12, 2017 | Roll Call

By Jeremy Dillon

The House passed Monday a passel of energy infrastructure and efficiency bills that were marked up last week, although the chamber left out the only one with a small hint of controversy, a measure to encourage the development of energy-efficient federal office buildings.
In total, 10 bills were on the House docket under suspension of the rules, with most passing by voice vote. Two of the bills required roll call votes and were passed 400-1 and 402-1, respectively.
The measures are relatively minor. Most extended timelines for construction authorization permits for dams.
But lawmakers were not able to come to an agreement on the 11th bill that advanced out of the Energy and Commerce committee last week after issues arose over a provision in the legislation related to hydropower, according to a congressional staffer.
The bill “would facilitate the use of energy savings contracts to encourage private sector investment to upgrade the energy and water efficiency of federal facilities,” according to a Energy and Commerce notice. The measure, co-sponsored by Reps. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., and Peter Welch, D-Vt., moved out of committee on a voice vote.
Committee staff is hoping to work through the impasse this week, and get the bill to the floor relatively soon, an aide said.
The set of energy bills expected to pass the chamber included a measure, originally authored by Rep. Bobby L. Rush, D-Ill., meant to promote energy workforce training. The bill would direct the Department of Energy to prioritize training and education programs with a special emphasis on women, veteran and minority workers.
Among the other legislation considered Monday, the House also passed a measure meant to make it easier for schools to take advantage of federal programs to help them cut energy use, a bill that would establish a minimum monetary threshold of $10 million for mergers and acquisitions of facilities subject to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission review. Seven bills focused on extending the license and construction authorization permits for various hydroelectric projects.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/efficiency-measure-falls-off-house-energy-bill-express

Return to headline | Return to top
Utility Group Suggests CPP Replacement Plan As EPA Advances Rollback

Jun 12, 2017 | Inside EPA

By Abby Smith

Even before EPA decides whether or how to replace the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP), a coalition of 13 electric utilities that serve 25 states is pitching a replacement to the power plant greenhouse gas rule, with an attorney representing the group describing the plan as a more flexible and effective alternative than the rule EPA is poised to repeal.
Bill Bumpers of Baker Botts, who represents the Coalition for Innovative Climate Solutions (CICS), says EPA faces legal risks if it declines to replace the CPP and is calling for a power plant GHG rule that gives states greater flexibility to choose compliance plans based on their resource mixes and individual authorities than the current rule.
The group is suggesting EPA develop guidelines for states based on substantive and procedural criteria that the agency would then use to judge state plans. It is not clear, however, how the coalition would envision EPA setting GHG targets under such a rule, given that it has sharply criticized the agency's target-setting process for the CPP.
The coalition's suggestion for a replacement rule comes as EPA on June 8 sent a draft proposed CPP rollback rule to the White House for interagency review. The plan will provide a legal justification for revoking the CPP and a draft economic analysis.
Sources tell Inside EPA those items were outlined in a memo reportedly drafted by Justin Schwab, EPA's deputy general counsel and a member of the “beachhead” team who does not need Senate confirmation.
But EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has not yet revealed whether the agency plans to replace the CPP, telling a May 24 conference that is “yet to be determined.” Pruitt suggested the agency was in no particular rush to decide the issue and said he is planning to review EPA's Clean Air Act authority.
It's “a fair question [that] has to be asked and answered” with respect to stationary source GHGs, he said. “What are the tools in the toolbox?” Pruitt added that EPA has “struck out twice” on that question -- first when its GHG tailoring rule was narrowed by the Supreme Court and then when the high court stayed the CPP in February 2016.
Nonetheless, industry attorneys say EPA faces a legal risk by repealing the CPP without a replacement plan. While there is “no ticking clock to replace it, at some point someone will sue,” says Jim Rubin of Dorsey & Whitney, who worked at the Department of Justice's environment division for 15 years.
Bumpers echoed this sentiment. “There is a core legal obligation for the agency to promulgate a regulation under [Clean Air Act section] 111(d),” he tells Inside EPA. “The repeal has to be followed with a replace, or there will be litigation.”
The utility coalition has spoken with congressional staff and agency appointees. “They're interested,” Bumpers says.
He says the coalition will also “reach out to EPA” with its suggestion for a replacement rule, but he cautions that the agency doesn't “really have a plan in place” yet regarding if and how it would replace the CPP. In part, that is because the agency still lacks many top political appointees, including deputy administrator and air chief.
“There are clearly legal limitations on what the administration can do because the [CPP] is final,” Bumpers says. He notes the rule has been stayed, but EPA “can't leave it in limbo forever. The court won't allow that.”
'Better Process'
CICS, the coalition he represents, includes 13 utilities from across the country: Ameren Corp.; Avista Corp.; Entergy; Great River Energy; Idaho Power; NorthWestern Energy; Portland General Electric Company; Puget Sound Energy; PPL Corp., including affiliates LG&E and KU; Public Service Company of New Mexico; Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District; Westar; and Xcel Energy.
When the Obama administration was developing the CPP, rather than opposing any section 111 GHG regulation, CICS outlined an alternative approach that is similar to the plan the group is now pushing to the Trump EPA as it decides whether and how to replace the CPP.
He says the CICS' alternative would give states greater flexibility and would avoid EPA exceeding its air act authority, which he argues the CPP did.
Bumpers' group envisions EPA continuing to regulate under section 111, which requires the agency to develop “guidelines” that states must follow when crafting compliance plans. Those guidelines reflect the agency's determination of the “best system of emission reduction” -- essentially setting a baseline for GHG cuts that states must meet while also considering a host of state- and plant-specific factors.
States, on the other hand, have the power to develop plans that include “standards of performance” for plants that would be included in air permits. EPA must approve state plans, but the CICS utilities say the agency can only disapprove a plan under limited circumstances and also would face a high bar to impose a federal implementation plan.
“The authority granted [to EPA] under [section] 111(d) is quite narrow,” Bumpers says. “But the states have a lot of flexibility. This program is supposed to be state-driven.” He notes that section 111 merely sets up a “procedure by which the states develop plans and submit them for approval.”
It is not clear if the utilities envision the agency developing state-specific GHG emission targets at all or whether it would only outline a series of considerations for states to address as they make best efforts to reduce GHGs.
For example, CICS' comments on the proposed CPP fault the agency's method of setting state targets -- which considered a range of strategies to reduce emissions from throughout the power sector. But it also suggested that the proposed rule's overall GHG goal of reducing the sector's emissions by 30 percent by 2030 might somehow factor into the agency's review of state plans.
In the interview, Bumpers did not directly respond to the issue of whether or how the agency would craft state-specific targets in the utilities' envisioned rule.
But he said the coalition's preferred strategy would not establish an “inside the fence” standard, which would base targets on heat rate improvements at individual power plants. Bumpers says a “better process” would develop general guidance for states to consider as they develop compliance plans.
Under that flexibility, states could craft plans that best fit their resource mix and regulatory capabilities. For example, a state with large energy efficiency opportunity could pursue strengthened efficiency standards to comply. Or a state with large solar potential could boost renewable energy.
EPA could even say, “If you wanted to try to put together a multi-state trading program, we'll support it, but we can't force it,” Bumpers says.
Bumpers also suggests it could be challenging for EPA to promulgate an “inside the fence” CPP alternative, focused only on heat rate improvements. He says the Obama EPA “struggled mightily” to set a heat rate standard. “You've got a wide variety of heat rates available that are achievable at power plants across the country.”
He says EPA could try to develop heat rate subcategories to account for various types of plants. But “that is almost unworkable,” he adds, noting EPA would have to decide tough questions as to how many subcategories to create and what would happen if a plant, particularly an older facility, cannot meet the standard.
“The Obama administration was in a very tough place. They wanted to do climate change appropriately and received little cooperation from Congress, so they directed EPA to do the most they could under this narrow provision,” Bumpers says. But he argues the CPP “wasn't legal. I thought [it] was frankly a clear example of regulatory overreach.”
Prior Comments
CICS' December 2014 comments on the proposed CPP offer a signal of how the group would move forward on any CPP replacement.
Predominantly, CICS faulted the Obama EPA's determination of specific emissions standards for the states using four proposed “building blocks”: heat rate improvements, fuel switching to natural gas, fuel switching to renewable energy and energy efficiency. EPA in the final rule dropped the fourth building block, though it still allowed states to use efficiency for compliance.
CICS criticized EPA's application of the building blocks, saying the agency did not have the authority to require states to undertake such actions or to dictate the specifics of compliance plans unless a state crafted a plan that was “arbitrary” and blatantly ignored EPA's guidelines.
“[I]t is clear that the state is given the primary authority to establish performance standards for the existing sources and that EPA can step in and dictate only if the state fails in its obligation,” CICS wrote. “Consequently, to be consistent with the delegation of authorities under the Clean Air Act, EPA must provide states with broad discretion to consider the unique characteristics of the states and sources within each state in developing their plans.”
The utility coalition outlined a system under which EPA would put forth “procedural criteria” to “ensure that the plans are credible and enforceable” and “substantive criteria” to “ensure the plans consider factors important to controlling [carbon dioxide] emissions from the power sector.”
“Procedural” criteria would include: whether the state accepted public comments on its plan, whether the plan has “an appropriate tracking and monitoring system in place,” and whether it includes “reasonable projections” for future emissions from covered units.
“Substantive” criteria would include: whether the state has a renewable portfolio standard and whether that standard is enforceable, whether the state requires integrated resource plans to consider CO2 emissions, and whether the state participates in a multi-state GHG trading program.
“Although CICS is not advocating that a state be required to include all of these criteria in its plan, a selection of these or similar substantive or procedural criteria will allow EPA to determine that a state is taking appropriate, state-specific measures and steps to achieve reductions in CO2 emissions from existing [power plants],” the coalition wrote.
It added: “Importantly, using such an approach is consistent with the structure and intent of Section 111(d) to allow the states to set the performance standards for their own sources based on the unique circumstances of each state.” -
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/utility-group-suggests-cpp-replacement-plan-epa-advances-rollback

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt Delays Chemical Plant Regulation Changes to 2019

Jun 13, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Sam Pearson

Chemical companies, oil refiners and other industrial sites will see a reprieve from an Obama administration regulation that would have imposed new safety requirements, the Environmental Protection Agency said.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt signed a final rule June 12 delaying a final rule amending the risk management program regulations (RIN:2050-AG82) to Feb. 19, 2019, the agency said. The decision grants requests by industry trade organizations and companies such as Marathon Petroleum, LyondellBassell Corp., Western Refining, and Koch Industries, which met with the EPA on the issue this year.
The 20-month delay of the regulation's effective date will allow the EPA's new leadership to review two industry petitions for reconsideration and a third petition from 11 states and public comments, as well as to “consider other issues that may benefit from additional public input,” Pruitt said in a statement.
The rule came at the end of a multiyear Obama administration effort to close regulatory gaps at high-risk chemical facilities after a Texas fertilizer plant explosion killed 15 people in April 2013. It changes how high-risk plants must share information with nearby residents, evaluate plants after safety events, and work with local responders, among other modifications
Possible changes to the regulation could include reducing the ways in which companies must provide the public with access to information about facility operations, relaxing requirements for safety audits, and ending a mandate that high-risk plants evaluate if they can operate using safer chemical processes, among other proposals.
The decision was “disappointing but not surprising,” given Pruitt's record on regulatory issues, Yogin Kothari, a Washington representative at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Bloomberg BNA June 12.
Scott Jensen, a spokesman for the American Chemistry Council , said in an email to Bloomberg BNA June 12 Pruitt “has made the right and necessary decision to review the problematic changes that could undermine the safety of chemical facilities and communities across the country and threaten the continued success of the underlying program.”
Industry Petitioned for Reconsideration
The EPA received three petitions for reconsideration from two industry groups and the attorneys general of Louisiana, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin, and West Virginia. The first was filed Feb. 28 by the RMP Coalition—an industry group comprised of the American Chemistry Council , American Forest & Paper Association, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, and the Utility Air Regulatory Group.
Another group, the Chemical Safety Advisory Group, which did not initially disclose its members, also filed a petition for reconsideration March 13. According to an EPA meeting log posted June 9, its members include Patricia McCullough, director of environmental regulatory affairs at Koch Industries; Scott Haney, corporate safety supervisor at Marathon Petroleum Corp.; Steven Cook, senior corporate counsel at LyondellBassell Industries; and Marise Textor, director of regulatory affairs at Western Refining Inc. None responded to requests for comment June 12.
The decision caps a process launched in late March, when Pruitt announced the delay would be considered. The EPA subsequently heard from industry and chemical safety groups at a public meeting April 19 and accepted written comments through May 19.
Pruitt criticized the proposed rule in 2016 as Oklahoma attorney general, writing a letter to the EPA assailing the plan as harmful to chemical plants’ security.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114143844&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=499048500&searchid=30040301&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Delays Safety Rule Until 2019

Jun 12, 2017 | E&E News PM

By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder

U.S. EPA has delayed implementation of a chemical safety rule for nearly two years to allow the agency to reconsider it.
The Risk Management Program, which was proposed during the Obama administration, is intended to strengthen emergency preparedness requirements and protect first responders from chemical exposure.
"We are seeking additional time to review the program, so that we can fully evaluate the public comments raised by multiple petitioners and consider other issues that may benefit from additional public input," EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a statement.
The online rule docket received over 44,000 comments.
During a proposed rule delay hearing in April, environmental groups urged EPA to keep the rule implementation as planned, but industry representatives said current requirements do the job well enough (Greenwire, April 19).
Industry representatives also decry the rule's origin — a 2013 chemical fire at a Texas fertilizer facility that killed 15 people (Greenwire, April 24, 2013). The cause of the fire was thought to be an accidental chemical release, but it turned out to be arson.
Another aspect of the rule is aimed at improving data management, which also worried industry representatives at the public hearing. Disclosing sensitive chemical information could "invite similar criminal acts" to the 2013 fire, said Bill Erny of the American Chemistry Council at the hearing.
The new effective date of the rule is Feb. 19, 2019.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/stories/1060055907/search?keyword=American+Chemistry+Council

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Delays Risk Management Program Amendments To '19

Jun 13, 2017 | ICIS

By David Haydon

HOUSTON (ICIS)--Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Scott Pruitt has signed a final rule delaying amendments to the nation's Risk Management Program (RMP) until 19 February 2019, the regulator said on Monday.
The RMP is designed to help prevent accidental chemical releases and to help first responders in emergencies.
According to the EPA, the delay allows the agency to conduct a reconsideration proceeding and hear additional comments.
The latest delay follows a three-month stay that Pruitt signed in March.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) petitioned for a review of the revised rule in April and backed the suggested two-year stay.
The EPA said it will consider questions and concerns received during the additional public-comment period and public hearing over the following 20 months.
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2017/06/12/10115139/us-epa-delays-risk-management-program-amendments-to-19/

Return to headline | Return to top
Delaying Policy, EPA Signals Significant Changes To Obama RMP Rule

Jun 13, 2017 | Inside EPA

By Dave Reynolds

EPA is suggesting it plans to make significant changes to an Obama-era facility safety rule, arguing in its announcement delaying the regulation for an additional 20 months that the rule is based on “policy preferences” that could vary between administrations, and that the agency intends to raise concerns with the rule not cited in industry petitions.
In a prepublication version of a Federal Register notice signed June 9, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt delays the effective date of the Obama administration's Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility safety rule from June 19 to Feb. 19, 2019, claiming broad authority for setting effective dates, and the need to review complex issues businesses have raised.
“Many of the decisions underlying the [RMP] Amendments are policy preferences based on weighing factors in the record that could be rationally assessed in different ways,” the notice says.
EPA took comment through May 19 on Pruitt's March 29 proposed 20-month delay to allow for reconsideration after a coalition of industries and GOP-led states separately petitioned the agency to revise the Obama era RMP update. Petitioners raised a host of concerns with the rule, including that the agency failed to quantify benefits of the policy, which imposes costs on states and industry, and potentially raises security risks by streamlining disclosure of facility data.
Industry groups also argued that the rule should be reconsidered because the Obama EPA declined to extend the comment deadline on a proposed version of the rule after federal investigators' ruling that a 2013 fertilizer facility explosion in West, TX, a significant driver for the rule, was sparked by arson.
In the notice, EPA backs industry's argument that the Obama EPA failed to allow adequate public input on the arson finding. But while EPA's delay notice cites numerous other industry arguments against the Obama-era rule, Pruitt declines to specifically back those claims, although he says the delay will allow the agency to weigh them during a reconsideration process.
“Whether or not EPA agrees with commenters on the merits of these claims, the Agency believes the existence of such a large set of unresolved issues demonstrates the need for careful reconsideration and reexamination of the [RMP] Amendments,” the notice says. “During the reconsideration, EPA may also consider other issues, beyond those raised by petitioners, that may benefit from additional comment, and take further regulatory action."
EPA also explicitly rejects environmental and labor groups' arguments that the agency lacks authority for such a significant delay, and that the delay threatens to harm facility workers and nearby communities.
And the agency also declines to say whether it will postpone compliance dates that are not set to kick in until after 2019. The agency acknowledges that some compliance dates are scheduled to occur prior to the rule's new effective date and says, “Compliance with all of the rule provisions is not required as long as the rule does not become effective."
Obama Order
EPA promulgated the RMP update in response to former President Barack Obama's Executive Order 13650, issued in the wake of the West explosion that killed 15 people, including first responders. The Jan. 13 final rule includes new auditing and hazard analysis requirements, as well as provisions bolstering release of facility data to local planners and the public.
Labor and environmental groups have hailed the Obama EPA rule as a modest improvement to the RMP facility accident prevention program, and have argued that the Trump administration lacks authority for such a lengthy delay.
The chemical and agricultural industry groups have argued the prior RMP regulation effectively prevented facility accidents, and that the updated rule imposes costly and unnecessary changes without added benefits. Industry and GOP state attorneys general, including Pruitt prior to his selection to lead EPA, also faulted the rule's disclosure provisions as raising the risk that facilities will become terrorist targets.
In comments on the delay, environmental and labor groups, including United Steelworkers and Earthjustice argued that language in section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act requires the agency to implement rules issued under the law, such as the RMP, “as expeditiously as practicable,” and that a two-year delay “is inappropriate and would cause harm.”
Groups also argued that a provision under section 307(d) of the air law precluded a lengthy delay, and that EPA's proposed two-year delay was arbitrary and capricious.
EPA rejects those arguments in a response to comments document, saying that the Clean Air Act allows the agency to reconsider a rule if petitioners raise an objection that “was impracticable to raise during the comment period,” noting that federal investigators' finding, on the eve of the comment deadline, that West resulted from arson was such a case.
EPA also argues that the air law generally allows the agency “to set effective dates as appropriate,” and that the delay is not arbitrary and capricious because the agency has given reasons for the delay based on facts in the record.
“Given the degree of complexity with the issues under review, and the likelihood of significant public interest in this reconsideration, we believe the delay we are adopting in this action is consistent with a realistic and achievable schedule for the reconsideration,” EPA says in its response to comments.
Additionally, the agency faults advocates' claims that the delay will cause harm. EPA argues that the original RMP rule will remain in place during reconsideration, and notes that the agency has previously stated that the prior rule had been effective in preventing and mitigating accidents.
EPA notes that industry and some states have raised a slew objections to the rule, from faulting new requirements for independent audits or streamlining disclosure, to arguing EPA failed to adequately coordinate with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration on the update, to arguing the rule imposes new costs without benefits.
In the notice, EPA declines to say whether it will change the rule to address the concerns, but says that the array of requirements back its claim that the lengthy delay is necessary to reconsider the rule given the many complex concerns.
“Therefore, while EPA does not now concede that it should make the particular regulatory changes that these commenters have recommended,” EPA says it “concurs with commenters to the extent that they argue for finalizing the proposed delay in the effective date of the [RMP] Amendments rule in order to conduct a reconsideration proceeding.” -
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/delaying-policy-epa-signals-significant-changes-obama-rmp-rule

Return to headline | Return to top
Powerful N.J. Republican Asked to Back Colleagues Over Trump

Jun 12, 2017 | NJ.com

By Jonathan D. Salant

A bipartisan majority of the New Jersey congressional delegation wants one of their own, Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, to preserve funding for the agency that investigates chemical accidents.
Nine of the other 11 Garden State lawmakers signed a letter to Frelinghuysen (R-11th Dist.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, asking him to support $11.6 million in funding for the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. They also wrote to the panel's top Democrat, Rep. Nita Lowey of New York.
President Donald Trump proposed eliminating the board in his spending plan for the 12 months beginning Oct. 1. The administration said the agency has "been focused on the need for greater regulation of industry" and its actions "overlap with other agency investigative authorities" and cause "unhelpful friction."
Frelinghuysen spokesman Steve Wilson did not respond to a request for comment.
The agency seeks to find the cause of accidents involving chemicals and make recommendations on how to prevent similar incidents from occurring. It is modeled after the National Transportation Safety Board.
"The impact is safer workplaces and communities and reduced liabilities for business," the lawmakers wrote.
Among the recommendations that have been put into place: Train New Jersey fire code officials about hazards posed by combustible dust.
The chemical board "plays a unique role in investigating and making recommendations to prevent catastrophic industrial chemical accidents," the lawmakers wrote.
The letter was drafted by Reps. Donald Norcross (D-1st Dist.) and Frank LoBiondo (R-2nd Dist.) and signed by Reps. Chris Smith (R-4th Dist.), Josh Gottheimer (D-5th Dist.), Leonard Lance (R-7th Dist.), Albio Sires (D-8th Dist.), Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-9th Dist.), Donald Payne Jr. (D-10th Dist.) and Bonnie Watson-Coleman (D-12th Dist.).
The same New Jersey lawmakers signed a letter last month to the chair and ranking Democrat on the Appropriations subcommittee that oversees funding for the chemical safety board.
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/06/powerful_nj_republican_asked_to_side_with_his_coll.html

Return to headline | Return to top
Why Congress Should Get Behind The Bipartisan 'U.S. Call Center Worker and Consumer Protection Act'

Jun 12, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog

By Gene Green and David B. Mckinley

There’s a growing and bipartisan consensus that Congress needs to do more to strengthen American industries and put American workers first. From trade agreements to outsourcing policy, we are engaging in an overdue conversation that cuts across usual ideologies. However, while most of the discussion thus far has focused on the manufacturing sector, American service sector jobs need to be part of this important conversation.
In particular, call center and customer service industry jobs are a major and underappreciated economic force in the United States, including for our constituents. There are 54,000 call center jobs in the Greater Houston area alone and 17,000 in the state of West Virginia. Nationwide, there are about 4 million people employed by the call center and customer service industry.
These are good jobs, which in many American communities serve as a key pillar of local economies.
However, many call center jobs have been shipped overseas in the past decade, as companies look to slash benefits and pay dramatically lower wages overseas. Between the years 2006 and 2014, the U.S. lost more than 200,000 call center jobs, according to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
This off-shoring trend comes at a tremendous cost to America. As a new report from the Communications Workers of America (CWA) titled “Why Shipping Call Center Jobs Overseas Hurts Us Back Home” reminds us, off-shoring call center jobs is harmful to the security of U.S. consumers’ sensitive information, as well as bad for American workers and communities.
The overdue bipartisan focus on strengthening American workers’ hands, and the new CWA report, both make a strong case for the “U.S. Call Center Worker and Consumer Protection Act.” This bipartisan legislation, which we recently introduced in the House alongside a companion Senate bill from Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), would deter companies from shipping American jobs overseas and incentivize them to locate in the U.S. Our bill would create a public list of ‘bad actor’ companies who shipped all or most of their service work overseas. Being on the list would make these actors ineligible for certain federal grants or taxpayer-funded guaranteed loans.
Additionally, this legislation would require overseas call centers to disclose their locations to customers and would require them to comply with U.S. consumers’ request to be transferred to a service agent physically located in the U.S. if the customer preferred.
Not only would our legislation help strengthen the American workforce, but it would improve American consumers’ customer service experience and the security of consumers’ personal information. The CWA report is filled with examples of security breaches emanating from overseas call centers and targeting Americans, such as a massive scam operating out of an Indian call center that, per the Department of Justice, bilked more than 15,000 Americans out of hundreds of millions of dollars. The number of incidents described in the CWA report reminds us that existing mechanisms for reining in call center fraud in overseas locations remain inadequate and that it’s past time to reverse the off-shoring trend and bring many of these call center jobs back home.
We are heartened by the growing bipartisan conversation on putting American workers first. We now urge our colleagues in Congress to take the next step and to back our legislation, the “U.S. Call Center Worker and Consumer Protection Act.”
Green represents Texas's 29th District and McKinley represents West Virginia's 1st District.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/337368-why-congress-should-get-behind-the-bipartisan-us-call-center

Return to headline | Return to top
Electric Sector, Feds Rush To Thwart 'Milestone' Cyber Weapon

Jun 12, 2017 | PoliticoPro

By Eric Geller

Government officials and energy sector leaders scrambled Monday to analyze a newly discovered cyber weapon that researchers are calling a “milestone” for hackers hoping to cripple power grids.
But while all involved concede that the weapon — which may be the work of Russia-linked cyber warriors — has the power to unleash never-before-seen cyberattacks, security experts and industry representatives cautioned that the U.S. power grid is better suited than many others to fend off such a digital assault.
The energy sector has spent years wargaming such scenarios, and it has systems in place to replace damaged equipment, share resources and swap information in the wake of a massive power outage. The government has also improved its rapid-response capabilities in recent years for just such instances. And as of yet, industry representatives noted, there is no indication the malware has infiltrated U.S. power grid networks.
“Our grid benefits from significant experience with weather and other challenges and is very robust,” said John Hultquist, director of cyber espionage analysis at iSIGHT, a division of the security firm FireEye.
The new digital weapon leapt into the public eye Monday morning via reports from security firms Dragos and ESET. Researchers described it as a highly customized toolkit for mapping grid networks, sabotaging safety equipment and paralyzing power companies. The malware — which Dragos calls CrashOverride and ESET calls Industroyer — can seize control of switches and circuit breakers and wipe servers to delete all traces of itself. ESET claimed that it can also disable equipment designed to prevent grid overloads, potentially letting hackers cause widespread physical damage.
“This is a milestone for critical infrastructure in the West where it’s been anxiously anticipated for quite some time,” said Hultquist.
Experts believe Russian hackers tested the malware’s new powers in a little-noticed cyberattack on the Ukrainian power grid last December, an incident that was largely overlooked amid concerns about Moscow’s alleged meddling in the U.S. presidential race. The attack — which mirrored a first-of-its-kind 2015 digital strike on Ukraine’s power grid — briefly turned off one-fifth of the electric power generated in Kiev, Ukraine’s capital.
“This capability now appears to be in the hands of a government who has violated every norm in this space with increasingly aggressive behavior,” Hultquist said. “I doubt Ukraine is the last place we will see this capability deployed.”
The electric sector jumped into action shortly before the reports dropped. Researchers briefed the industry’s cyber information sharing center on Sunday morning, and the group began distributing technical data about the malware that afternoon. An industry coordinating group known as the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council is also in contact with the Department of Energy, according to Scott Aaronson, the group's secretary.
Elsewhere, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation — the electricity industry’s main nonprofit regulatory body — is preparing a public alert on the new malware and will release it “as soon as possible,” according to spokeswoman Kimberly Mielcarek.
“There is no question that cyberthreats like the one in Ukraine are real and that constant vigilance is needed to protect the reliability of the North American grid,” Mielcarek said.
Industry forces are also working with DHS, which has a cyber command center constantly monitoring hacking threats. NERC has a representative at the that center — known as the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center — who helps coordinate between DHS and the electric sector.
A DHS spokesman said the department was aware of the malware and was “working with the researchers and industry on this issue,” but declined to discuss specifics.
For years, the public and private sectors have operated joint exercises to try and prepare for the types of bruising attacks that CrashOverride may unleash. Electric companies and government agencies gather every two years for drills that simulate digital and physical disruptions at power facilities and encourage collaboration to resolve the problems.
The most recent exercise, in 2015, brought together top executives from energy firms and senior officials from DHS, the Pentagon, the FBI, the Department of Energy, the White House and other federal agencies.
The exercise “highlighted the importance of well-coordinated communications,” according to a summary report. But participants complained that the information sharing center’s portal “needed enhancements to handle real-time, urgent communication,” the report said. “During the exercise, information was quickly buried within the portal and it became difficult to highlight important information.”
A major priority for electric companies is being able to continue operations despite network disruptions — what Aaronson called operating “in a degraded state."
“What we have learned from any number of these incidents [is] that you cannot protect everything from everything,” Aaronson said. “We have to focus on restoration, response and recovery in order to ensure that we can continue to provide the product that is critical to the life, health and safety of Americans.”
The electric sector also prides itself on what Aaronson called “cyber mutual assistance,” in which unaffected companies send technicians to assist the digitally-targeted operators.
In general, security experts said, the American power system is less vulnerable to a large-scale digital disruption than systems in other countries.
But those same experts, as well as federal officials and even industry representatives, acknowledge that the threat is still grave and that more work needs to be done. And preparations for thwarting CrashOverride’s potentially damaging, information-wiping, recovery-system-immobilizing attacks are based on the scant few examples of what such an incapacitating cyberattack might look like.
The CrashOverride toolkit is only the second known example of malware designed to disrupt a power facility. The United States and Israel are believed to have deployed the first such virus, codenamed Stuxnet, in the mid-2000s to sabotage Iranian nuclear centrifuges. But despite its formidable design and potentially devastating consequences, experts said the industry would handle it through normal channels.
CrashOverride is “another example of malware that has the potential to have an impact on grid operations,” said Aaronson. “But notice the word that I used there: it is another one. And there will be another one tomorrow, and another one after that.”
John Chirhart, federal technical director at the security firm Tenable, said it was important to note that the malware did not use any zero-day vulnerabilities, pieces of code that exploit undiscovered flaws.
“With all of the buzz around Industroyer being ‘the next Stuxnet,’ you’d think it was one of the most sophisticated threats out there,” he said, “but with no zero days in the Industroyer payload, the significance of this malware as a stand-alone event is small.”
Aaronson cited the flurry of chatter that started Sunday as evidence that the proper response mechanisms were in place.
“I think we are well positioned to deal with this particular threat and all of the ones that are yet to come,” he said.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/06/electric-sector-feds-rush-to-thwart-milestone-cyber-weapon-158148

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

DC Circuit Schedules Arguments Over EPA Boiler Rule

Jun 12, 2017 | Inside EPA

A federal appellate court has scheduled Sept. 15 arguments in a case brought by environmentalists against aspects of EPA's air toxics rules for industrial boilers not already addressed by the court, even as the Supreme Court prepares to decide whether it will hear arguments over the rules' provisions on industrial malfunctions.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit set the argument date in a June 12 order in Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, et al., a case testing issues left unresolved in protracted litigation over EPA's rules setting maximum achievable control technology (MACT) for large “major source” boilers.
In U.S. Sugar Corp., et al., v. EPA, et al., the court ultimately remanded to EPA without vacatur a series of emissions limits for major source boilers for not being tough enough.
Electric utility and free-market advocacy groups are now using U.S. Sugar as a vehicle to petition the high court to review EPA's policy banning regulatory exemptions for industry during periods of malfunction. The policy is embodied in the boiler rule, but is common to others and risks making industry compliance with air quality standards impossible because it effectively bans inevitable accidents, plaintiffs argue in American Municipal Power v. EPA.
The high court is scheduled to decide whether to hear the appeal at its conference of June 22.
Meanwhile, environmentalists in Sierra Club are seeking to overturn EPA's use of “work practice standards” as an alternative for numeric emissions limits during periods of boiler startup and shutdown, as well as the agency's use of a carbon monoxide (CO) threshold to ensure hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions are minimized.
EPA allows operators to fully engage emissions controls four hours after generation of useful thermal energy, and to engage controls “as expeditiously as possible” after boilers commence burning “non-clean fuels.” Clean fuels are low-emitting fuels -- such as natural gas -- used in boilers otherwise burning more-polluting fuels such as coal.
But environmental groups say EPA cannot lawfully substitute work practice standards for numeric limits.
EPA in briefing has argued that verifying compliance with numeric emissions limits for HAPs is impractical during startup, when emissions controls do not yet operate effectively.
The agency also has consistently argued in Sierra Club and in U.S. Sugar that it can legitimately use CO as a “surrogate” for HAPs it regulates under MACT rules, despite environmentalists' claims that it is an arbitrary indicator that cannot be substituted for limits on specific HAPs.
In Sierra Club, environmentalists specifically challenge the adequacy of EPA's threshold of 130 parts per million. If boilers emit CO below this level, EPA assumes them to be achieving the maximum possible reduction of HAPs, but environmental groups question the basis for this assumption.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/dc-circuit-schedules-arguments-over-epa-boiler-rule

Return to headline | Return to top
Facing Regulatory Uncertainty, ECOS Seeks To Redefine State-Federal Roles

Jun 13, 2017 | Inside EPA

By Dawn Reeves

Facing significant uncertainty about EPA's future budgets and its regulatory role, state environmental leaders are launching a new campaign to redefine state and federal roles overseeing pollution control requirements while setting principles for how to do so.
The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) June 12 issued a white paper that lays out draft principles for states and EPA to reshape their relationship under the new administration, which has proposed a 31 percent cut to EPA's overall budget and a 45 percent cut from EPA grants to states that help them to run delegated environmental programs.
State officials have already indicated plans to cut their own programs or return delegated authorities to EPA as a way to absorb the proposed federal cuts.
For example, Arkansas environment head Becky Keogh said recently her state and others could make up for proposed cuts to EPA's categorical grant program by “refocusing” their activities and shifting some responsibilities from mandatory regulations to voluntary programs crafted in partnership with industry.
In the face of such planned changes, ECOS officials are seeking a more formal restatement of state-federal roles, promising in a press release that any recasting of roles will result in “equal or greater environmental and public health protection and outcomes through smart deployment of resources on critical priorities; reduced operating costs due to a more efficient division of services, streamlined operating relationships, best practice sharing, and elimination of redundancies across states and divisions of EPA; more effective allocation of limited resources by determining the best roles and functions states and EPA are each best suited to perform; and, with time, fewer disputes over who should take credit for successes and achievements, and who is responsible for decisions and actions that result in setbacks.”
In their white paper, states appear to go even further, calling for significant flexibility and adequate funding for implementing federal requirements.
The paper says, for example, that, “States should have flexibility to determine the best way for their programs to achieve national minimum standards that enables them to incorporate and integrate their unique geophysical, ecological, social and economic conditions” while EPA “should involve states as partners early and often in developing federal environmental and public health policy, and should specifically seek state and other stakeholder input on the efficacy of new or changed standards or program requirements.”
But how or whether states will be able to define new roles that achieve such lofty goals is debatable especially given the deep cuts to state funds the administration is proposing.
ECOS President John Linc Stine, who is commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, sought to downplay the impact of the president's budget request to Congress, telling reporters on a June 12 press call that the administration needed to issue its proposal “to fulfill the requirement for submitting a budget to Congress” and that ECOS would engage both the administration and Congress on funding.
The issue of EPA's budget for states is likely the subject of additional discussion at a planned July 17 ECOS meeting in Washington, D.C., where state officials plan to continue to discuss their campaign.
Savings And Efficiencies
Stine added that ECOS believes there are “savings and efficiencies to be gained” through the new approach while acknowledging that having to address the budget and state/federal roles at the same time is “a little out of sequence.”
He also said that ECOS engaged EPA officials in drafting the paper, and that “they know we're in this posture of proposing a renewed relationship conversation and are very open to it.”
And he said that state officials did discuss with EPA “the broad concepts” of its State & Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) line item, where states receive most of their federal funding, while also noting that there are other funds from other federal agencies available to states.
Also on the call ECOS Executive Director Alexandra Dunn said rethinking the state/federal role is “a terrific opportunity” and “a conversation long overdue.” She said states want to work with the federal government “collectively rather than in competition” but that will require defining who can carry out what functions in the most effective way.
Dunn noted that EPA should have confidence in the capability of state programs because states have assumed increasing amounts delegated authority over the years.
Also on the call, Keogh, director of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, said that states are ready to step up, and can “offer clarity in areas where we believe an appropriate action can take vision from the state's perspective.” She also noted an average of 27 percent of a state's environmental funds is federal, and the rest comes from permit fees and other sources.
“We believe that the cost of environmental protection has increased significantly, not only at the federal level but also at the state level, so we want to bring that into new focus -- is there a better model going forward?” Keogh said.
Another aspect of the rethinking is to avoid blame when things go wrong, Dunn said on the June 12 call. The public does not discern which government entity provides services, yet there is a “long history of finger pointing” when things go wrong, and fights over winning credit for success.
“We believe if we are true partners, then credit and blame is less important and the end result . . . is what matters,” she said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/facing-regulatory-uncertainty-ecos-seeks-redefine-state-federal-roles

Return to headline | Return to top
Is NSR Next On The Trump Deregulatory Agenda?

Jun 12, 2017 | Inside EPA

The Commerce Department is slated to issue its report later this week targeting EPA and other agencies' rules that burden manufacturers, a document that is expected to focus heavily on EPA's new source review (NSR) permit program that many industry groups strongly criticized in their comments.
Reuters reports that the department's “regulations 'hit list' recommendations follow more than three months of study and consultation with industry on ways to streamline regulations and ease burdens on manufacturing firms.”
Echoing recent comments by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross last month, the news service, citing an administration official with knowledge of the report, said EPA's “complex permitting rules will be a key focus."
As Inside EPA first reported, “a wide range of domestic producers, including agriculture, aircraft, auto, energy, chemical, forest and paper, metals, and others,” urged administration officials to overhaul EPA's controversial NSR program, “providing some of the loudest calls for programs to reform under a presidential memo to reduce burdens on manufacturers.”
In their comments to the department, the industry groups charged the NSR program is one of the biggest hurdles to constructing new domestic manufacturing facilities and bolstering associated employment benefits.
“The [Clean Air Act] permit process must be streamlined and simplified to provide incentives for companies to build plants in the U.S. rather than abroad,” the National Environmental Development Association’s Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP), a coalition representing a wide range of industry groups, said in its March 31 comments.
But which portions of the program will be targeted remain to be seen. As Inside EPA's Stuart Parker reported recently, the Trump administration continues to aggressively enforce the program, mirroring stances taken by the Obama administration.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/nsr-next-trump-deregulatory-agenda

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Air Pollution Model Gets Inspector General Scrutiny

Jun 13, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Andrew Childers

The EPA's process for approving the air pollution modeling methods it recommends for state regulators is slated for review by the agency's inspector general.
The inspector general will evaluate the use of the air quality dispersion models that states use to draft plans to implement federal air pollution requirements or evaluate air pollution permit applications from industry groups. In particular, the Inspector General said it would review use of the American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD), according to the project notification released June 12.
The most recent update to AERMOD was “a long and arduous process that caused a lot of frustration from a state perspective,” Clint Woods, executive director of the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies, told Bloomberg BNA. The EPA's approval of the updated model was delayed, which left states waiting for the tool necessary to show they were complying with air quality standards for sulfur dioxide, he said.
The inspector general's evaluation will include peer reviews and other analyses of AERMOD.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114143846&vname=dennotallissues&fn=114143846&jd=114143846

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Reopens Public Comment On Air Monitoring Settlement

Jun 12, 2017 | Inside EPA

The Trump administration is reopening public comment on an Obama EPA proposed settlement agreement with environmentalists that would require EPA to issue two “non-binding” guidance documents aimed at ensuring public involvement in state air quality monitoring plans, citing adverse comment from Texas and Ohio.
In a Federal Register notice slated for publication June 13, EPA reopens until July 13 public comment on its Jan. 10 proposed consent decree in Sierra Club v. EPA, a case in which environmentalists challenged the agency's March 2016 rule setting requirements for state air quality monitoring plans. The original comment period closed Feb. 21.
Such plans must be submitted to EPA and approved by the agency, but environmentalists claim the EPA rule fails to ensure adequate public notice of such plans or opportunity to comment on them.
Under the proposed settlement agreement, EPA would have to issue within 30 days two non-binding guidance documents, one for state and local air agencies, the other for EPA regions. The guidance to states would recommend that states make monitoring plans available on their websites for public comment for 30 days, and that the plans should remain available during the comment period. States should notify interested stakeholders by e-mail that the plan is available for comment.
In the guidance to EPA regions, regional offices are asked to ensure interested stakeholders are informed by e-mail within 15 business days of monitoring plan approvals or disapprovals by the agency, and that approved plans be made available on EPA's website.
Draft versions of the guidance documents are now slated for release June 13.
However, Ohio and Texas air regulators in comments on the proposed settlement objected, seeking an opportunity to comment on the draft guidance documents, which EPA is now poised to release on its website, according to the Register notice. EPA is now soliciting comment on whether it should proceed to finalize the settlement agreement.
Ohio EPA, the state's air regulator, in Feb. 17 comments depicts the settlement as an example of “sue-and-settle” policymaking that new EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has vowed to end. Industry and some states have criticized the practice of EPA settling legal disputes with environmentalists, and excluding third parties from such deals, as resulting in rushed timetables for rules that are ultimately flawed.
“Unfortunately, Ohio is left no choice but to comment after the fact because U.S. EPA has once again entered into negotiations without participation from the States. This is particularly troubling in this case as States are left to implement this settlement resulting from your negotiations,” Ohio EPA says.
In Feb. 21 comments, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), the state's environmental regulator, takes a similar line. “The TCEQ believes that the timeframe of the proposed settlement agreement does not allow for a period of public notice, review, and subsequent comment on the resulting guidance documents. TCEQ is concerned that there is no opportunity for anyone but the parties to the settlement agreement to comment on the guidance to be issued by EPA. Soliciting comments is of utmost importance,” TCEQ says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-reopens-public-comment-air-monitoring-settlement

Return to headline | Return to top
U.S. Finds Isolated Climate Change Stance at G-7 Talks

Jun 13, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Chiara Albanese and Jessica Shankleman and Eric J. Lyman

Two days of talks among Group of Seven environment ministers confirmed a crack between the world's other leading industrial nations and the U.S. over climate change issues.
The ministers were unable to find common ground on climate measures, according to a communique from delegations from the G-7 countries and the European Commission in Bologna, Italy, June 12.
The U.S. representative, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, left the summit just hours after arriving. The U.S. was then represented by acting Environmental Protection Agency Assistant Administrator Jane Nishida.
The White House said Pruitt returned to Washington to attend a Cabinet meeting.
U.S. ‘Does Not Join Those Sections’
The climate-related language in the final document gave strong backing to the Paris Agreement, reiterating the goal of keeping global warming “well below 2 degrees” Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) compared to pre-industrial levels, and “pursuing efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees” Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). It also reaffirmed the goal of “mobilizing $100 billion annually by 2020” to help poor countries adapt to the impacts of climate change.
But in a footnote, the U.S. made clear that it does “not join those sections ... on climate” and climate change finance. The footnote did say the U.S. would “continue to engage with key international partners” on climate issues.
“We are resetting the dialogue to say Paris is not the only way forward to making progress,” Pruitt said in statement the EPA issued after the talks. “Respective of the importance to engage with longstanding allies and key international partners, we approached the climate discussions head on from a position of strength and clarity.”
President Donald Trump announced June 1 that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris climate accord. Syria, Nicaragua, and the U.S. are now the only nations not participating in the accord.
Trump's offer to renegotiate a more favorable deal for the U.S. has been rebuffed by the leaders of Germany, France, and Italy. Canadian Environment Minister Catherine McKenna pledged to move ahead with U.S. governors, mayors and executives who still support the accord.
“It was very sad to see that the United States was relegated to a footnote on climate action,” McKenna told reporters June 12, saying she told Pruitt the pact is not up for renegotiation and that he left the meeting after a couple of hours. “Let's be clear—the U.S. is bigger than one administration and we're going to be moving forward, as is the rest of the world, with the states, cities and businesses in the United States that are committed to serious climate action and committed to the Paris Agreement.”
Environmental officials from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the U.K., and the U.S. met for the June 11–12 talks.
‘Irreversible, Not Negotiable’
The U.S. withdrawal will take years to unfold as the earliest it can formally exit is Nov. 4, 2020—the day after the next presidential election. But Trump's decision has already left it isolated. No other nation has said it will follow suit, and even coal-reliant India announced it will seek to exceed the Paris targets.
In closing remarks, Gian Luca Galletti, minister of environment for host Italy, said he hoped the U.S. might one day change its stance on the Paris Agreement, but in the meantime, the two-year-old Paris document remained “irreversible, not negotiable, and the only global instrument for confronting climate change.”
McKenna, whose country will host the 2018 edition of the G-7 environment ministerial talks, said she was hopeful the U.S. would rethink its stance: “We remain open to a partnership with the U.S. on climate.”

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114143839&vname=dennotallissues&fn=114143839&jd=114143839

Return to headline | Return to top
California Budget Bills Fail to Extend Cap-and-Trade

Jun 13, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Carolyn Whetzel

California budget bills on June 12 didn't include legislation Gov. Jerry Brown (D) is seeking to reauthorize the state's greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade program.
But, legislation to extend the program beyond 2020 is still possible even as part of the budget process, Bill Magavern, a policy director for the Coalition of Clean Air, told Bloomberg BNA June 12.

Brown wants a budget bill, which requires a two-thirds majority vote in both houses, to extend cap-and-trade through 2030 to protect the program from legal challenges. His proposed budget blocks the allocation of $2.1 billion in cap-and-trade auction revenue until the legislature passes such a bill.
“There is no deal with cap-and-trade that involves the Assembly today,” Marie Liu, a legislative consultant in Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon's (D) office told Bloomberg BNA in an email June 12. “That said, the Governor continues to express his support and desire for a bill that extends the program with a two-thirds vote by the end of the month.”
The legislature is “still working to get” a reauthorization bill this month, Anthony Reyes, a spokesman for Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon (D) told Bloomberg BNA in an email.
“There are active discussions at the ‘big three level'—the Senate and Assembly leadership and the governor's office,” Magavern said. “I expect we're not going to see reauthorization before the main budget is approved this week.”
State laws gives the lawmakers until June 15 to approve the budget and the governor until July 1 to sign it into law.
There is time for a bill to extend cap-and-trade beyond 2020, either later this month or even by the Sept. 15, end of the current session, Magavern said.
So far, legislative efforts to renew the program have stalled. Business and industry groups want the same basic framework of the program to be preserved, while some lawmakers, environment justice advocates, and others are seeking major changes to the carbon trading program.
Launched in 2013, California's economywide cap-and-trade program sets annual emissions caps that decline over time. Regulated entities, including power plants, oil refineries and other industrial facilities and distributors of natural gas and transportation fuels can comply with annual caps either by installing controls or purchasing allowances. Excess allowances may be sold.
A coalition of clean transportation companies and business associations have sent a letter urging the legislative leaders and the governor to get the legislation passed as “soon as possible,” a member of the group, CALSTART President and CEO John Boesel, told Bloomberg BNA June 12.
“To create a stable regulatory framework, and encourage future investment, industry is urging the legislature to act now and get the bill passed this summer,” Boesel said. “Waiting until next year will create uncertainty and possibly slow industry growth.”

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114143845&vname=dennotallissues&fn=114143845&jd=114143845

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested