Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 5/1/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) How Pruitt's Science Plans Might Help Industry Fight Rules
May 1, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
Dozens of prominent scientists published an alarming study about formaldehyde in 2010. Their findings: Exposure to the compound — used in everything from auto manufacturing to embalming — was linked to leukemia. -
(ACC Mentioned) Draft Science Rule Targets EPA's Use Of Strict Default Linear 'Dose' Models
May 1, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's plan to require EPA regulatory decisions be based on publicly available data targets the agency's long-time use of strict, default linear dose-response models, a criticism of Republicans and industry groups who say the agency's use of such conservative approaches -- such as in its guidelines for assessing cancer risks -- result in stricter rules than are needed. -
(ACC Mentioned) EU Needs Joint Trade Approach to Be 'at Eye Level' with US, China - VCI
May 1, 2018 | ICIS
The US has postponed for 30 days a decision on trade tariffs on the EU and other allies, but Germany’s chemical trade group VCI said on Tuesday the 28-country bloc should adopt a unified and speedy position on trade to face China and the US “at eye level”. -
Pruitt's Rule Ending Secret Science Is Pro-Science, Pro-Consumer
Apr 29, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Angela Logomasini
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s proposed rule to increase public access to scientific data makes eminent sense, since transparency is a cornerstone of the scientific process. -
EPA's Proposed Transparency Rule 'Will Harm Decision Making'
May 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
Editors from five leading scientific journals have penned an open letter detailing their concerns about the EPA's proposal that all science linked to regulatory decisions should be "transparent". -
A Top Aide to EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Resigns amid Scrutiny
May 1, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin, Brady Dennis and Emma Brown
Albert ‘Kell’ Kelly, a top aide to Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt, resigned Tuesday amid scrutiny of his financial dealings with Pruitt that also drew attention to his lifetime ban from banking. -
(ACC Mentioned) 5 Ways Chemical Safety Is Eroding Under Trump
May 1, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
In June 2016, Congress had the rare success of passing bipartisan legislation to update our nation’s badly broken chemical safety system. It finally gave the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency the power to strengthen health protections for American families. -
TSCA New Chemicals Programme Causing 'Dramatic' Rise in Animal Tests
May 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Two NGOs have raised concern that changes to the new chemicals programme under the recently amended TSCA have resulted in a "dramatic increase" in animal testing. -
Fracking Chemicals "Imbalance" the Immune System
May 1, 2018 | Environmental Health News
By Brian Bienkowski
Mice exposed to fracking chemicals during pregnancy were less able to fend off diseases; scientists say this could have major implications for people near oil and gas sites. -
Car Parts Suppliers Called to Action on REACH, Brexit
May 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
European automotive parts suppliers have been given recommendations on addressing the upcoming challenges of REACH and Brexit. -
Danish Study Advises Against Cosmetics Purchases from Popular US Website
May 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The Danish Consumer Council has recommended that consumers don't buy cosmetics from a US website, after a study found some products did not comply with the EU cosmetics regulation. -
Swiss Project Finds Excessive Hazardous Chemical Levels in FCMs
May 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
A Swiss enforcement agency has rebuked food packaging companies for failing to keep their products safe, after finding high levels of restricted substances in paper and board food contact materials. -
An Old Chestnut, the 'FRAC Act,' Gains a New Supporter
May 1, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
An Ohio Democrat has thrown his support behind a decade-old bill that would give the public more information about the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. -
Pennsylvania Lawmakers, Governor Again Call for Natural Gas Tax
May 1, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf on Monday joined a bipartisan group of lawmakers to throw his support behind two bills that would implement a severance tax on natural gas production. -
Wyo. Court Will Not Reinstate BLM Methane Standards
May 1, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A federal court will not revisit its decision to halt Obama-era standards for methane emissions from the oil and gas industry. -
Constitution Backers Mull Options After Supreme Court Passes
May 1, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Saqib Rahim
The backers of the Constitution pipeline yesterday vowed to continue their fight to get the natural gas project built in New York, despite the Supreme Court's recent decision to pass on the case. -
Too Often, Safety Advances in Offshore Industry Grew from Tragedy
May 1, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By L.M. Sixel
The offshore energy industry has spent the past half-century pushing into deeper and deeper waters, using ever-advancing technologies to find oil and gas thousands of feet below the ocean’s surface and produce millions of barrels a day in the most challenging conditions. -
'Minor' Fire at Sabine Pass Plant Extinguished, Cheniere Says
May 1, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Cheniere Energy Inc.'s Sabine Pass liquefied natural gas plant experienced a "minor" fire last week, not long after LNG leaked from a breached tank at the country's first modern gas export facility. -
Maryland Congressman Calls for Focus on Grid Hacks
May 1, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), who sits on the House Appropriations Committee, is calling for more congressional oversight of government efforts to protect the power grid from hackers. -
SEC Sounds Cyber 'Wake-Up Call' to Public Companies
May 1, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced an unprecedented $35 million cybersecurity penalty last week against Altaba Inc., putting other publicly traded companies on notice. -
(ACC Mentioned) Norfolk Southern Receives Chemical Industry Award for Safety
May 1, 2018 | Progressive Rail Roading
The American Chemistry Council yesterday honored Norfolk Southern Railway with the Responsible Care® Partner of the Year Award for the Class I's exemplary performance and safety record in transporting chemicals. -
LIRR Misses Critical Juncture for Positive Train Control
May 1, 2018 | The National Law Review
Last week, the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) confirmed interruptions in its ability to fully install positive train control (PTC) across its system by the end of the year. -
Climate Talks Are Underway. Here's Why They're Important
May 1, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
International negotiators are in Bonn, Germany, for a high-stakes two-week session aimed at getting the Paris Agreement up and running. -
Warren, Sanders Want Climate Change Considered in Selection of Homeland Security Adviser
May 1, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By John Bowden
Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) are calling on the Trump administration to consider the effects of climate change when selecting President Trump's next homeland security adviser. -
U.S. Air Pollution Falling More Slowly Than EPA Data Suggests
May 1, 2018 | Eco Watch
By Olivia Rosane
To track the levels of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide, two pollutants that contribute to smog formation, an international research team used satellite pollution measurements backed up by local air quality monitor readings. -
Groups Accuse EPA of Violating 2 Laws with Policy Repeal
May 1, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
EPA may have transgressed two federal laws in abruptly repealing a decades-old industrial air pollution policy earlier this year, a coalition of 10 environmental groups alleged in a new court filing. -
Wis. Plant Wins as EPA About-Faces on Ozone Designation
May 1, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
In a decision that's likely to be closely scrutinized, EPA has handed Wisconsin state officials a partial victory in deeming the county that's slated to be the home of a massive manufacturing plant in compliance with its 2015 ground-level ozone standard. -
Trump Administration to Launch Major Climate Satellite
May 1, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
The Trump administration will launch a major climate science satellite mission later this month to track the movement of water around the planet.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) How Pruitt's Science Plans Might Help Industry Fight Rules
May 1, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
Dozens of prominent scientists published an alarming study about formaldehyde in 2010. Their findings: Exposure to the compound — used in everything from auto manufacturing to embalming — was linked to leukemia.
It's the type of study that can significantly influence major public health regulations. The research, published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, has made waves in the public health world. It's been cited by both EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer in assessments that linked formaldehyde to leukemia and other serious health problems.
Now, the study long fought by industry is being cited as an example of the kind of public health research EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and his allies could soon keep out of the rulemaking process. And controversy over the paper could offer a glimpse into how industry might use changes to EPA's science policies to try to discredit some public health research that bolsters the case for regulations.
Pruitt last week proposed a rule to require that EPA studies used in future regulations must have open and transparent data. Pruitt and other conservatives have argued that EPA's current process is too opaque and allows government officials to push their own regulatory agendas without having the data to back up their decisions.
Pruitt said that his plan will give the "marketplace" a way to evaluate science used in rulemaking. His new policy, he said, is designed to utilize "common sense that as we do rulemaking at the agency, we base it upon a record, scientific conclusions, that we should be able to see the data and methodology that actually caused those conclusions."
His opponents say Pruitt's plan opens the door for industry to go after a range of important studies that underpin public health protections and climate change regulations. A fight over the formaldehyde research might offer a window into how it will play out.
The formaldehyde and leukemia study is a "poster child" for the way industry could attempt to tear down important research that threatens their profits, said Bernard Goldstein, dean emeritus of the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, who was EPA's top science official during the Reagan administration.
The study examined health data of factory workers in China exposed to formaldehyde and concluded that "leukemia induction by formaldehyde is biologically plausible." The authors included researchers from the University of California, Berkeley; the National Cancer Institute; and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as well as Chinese institutions. Researchers kept the underlying data private, citing health confidentiality concerns.Counter by chemicals industry
The chemicals industry — which could see its bottom line affected by formaldehyde rules — took aim at that research immediately after it was published in 2010.
The American Chemistry Council, a trade group for the industry, fought for years in court to receive the underlying data behind the study, according to a timeline provided by the organization. Because some of the researchers worked for government agencies, industry researchers were able to use a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain some of the underlying data.
After the organization received the data from the original study, in 2016, it quickly turned it around into a reanalysis it used to claim the original study was invalid.
The resulting 2017 study funded by a foundation attached to the American Chemistry Council found "little if any evidence of a causal association between formaldehyde exposure and AML (acute myelogenous leukemia)." The study was published in the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology, which has been criticized by the Center for Public Integrity because it routinely publishes industry-funded work used to fight regulations.
In a press release announcing the study, the American Chemistry Council argued that the research published in 2017 invalidated not only the original study but also all of the regulations it may have supported.
"The findings in this reanalysis are important because they call into question the validity of all these recent formaldehyde assessments," Kimberly White, senior director of the American Chemistry Council Formaldehyde Panel, said in the press release last year. "The original paper failed to meet its own data quality standards and the scientific standard of reproducibility. Relying on it consequently led to unsubstantiated regulatory decisions and unwarranted outcomes."
The trade group told E&E News in a statement yesterday: "Formaldehyde is an extensively regulated material. EPA and other agencies must consider the entire weight of evidence on formaldehyde, as is the case for all chemicals, when setting exposure limits."
Former officials from the powerful trade group now hold top political posts at EPA under Pruitt.
And White is now a member of EPA's influential Science Advisory Board tasked with evaluating research used to craft regulations. She was appointed after Pruitt reworked the board, declaring that members who received EPA grants could no longer serve. Critics of that move argued that the shift tipped the scales toward researchers with industry ties, because many academics rely on federal grant funding.'What is solid science?'
Goldstein, the former Reagan-era EPA official, sees the fight over the formaldehyde research as a preview of how Pruitt's plans will affect EPA science.
"You hear this from the American Chemistry Council over and over again saying, 'See, we were finally able to get the data through the Freedom of Information Act and it turns out these folks were hiding things which completely contradict their findings,' which is just nonsense," he said. "They found a private consultant group that was able to look at the data in such a way as to give them the opportunity to say that even though it was not justified."
Goldstein said there's been a decadeslong trend where industry looks to exploit minor flaws to delegitimize important research. Any study with such significant ramifications for human health will often yield further independent research that will fully explore and vet such flaws, he added.
He accused the American Chemistry Council of waging a political and legal war, rather than focusing on research.
"Instead of funding new science to see whether this thing is right or wrong — because one study is never going to be definitive — what you're going to do is you're going to give the money to people to find minor blemishes, which are inevitable when you do these kinds of studies, and you're going to fight it out in courts, not in science," Goldstein said.
Supporters of Pruitt's proposed rule say it will allow for independent analysis of research that informs costly regulations.
At contentious hearings on Capitol Hill last week, a number of House Republicans hailed the science transparency rule as progress.
"The question is, what is solid science?" said Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho). He shrugged off criticisms of EPA's proposal. "I can't believe anybody has a problem with [asking], 'How did you come up with this conclusion?'"
Offering more raw data, however, could allow industry to take data out of context and to rework it with predetermined findings that it will claim invalidates the work of established and independent researchers, Goldstein said. He said industry has a long history of hiring its own researchers to nitpick and rebut data.
"You're a great consultant for industry if you can find a way to give industry, your client, an argument that will allow them to win a case whether or not your argument is scientifically valid," he said. "It's a matter of we're taking the science and changing it into a legal approach, a confrontational approach, rather the consensus approach. And industry and Scott Pruitt are rather happy to have a confrontational approach because they're in charge now."
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060080501
-
(ACC Mentioned) Draft Science Rule Targets EPA's Use Of Strict Default Linear 'Dose' Models
May 1, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's plan to require EPA regulatory decisions be based on publicly available data targets the agency's long-time use of strict, default linear dose-response models, a criticism of Republicans and industry groups who say the agency's use of such conservative approaches -- such as in its guidelines for assessing cancer risks -- result in stricter rules than are needed.
"There is a growing empirical evidence of non-linearity in the concentration-response function for specific pollutants and health effects. The use of default models, without consideration of alternatives or model uncertainty, can obscure the scientific justification for EPA actions," the proposed rule says.
The agency's proposed approach is already winning praise from critics of such linear approaches. "The proposal represents a major scientific step forward by recognizing the widespread occurrence of non-linear dose responses in toxicology and epidemiology for chemicals and radiation and the need to incorporate such data in the risk assessment process," Ed Calabrese, a toxicology professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst who has long criticized EPA's use of linear dose-response approaches, said in an EPA press release announcing the proposed rule.
Calabrese, a proponent of the biphasic hormetic dose-response model, has argued that linear dose-response is an inaccurate scientific theory put forward in the 1930s and '40s by geneticists who sought personal success by advancing their theory.
But environmentalists are strongly criticizing the draft rule. Richard Denison, senior scientist with the Environmental defense Fund (EDF), calls this language in the proposal "a laser-guided missile because it goes right to the heart of the war industry has been waging against the risk assessment science used by EPA and called for by the nation's most prestigious scientific body, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)."
The proposed rule that Pruitt signed April 24 generally requires EPA to rely only on research that is based on publicly available data, though it does provide the administrator with discretion to waive the requirement on a case-by-case basis.
As such, the agency would be barred from using research based on confidential business information (CBI), a key requirement for industry seeking approval of pesticide and chemical uses. It would also prevent the agency from using research based on medical data that is protected by privacy law, which EPA has previously used to justify its air quality and a host of other environmental standards.
The proposal, which appeared in the Federal Register April 30 for a 30-day public comment period, has already drawn strong criticisms from industry groups, environmentalists and others, many of whom charge the plan is unlawful because it is at odds with statutory requirements that the agency use the "best available science."
Instead, the proposed rule seeks to establish a "clear policy for the transparency of the scientific information used for significant regulations: specifically, the dose response data and models that underlie what we are calling 'pivotal regulatory science'."
The proposal defines the term to mean "the studies, models, and analyses that drive the magnitude of the benefit-cost calculation, the level of a standard, or point-of-departure from which a reference value is calculated. In other words, they are critical to the calculation of a final regulatory standard of level, or to the quantified costs, benefits and other impact on which a final regulation is based."
Risk Estimates
EPA dose-response analyses, particularly those produced by the agency's influential Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program, have long been castigated by regulated entities for producing what they consider overly strict risk estimates using linear modeling and defaults.
Linear models are based on the assumption that any exposure to chemicals that can cause cancer could be harmful. By contrast, non-linear models, or threshold models, assume that there is some level of exposure below which no harm is expected to occur. This assumption is generally applied to chemicals that cause harms other than cancer.
EPA in the proposed rule seeks to highlight non-linear models. For example, the proposed rule argues that "To be even more transparent about these complex relationships, EPA should give appropriate consideration to high quality studies that explore: a broad class of parametric concentration-response models with a robust set of potential confounding variables; nonparametric models that incorporate fewer assumptions; various threshold models across the exposure range; and spatial heterogeneity. EPA should also incorporate the concept of model uncertainty when needed as a default to optimize low dose risk estimate based on major competing models, including linear, threshold, and U-shaped, J-shaped and bell-shaped models."
The draft rule does not appear to mention EPA's 2005 cancer risk assessment guidelines, which describe when EPA risk assessors should use linear or non-linear modeling in their analyses based on the biology of how a chemical causes cancer. The guidelines set linear modeling, which is considered more health-protective, as the default. Should a chemical's mode of action (MOA), or how, biologically it can cause cancer in the body, be unknown or mutagenic, the guidelines direct assessors to use linear dose-response modeling. Only if a chemical has a known, non-mutageic MOA do the guidelines direct EPA assessors to use non-linear dose-response modeling -- rarely conducted for chemicals thought to be carcinogenic by IRIS program staff.
Industry and other regulated entities have long argued that EPA's IRIS program has been too strict in applying these guidelines. These critics argue that IRIS staff require far too much evidence to consider an MOA "known" and therefore utilize a threshold dose-response model.
While the new proposal does not appear to mention EPA's risk assessment guidelines, it encourages EPA staff to consider non-linear models more often.
Environmentalists' Criticisms
But Denison and other environmentalists are strongly criticizing the language, saying it grants a long-sought industry "ask."
"For decades the chemical industry and its army of consultants have argued that virtually every substance, no matter how toxic, has a 'safe threshold' -- a level of exposure below which there is no risk whatsoever," he says in an April 25 blog post.
But he says science "has steadily challenged this assumption, based on strong evidence that even if such a threshold appears to exist in, say, a test conducted in laboratory animals, when extrapolated to a diverse human population the notion that a threshold actually exists rapidly falls apart. That is because the human population exhibits enormous variation in genetics, health status, life stage, background and co-exposures, etc."
Denison notes that "as the sophistication of scientific methods and our understanding of biology have grown, the science is also increasingly pointing to evidence of real effects of many substances at low doses, once thought to be safe. Lead and small particulates in air pollution are two examples of substances where science has not identified a 'safe' level of exposure."
And Denison points out that the top Trump appointee in EPA's toxics office is Nancy Beck, a toxicologist who worked for the chemical industry's trade group American Chemistry Council before joining the Trump EPA.
"In her time at [ACC], Dr. Beck led the charge for ACC and the chemical industry on these very issues," Denison writes. "Now as the top Trump official in the toxics program at EPA, she appears to be heralding a return to old, industry-friendly 'science,' to the detriment of public health."
Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), similarly argues that the proposal's language on dose-response modeling is driven to promote an industry-friendly approach to risk analysis at EPA in an April 25 blog post.
"The proposed rule requires EPA to give equal consideration to all sorts of dose-response models, including those that may presume that there are safe levels of a toxic chemical, or even that it may be good for you. This may be appropriate when testing medical drugs but not for toxic pollution."
"EPA has historically taken the very reasonable position that toxic chemicals and pollution are bad for human health, and that an increase in pollution will lead to an increase in adverse effects. This new Censoring Science Rule will toss those default health-protective assumptions out, and instead invite literally an infinite number of model options from which EPA can choose. In the case of Pruitt's EPA, if industry argues that pollution is good for your health, the agency could accept that rationale. Of course, the model options are reduced by the other parts of the proposed rule, which directs EPA to select the industry-sponsored options..."
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/draft-science-rule-targets-epas-use-strict-default-linear-dose-models
-
(ACC Mentioned) EU Needs Joint Trade Approach to Be 'at Eye Level' with US, China - VCI
May 1, 2018 | ICIS
The US has postponed for 30 days a decision on trade tariffs on the EU and other allies, but Germany’s chemical trade group VCI said on Tuesday the 28-country bloc should adopt a unified and speedy position on trade to face China and the US “at eye level”.
On Monday 30 April, US President Donald Trump delayed a decision on tariffs on EU steel and aluminium, as well as other allies like Canada and Mexico, for 30 days after the first round of tariffs in March.
The US imposed a worldwide 25% tariff on steel imports and a 10% tariff on aluminium but granted temporary exemptions to Canada, Mexico, Brazil, the EU, Australia and Argentina.
These were due to expire at 00:01 on Tuesday.
At the time of the announcement, the European chemical trade group Cefic said it feared the imposition of tariffs could kick off trade wars, in detriment to the globalised, trade-heavy chemical industry.Its counterpart in the US, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), said tariffs could slow down growth in the country’s chemical industry.
Despite the “short run” relief for the trade relationship between the EU and the US following the extension on Monday, Germany’s VCI said the 28 countries within the EU should “act jointly and with determination” in their trade discussions with the US and other major trading partners.
“Europe needs a harmonised and WTO-compliant trade policy, " the trade group said in a statement.
“We Europeans have to discuss what institutional changes are needed so that the EU can meet US President Trump and China’s President Xi at eye level in the future – because Europe can succeed in this effort only if we speak with one voice,” said VCI director-general Utz Tillmann.
“Obviously, national go-it-alone action is not useful.”
The VCI chief concluded by asking for overreaching bilateral negotiations between the EU and the US which should not be limited to industrial tariffs.
“Moreover, it is essential that the EU consistently orients its trade policy to the fundamental principles of WTO [World Trade Organization] to avoid yet more damage to the world trading system."
The EU’s steel producers trade group Eurofer also said on Tuesday that with the US extension the EU gained some time for further negotiations, but conceded the US had decided to press ahead with a “policy of uncertainty” which would damage its own economy and those of its allies.
Nevertheless, Eurofer launched an appeal for the US to exclude the EU from the tariffs indefinitely.
According to figures from the trade group, the EU exported 5m tonnes of steel to the US in 2017.
“The US’ decision is welcome, if temporary. Despite all the evidence of the harm to the EU-US relationship – and to our respective economies – the Administration has opted to continue a policy of uncertainty in its international trade practice”, said Alex Eggert, director general at Eurofer.
“However, in our view, the EU must not bend to unilateral trade measures and should continue to back multilateral solutions under the WTO framework.”
Eurofer added that a rise in tariffs worldwide during the first months of 2017 was a concerning factor which would be exacerbated if the US pressed ahead with more tariffs to now excluded countries.
According to the trade group, countries previously excluded from the measures which could fall under new tariffs imposed by the US may be tempted to "direct their deflected products" to the EU market.
“The EU’s possible safeguard measure should be broad and cover a wide scope of products whilst maintaining access to traditional trade flows,” said Eggert.
“It is important to stress that any safeguard – which remedies import surges – would be independent of whether the US gives the EU and exemption, either now or next month.”
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2018/05/01/10217219/eu-needs-joint-trade-approach-to-be-at-eye-level-with-us-china-vci/
-
Pruitt's Rule Ending Secret Science Is Pro-Science, Pro-Consumer
Apr 29, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Angela Logomasini
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s proposed rule to increase public access to scientific data makes eminent sense, since transparency is a cornerstone of the scientific process. The public should have access to data that agencies use to pass regulations that impose economic burdens and limit consumer choice.
Pruitt modeled this rule after the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment (HONEST) Act (H.R. 1430, S. 1794), sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.). This legislation and the proposed rule are designed to provide greater access to data used to justify significant and costly federal regulations.
According to the most recent Office of Management and Budget (OMB) report on the cost of federal regulations, EPA rules are the most expensive in the federal government, and the agency’s claimed benefits are also the highest. OMB explains “the large estimated benefits of EPA rules” emanate from the EPA air quality program and are “mostly attributable to” reductions in PM2.5, which refers to airborne particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter. Yet, the agency has never made the key data on PM2.5 available.
One key study with unavailable data is the Harvard University Six Cities Study, which EPA uses to justify very stringent air quality regulations. This 1993 study is a statistical analysis that reported an association between the lifespans of people in six cities and the levels of PM2.5 found in the air. It claims that people who live in cities with higher PM2.5 have a life expectancy that is two to three years shorter than those in cities with lower PM2.5.
Harvard researchers claim the study participants — whose medical information is part of that data — never agreed for their information to be released, even if their names were excluded.
Sound scientific research should be designed so that data can be made available — with the approval of the subjects — without releasing individual identities. But today, many researchers apparently would rather not release data, making it difficult for others to challenge their results.
This reality has fostered an abundance of scientific mischief, including the propensity for researchers to work the data until it generates a positive finding. What James Mills of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development lamented in 1993 in the New England Journal of Medicine holds true today: If you torture your data long enough, they will tell you whatever you want to hear.
Researcher John P.A. Ioannidis has demonstrated that most positive associations in scientific literature are false. The scope of this problem is also detailed by the National Association of Scholars in the recent report, The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science. The authors highlight one outrageous case where professor Brian Wansink literally bragged on a blog how he schooled one of his students on how to churn data to generate positive results and get them published.
Efforts are underway among some scientific researchers to address this crisis, and Pruitt’s proposed rule may help. After all, if researchers want their work to be useful to regulators, they will need to start operating more transparently.
Ironically, left-of-center critics say that transparency requirements are anti-science. One critic warns that the costs associated with compliance are simply too high, pointing to a Congressional Budget Office report that said implementing the HONEST Act would cost $250 million a year, as the EPA would have to devote staff to removing confidential information from data. Even if true, this is a modest amount, given that EPA regulations cost around $394 billion a year, according to estimates developed by Clyde Wayne Crews in his report 10,000 Commandments.
Moreover, EPA has plenty of funds within its $8 billion budget to pay for transparency. Heritage Foundation analyst Diane Katz suggests a number of programs that could easily be cut to save the agency billions of dollars a year.
Activists have also made pleas based on the costs to the industries they seek to regulate, which is another ironic twist. For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists recently released EPA internal e-mails (obtained via Freedom of Information request) that some say indicate the rule will harm business. Their “evidence” is that EPA Deputy Administrator in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Nancy Beck indicated in e-mails that she was concerned about costs to industry and potential challenges with the pesticide and chemical approval processes.
Yet, it appears that Beck simply recommended revisions to a draft version to address such potential concerns. Certainly, it’s reasonable to avoid unnecessary barriers to innovation, but transparency should not be sacrificed because it’s inconvenient.
In the end, transparency is more likely to reduce the costs for businesses and consumers, who ultimately pay the high costs of misguided regulations.
Angela Logomasini, Ph.D., is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/385411-pruitts-rule-ending-secret-science-is-pro-science-pro-consumer
-
EPA's Proposed Transparency Rule 'Will Harm Decision Making'
May 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
Editors from five leading scientific journals have penned an open letter detailing their concerns about the EPA's proposal that all science linked to regulatory decisions should be "transparent".
"Excluding relevant studies simply because they do not meet rigid transparency standards will adversely affect decision-making processes," write the editors of Science, Nature, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the Public Library of Science(Plos) and Cell.
Last week, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt announced that "the era of secret science at EPA is coming to an end". An EPA press release suggested that the proposal for transparency is "consistent with data access requirements" for Science, Nature and PNAS.
Yet the editors of all three journals have written a joint response which they have published in Science. Although many peer-reviewed scientific journals have recently adopted policies that support data sharing, data cannot be fully shared in every case, they write.
The journals require that all data used in an analysis should be available to allow any researcher to reproduce or extend the work. But it is still possible to judge the merits of studies, relying on data that cannot be made public, the editors say.
"It does not strengthen policies based on scientific evidence to limit the scientific evidence that can inform them; rather, it is paramount that the full suite of relevant science vetted through peer review, which includes ever more rigorous features, inform the landscape of decision making."
Almost 1,000 scientists have already written to the EPA, urging it to abandon its plans.
The proposal – Strengthening transparency and validity in regulatory science – awaits approval from the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
https://chemicalwatch.com/66579/epas-proposed-transparency-rule-will-harm-decision-making
-
A Top Aide to EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Resigns amid Scrutiny
May 1, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin, Brady Dennis and Emma Brown
Albert ‘Kell’ Kelly, a top aide to Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt, resigned Tuesday amid scrutiny of his financial dealings with Pruitt that also drew attention to his lifetime ban from banking.
After spending most of his career as a banker in Oklahoma, Kelly joined Pruitt at EPA a year ago to revitalize the agency’s cleanup of toxic sites. Around the same time, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation fined him $125,000 for “entering into an agreement pertaining to a loan” without FDIC approval. Soon after he was banned from banking altogether.
Kelly gave no reason for his departure and did not immediately respond to a text message seeking comment.
Two individuals briefed on the decision, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a personnel matter, said Kelly was tired of coming under criticism for the FDIC ban and didn’t need the job. One noted that Pruitt did not come out in strong defense of Kelly during his testimony before the House Energy and Commerce environment subcommittee last week.
Pruitt praised Kelly in a statement Tuesday, saying that he has made a “tremendous impact” on the agency’s Superfund program, which aims to clean up hundreds of the nation’s most toxic sites. Kelly helmed a task force that issued recommendations to streamline and speed up those efforts, and he has been instrumental in helping make progress at Superfund sites around the country that had previously languished for years, Pruitt said.
“Kell Kelly’s service at EPA will be sorely missed,” Pruitt wrote.
The resignation comes as Pruitt faces multiple investigations by the agency’s inspector general. He is under scrutiny for ethics and spending issues, including renting a D.C. condo from a lobbyist for below market rate, installing a costly soundproof phone booth and spending millions on his own personal security.
Pruitt and Kelly are fellow Oklahomans and old friends, and Kelly has been a key adviser to Pruitt as the administrator has weathered growing scrutiny. The bank that Kelly led, SpiritBank, loaned money to Pruitt on several occasions, including to buy a home and a stake in a minor league baseball team, according to media reports.
While some viewed Kelly with skepticism when he first arrived at EPA, given his lack of experience in the area, many career officials, residents living near Superfund sites and companies involved in the program came to view him as a competent administrator who solicited input from all sides.
Kelly traveled the country visiting Superfund sites in an effort to identify ways to speed cleanups, some of which have languished for decades. He handed out his email and cellphone to residents in local communities, some of whom described him as one of the more responsive government officials they had dealt with in years.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-top-aide-to-epa-chief-scott-pruitt-resigns-amid-scrutiny/2018/05/01/9db56f44-4d44-11e8-84a0-458a1aa9ac0a_story.html?utm_term=.23737ffe9671
-
(ACC Mentioned) 5 Ways Chemical Safety Is Eroding Under Trump
May 1, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
In June 2016, Congress had the rare success of passing bipartisan legislation to update our nation’s badly broken chemical safety system. It finally gave the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency the power to strengthen health protections for American families.
Fast-forward 22 months and the implementation of that law is now in jeopardy.
The Trump administration is systematically weakening the EPA and seeking to dismantle key new authorities and mandates Congress just gave it under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act. This with the goal of shifting critical policies to serve the chemical industry’s agenda instead of protecting public health.
Here are five top actions Trump’s EPA administrator Scott Pruitt and his handpicked political appointees have already taken to undermine the law – potentially setting us back decades.
1. Shelved proposed bans of 3 toxic chemicals
In January 2017, the EPA proposed to ban high-risk uses of three dangerous chemicals: methylene chloride, N-methylpyrrolidone and trichloroethylene. Methylene chloride, for one, is used in widely available paint strippers and is responsible for dozens of deaths in recent years.
Less than a year later, with a new president in the White House, the EPA has indefinitely delayed action on these chemicals by moving the proposed bans from active to “long-term action” status. This effectively puts them on the back burner, going against the very spirit and goal of the 2016 chemical safety reform.
2. Issued new and illegal rules for TSCA
One of the first orders of business under the 2016 Lautenberg Act was for the EPA to issue “framework rules” governing how the reformed law will work for years to come.
The proposed rules – released at the tail end of the Obama administration – were fair and faithful to the law. But the final rules published in July 2017 did a U-turn from those that had been proposed and now reflect the wish list of the chemical industry.
They are also patently illegal, which is why we’re suing the EPA.
3. Reversed course on new chemical reviews
After the new law passed, the EPA immediately began to conduct the more robust reviews of new chemicals before they entered the market that the legislation called for.
But in response to industry demands, the EPA reversed course to instead avoid applying protective measures to speed up the approval process.
These changes circumvent clear requirements in the law and essentially return America to an era where few chemicals were adequately assessed or tested for safety as a condition of entering the market – and the public was kept in the dark.
4. Pushed to dismantle key EPA programs
Political leadership at the EPA is targeting key programs for “reorganization.” Those at risk include:The Integrated Risk Information System program, which provides critical scientific information on chemical hazards to support public health decisions. Attempts by Pruitt’s political appointees to weaken or eliminate the program have so far been unsuccessful, but this fight is far from over.EPA’s Safer Choice program, which certifies products made with safer chemicals to help shoppers find products that are better for people and the planet. Pruitt has transferred a full third of its staff to another program.Science and research funding critical to furthering understanding of how chemicals affect our health and environment. Pruitt’s latest budget request slashed funding for such programs by more than 48 percent.
5. Stacked the agency with industry cronies
It’s no secret that the Trump administration has placed scores of people with deep conflicts of interest in powerful positions across the federal government.
Political appointees to the EPA are no exception. Case in point: Immediately prior to her appointment to the EPA, Nancy Beck was a senior official at the American Chemistry Council – the chemical industry’s primary lobbying arm. In her new job, she is shaping policy on hazardous chemicals, making decisions that directly affect the financial interests of ACC member companies.
Among her numerous controversial moves so far: To direct the weakening of the TSCA framework rules – changes that in some cases mirrored the exact wording of ACC comments on the proposed rules. Beck, while at ACC, actually wrote such comments.
By reversing progress on toxic chemical regulation and by crippling the agency charged with its implementation, the Trump administration is consistently elevating industry interests over the protection of our health.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2018/05/01/5-ways-chemical-safety-eroding-under-trump
-
TSCA New Chemicals Programme Causing 'Dramatic' Rise in Animal Tests
May 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Two NGOs have raised concern that changes to the new chemicals programme under the recently amended TSCA have resulted in a "dramatic increase" in animal testing.
And the groups – People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine – say that the US EPA is "failing to balance its responsibilities to determine whether chemicals present unreasonable risks with its Congressional mandate to reduce and replace the use of vertebrate animals in chemical testing."
The NGOs' comments come in an analysis submitted to the agency's consultation on its draft alternative test methods strategy.
Under the 2016 amendments to TSCA, a plan is required to "promote the development and implementation of alternative test methods and strategies to reduce, refine or replace vertebrate animal testing". The EPA recently extended the comment period for its draft strategy, after hearing a request to release the NGOs' analysis and provide more time for this document's review.
Peta and PCRM's analysis focuses on the TSCA new chemicals programme in 2017 – the first full year of the amended law's implementation. During this time, the agency required or requested 331 animal tests be conducted for new chemicals, resulting in the use of approximately 76,523 animals, they say.
According to their analysis, this comprises:118 test orders for pre-manufacture notice (PMN) submitters to manufacture outside limits imposed by a section 5 order; and213 test orders to modify a section 5 order that restricts the manufacture, processing, distribution, use, and/or disposal of a PMN substance.
In contrast, 2016 saw 37 required or requested animal tests for which 6,539 animals would have been needed, they say. And in 2015, this was 21 tests and 8,881 animals.
The new TSCA requires that the EPA makes an "affirmative finding" of safety before a new substance is allowed on the market. This has led to a large increase in how many of these chemicals are regulated.
Last year, the agency reportedly shifted its policy requiring less upfront testing. But the NGOs say achieving reduction and replacement of animal tests for chemical safety will require a "long-term commitment of resources" and increased training of internal staff.
"There are many non-animal methods and strategies currently available, but OPPT [the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics] staff need the support of their leadership to dedicate time to learn about, be trained to use, and explore the application of these methods in order to be confident requesting and accepting them," the NGOs say.
"It is essential that a commitment to achieving this goal be communicated from EPA leadership to EPA staff in regular communications and day-to-day priorities, and that it is also demonstrated by leadership’s actions."Rationale lacking
Peta and PCRM also fault the agency for its failure to provide adequate explanation of the basis for their testing decisions. They say this is specifically required under section 4 of TSCA.
Several of the orders include "no explanation whatsoever", while others rely on a generic explanation repeated in a number of consent orders, they say. And they argue that "merely pasting this boilerplate text into a consent order does not constitute an adequate explanation of the basis for a decision that requires the use of vertebrate animals."
Comments on the EPA animal testing strategy will be accepted until 11 May.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66450/tsca-new-chemicals-programme-causing-dramatic-rise-in-animal-tests
-
Fracking Chemicals "Imbalance" the Immune System
May 1, 2018 | Environmental Health News
By Brian Bienkowski
Mice exposed to fracking chemicals during pregnancy were less able to fend off diseases; scientists say this could have major implications for people near oil and gas sites.
Chemicals commonly found in groundwater near fracked oil and gas wells appear to impair the proper functioning of the immune system, according to a lab study released today.
The study, published today in the journal Toxicological Sciences, is the first to find a link between fracking chemicals and immune system problems and suggests that baby girls born to mothers near fracking wells may not fight diseases later in life as well as they could have with a pollution-free pregnancy.
"This is a really important study, especially since the work started with the idea of identifying what's out there in the environment, how much people are exposed to," Andrea Gore, a professor of pharmacology and toxicology in the College of Pharmacy at the University of Texas at Austin, told EHN.
"So it's all based on this model that has been determined by a real world situation," said Gore, who was not involved in the study.
The implications are far-reaching: More than 17 million people in the U.S live within a mile of an oil or gas well. Hydraulic fractured wells now account for about half of U.S. oil and two-thirds of the nation's natural gas, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Fracking, short for hydraulic fracturing, is a method of drilling where millions of gallons of water and chemicals are pumped underground at high pressures to fracture shale or coal bed layers to release otherwise unreachable oil and gas deposits. The chemicals used in the process remain proprietary, however, industry has reported more than 1,000 chemicals are used in fracked oil and gas wells—and researchers have found more than 200 of these compounds in wastewater near extraction.
The researchers tested 23 chemicals commonly found in groundwater near fracking operations. The chemicals chosen were recently associated with reproductive and development impacts on mice.
The researchers exposed mostly female mice in their mothers' womb to the chemical mixture at levels commonly found near fracking sites. Exposed mice had "abnormal responses" to diseases when they were older—specifically an allergic disease, a certain type of flu, and a disease similar to multiple sclerosis.
"The mice whose moms drank water containing the mixture had faster disease onset and more severe disease," lead author Paige Lawrence told EHN in a phone interview. Lawrence is a researcher and chair of Environmental Medicine at the University of Rochester Medical Center.
Some of the observed changes were subtle — "such as alterations in the number or percentage of certain cell types, whereas other changes were more manifest, such as advancement in the onset and severity of disease," the authors wrote.
Lawrence said human and mice immune systems are "more similar than they are different."
"This provides information as to what to look for in people," she said.
It's not entirely clear how the mixture altered the mouse immune system, but Lawrence said the chemicals may be altering pathways that control the immune cells that would fight off diseases. Some of the compounds in the mixture—benzene and styrene—are considered toxic to mammals' immune system.
Susan Nagel, a researcher and associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology and women's health at the University of Missouri School of Medicine and study co-author, said the 23 chemicals they use are known endocrine disruptors, meaning they interfere with the proper functioning of hormones.
Properly functioning hormones are crucial for immune system development.
There's probably "some overlap of chemicals that perturb the endocrine system, some that perturb the immune system and probably some that do both," Gore said.
Female mice had more severe changes to their immune systems and abilities to fight off disease. "Immune responses of males and females are inherently different, and ... sex affects the timing, magnitude or penetrance of many diseases," the authors wrote, but cautioned that this study alone doesn't conclude that females are more sensitive to fracking chemicals than males.
The study is just the latest concern for people near fracking sites. Previous studies have found associations between living near fracking sites and birth defects, prostate and breast cancer, asthma, and acute lymphocytic leukemia.
Over the past decade the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified dozens of chemicals used in fracking as health hazards, according to a report from the Partnership for Policy Integrity and Earthworks. However the report found the agency allowed the chemicals to be made and used, and hasn't disclosed the chemicals to the public.
The EPA would not comment on the new study — a spokesperson said the agency is reviewing it.
http://www.ehn.org/fracking-chemicals-harm-immune-systems-2564666233.html
-
Car Parts Suppliers Called to Action on REACH, Brexit
May 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
European automotive parts suppliers have been given recommendations on addressing the upcoming challenges of REACH and Brexit.
At last month’s materials regulation conference, organised by the European Association of Automotive Suppliers (Clepa), parts suppliers were told to inform car manufacturers if they make any material or substance changes.
"We have recognised that sometimes suppliers are substituting a substance in a part without informing us through the automotive industry’s International Material Data System (IMDS)," said Timo Unger, Hyundai environmental manager.
This, he said, is a big concern for car manufacturers because it could create quality, as well as safety and compliance issues.Authorisation
Mr Unger also called on delegates to avoid the misunderstanding that once an authorisation has been granted, "the problem is solved and no further action is required."
He pointed out that the aim of authorisation is to encourage the substitution of a substance and that review periods – even if the use receives the maximum 12-year review period – will require work in the run up to expiry.
"If possible, start substitution immediately. If it’s not possible, collect the reasons why it’s not because the chemical manufacturer needs this information to justify another round of use of the substance," Mr Unger warned.
He also advised delegates to ensure they understand REACH Article 66. This requires downstream users using a substance after its sunset date, to notify Echa within three months of the supply of the chemical. Substances in articles
The automotive industry is concerned with the "unrealistic expectations" – since the European Court of Justice's 2015 ruling on an article – of disclosing the name and description of the exact location of each article, when complying with Article 33. This requires "suppliers" of articles containing an SVHC above 0.1% by weight to inform their recipient, and to give similar information in response to consumer enquiries within 45 days.
The industry has developed guidance, addressing the requirements resulting from the ruling. However, this does not fully align with Echa's substances in articles guidance.
According to Mr Unger, the agency understands its approach and the rationale behind it, but also has reservations, especially on the interpretation that the location of the article does not need to be described.
The auto guidance says that if existing referenced information is sufficient to ensure safe use, or if no information at all is required for this, then it is sufficient to "only" provide the name of the SVHC.
Mr Unger said Echa does not yet know how to proceed and will discuss the issue at the next Caracal meeting in June. The European Automotive Industry Association (Acea) will "try to participate and defend its position", he said.Brexit
Lead regulatory engineer for German car manufacturer, Opel, Dr David Bassan, said UK government department Defra is expected to release a 'white paper' in May, giving further details on how it plans to regulate chemicals.
He added that since February, Clepa, the Society of Motor Manufacturers (SMMT) and the auto industry's REACH Task Force have been developing detailed Brexit scenarios, their impacts on the industry and possible solutions.
They plan to use the analysis to provide input to Defra's white paper consultation and for other common lobbying activities. They will also follow the outcomes and use information to produce guidance to the automotive supply chain.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66452/car-parts-suppliers-called-to-action-on-reach-brexit
-
Danish Study Advises Against Cosmetics Purchases from Popular US Website
May 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The Danish Consumer Council has recommended that consumers don't buy cosmetics from a US website, after a study found some products did not comply with the EU cosmetics regulation.
Researchers from the council's 'Think Chemicals' initiative bought 39 cosmetic products from Wish.com, which it says is the fifth most popular online store in Denmark.
They found that 21 products did not display an ingredients list, which is required under the EU cosmetic products Regulation.
Additionally, they say one well-known face cream in the sample had the required ingredients list, but contained two banned allergenic preservatives methylisothiazolinone (MIT) and methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI).The European Commissions ban on the use of MIT in cosmetic 'leave-on' products, such as deodorants and creams, came into force in February last year. Meanwhile, a lower limit of MIT from 0.01% to 0.0015% in 'rinse-off' products, such as shampoo and soap, will be implemented from 28 April.
"In general we cannot recommend buying your cosmetics and personal care products on Wish.com," Stine Müller, project manager at the Danish Consumer Council, said. "Many of the products do not comply with the EU cosmetics regulation simply because they do not have an ingredient list."
The Council said that "many" products on the website are manufactured in China.'Anti-competitive'
The Danish Association of Cosmetics and Detergents (SPT) said the website was "anti-competitive" for Danish and European manufacturers and put consumer safety at risk.
"Regardless of whether you buy your cream or mascara in a physical store or online, you must be able to trust that the product does not constitute a health risk," said SPT CEO, Helle Fabiansen.
A spokesperson for trade association Cosmetics Europe told Chemical Watch that consumers should only buy from "reliable sources".
"Any manufacturer targeting a European consumer needs to ensure that the product complies with EU regulations for cosmetics, in terms of ingredient and labelling requirements," the spokesperson said.
"Regulatory compliance is necessary to ensure a correct level-playing field, both off and online," they added.
Wish.com did not respond to Chemical Watch's request for comment in time for publication.https://chemicalwatch.com/66436/danish-study-advises-against-cosmetics-purchases-from-popular-us-website
-
Swiss Project Finds Excessive Hazardous Chemical Levels in FCMs
May 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
A Swiss enforcement agency has rebuked food packaging companies for failing to keep their products safe, after finding high levels of restricted substances in paper and board food contact materials.
The Association of Cantonal Chemists (ACCS) tested 78 packaging items for chemical content. Items checked include coffee cups, pizza and take-away boxes, flour and bread packaging.
The project report says 14% of the samples contained residues of photoinitiators, plasticisers, or chlorinated substances at concentrations exceeding recommended limits.
It also found elevated levels of mineral oil saturated hydrocarbons (MOSH) and mineral oil aromatic hydrocarbons (MOAH) in 62% and 20% of the items, respectively. The association warns that these could leach from the packaging into food during storage.
The data indicates a high amount of recycled content, making the products "unsuitable for use in direct contact with food", it says.
One paper packaging item even contained levels of chloropropanol "massively exceeding" limits recommended by the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) and an "exceptionally high" mineral oil content, the ACCS reports. It issued an immediate sales ban on the product.Self-checks
The project also took a look at how reliably food packaging companies follow their self-monitoring duties. Swiss law demands that manufacturers or importers ensure their product is safe and complies with national law. To prove that they are, companies usually complete a self-regulation checklist developed by the Swiss Packaging Institute.
But according to the ACCS, only 43% of samples were backed by proper self-assessment documentation. It says most manufacturers failed to check whether their products meet the rules for substances migrating from food packaging.
Indeed, the compliance documents for six samples made no mention at all of whether the products are suitable for food contact uses, the association says.
The ACCS has called on the affected companies to clarify what caused the chemical residues found in the packaging and to "take suitable measures to ensure the residue situation improves". In addition, it asked manufacturers to get on top of their self-monitoring duties.
The association says it "sees the situation in paper food packaging as unsatisfactory". It has announced follow-up checks to make sure it improves.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66493/swiss-project-finds-excessive-hazardous-chemical-levels-in-fcms
-
An Old Chestnut, the 'FRAC Act,' Gains a New Supporter
May 1, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
An Ohio Democrat has thrown his support behind a decade-old bill that would give the public more information about the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
Rep. Tim Ryan, who's been in Congress since 2002, signed on as a co-sponsor of the "Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act," according to a news release. Ryan represents Youngstown and other communities in eastern Ohio that have seen a surge in drilling in the Utica Shale formation.
Fracking, which involves breaking up rocks with a pressurized mix of water, sand and chemicals, is one of the technologies that helped revive the U.S. oil and gas industry. It's led to a steady drumbeat of complaints about spills and groundwater contamination, although EPA said in 2016 that pollution occurs only "under some circumstances" (Energywire, Dec. 13, 2016).
A spokesman for Ryan said the congressman supports the natural gas industry and the economic benefits it brings. But he wants more clarity about the chemicals used in the process.
"If there's no issues, and the industry is correct, then they shouldn't be opposed to this legislation," said spokesman Michael Zetts.
Ryan is facing two challengers for the Democratic nomination in Ohio's primary election, scheduled for May 8, the Youngstown Vindicator reported.
The "FRAC Act" would require companies that employ hydraulic fracturing to provide information about the chemicals used in the process and eliminate an exemption to the Safe Drinking Water Act that Congress enacted in 2005. Rep. Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat, introduced the bill in 2008 (Greenwire, Jan. 21, 2009).
Most oil- and gas-producing states, including Ohio, already require companies to disclose their fracking chemicals on an website called FracFocus, although there have been complaints about the quality of the data.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/05/01/stories/1060080479
-
Pennsylvania Lawmakers, Governor Again Call for Natural Gas Tax
May 1, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf on Monday joined a bipartisan group of lawmakers to throw his support behind two bills that would implement a severance tax on natural gas production.
Senate Bill 1000 and its companion, House Bill 2253, include a proposal unveiled by Wolf earlier this year. Wolf, a Democrat, has proposed a severance tax every year since taking office in 2015. The new bills would establish a volumetric severance tax that would rise and fall with gas prices. Under the legislation, producers would pay about 4-7 cents/Mcf based on a price range of below $3.00/Mcf to more than $6.00/Mcf.
Dubbing it a “commonsense severance tax,” and noting during a press conference that Pennsylvania is the “only gas-producing state in the nation” without one, the governor called on legislators to pass the bills.
To introduce the legislation, Wolf joined state Sen. Thomas Killion and Rep. Bernie O’Neill, both Philadelphia-area Republicans that represent a part of the state where natural gas is viewed differently than in the shale fields of western Pennsylvania. Other Democratic co-sponsors are state Sen. John Yudichak and Rep. Jake Wheatley.
Wolf said the severance tax would generate an estimated $248.7 million in the next fiscal year that could be used to address budget needs. The proposal would also keep the impact fee, which is levied on all unconventional wells during their first 15 years of operation. The impact fees have collected more than $1 billion since they were established in 2012.
The new bills would also ensure that impact fee collections, which have declined in recent years on lower commodity prices, don’t fall below $200 million annually. Additionally, the legislation would help ease lengthy permitting delays and improve turnaround times, something that the gas industry has complained about for years.
Marcellus Shale Coalition President David Spigelmyer called the bills “election-year political stunts,” as Wolf faces reelection this year. Spigelmyer also said the public is tired of “more tax-and-spend” proposals. API Pennsylvania Executive Director Stephanie Catarino Wissman also gave the legislation a cold reception, disparaging it by saying Wolf’s annual campaign to get a severance tax passed has become a quarterly occurence, adding that it would be duplicative given the impact fee most shale drillers already pay.
A severance tax has polled well among the public in recent years, and more than 60 bills have been introduced over the last seven years or so to implement one in the nation’s second largest gas producing state. However, every bill has failed.
While the GOP-controlled Senate passed a revenue package last year to fund the state budget, which included a volumetric fee on gas production, the proposal died in the House, where Republican leadership remains staunchly opposed to the idea.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114216-pennsylvania-lawmakers-governor-again-call-for-natural-gas-tax
-
Wyo. Court Will Not Reinstate BLM Methane Standards
May 1, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A federal court will not revisit its decision to halt Obama-era standards for methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming last night rejected a request from California, New Mexico and environmental groups that it rethink an April decision that halted implementation of part of the Bureau of Land Management's methane venting and flaring rule for public and tribal lands — just weeks after another federal court revived the provisions.
Judge Scott Skavdahl, an Obama appointee, wrote yesterday that the Administrative Procedure Act allows courts to "issue all necessary and appropriate process ... to preserve status or rights pending conclusion of the review proceedings."
In other words, he concluded, it was acceptable for him to freeze provisions of the rule in light of the Trump administration's plans to substantially rewrite it. That rewrite, which proposes to rescind major portions, is expected to be complete in August.
Supporters of the Obama rule were elated when a federal district court in California revived the stalled standards in February after finding that the administration's decision to pause them was "untethered to evidence" (Energywire, Feb. 23).
The Wyoming court then granted state and industry requests to block the provisions again. Rule supporters have since appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and had asked Skavdahl to reinstate the full rule at least while the appeal moves forward (Energywire, April 9).
Last night's decision rejects that request, finding that keeping the standards on ice would best preserve the status quo.
Environmentalists, California and New Mexico have separately asked the 10th Circuit to immediately revive the standards while it reviews Skavdahl's decision. Several states, industry groups and the Trump administration filed briefs last night in the 10th Circuit opposing such a move.
"That stay was a proper exercise of the district court's discretion, and it is necessary both to preserve the status quo and to avoid imposing needless costs on the agency, the industry, and the courts," government lawyers told the appeals court.
The multiple lawsuits and appeals are part of a swirl of legal action that has surrounded the methane rule since the Obama administration finalized it in 2016. Trump officials have tried multiple times to sideline the rule but have been rebuffed by courts each time. They've filed a separate appeal of the California court's "untethered to evidence" ruling (Energywire, April 24).
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/05/01/stories/1060080495
-
Constitution Backers Mull Options After Supreme Court Passes
May 1, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Saqib Rahim
The backers of the Constitution pipeline yesterday vowed to continue their fight to get the natural gas project built in New York, despite the Supreme Court's recent decision to pass on the case.
Constitution Pipeline Co. has been locked in a multiyear, multifront legal battle with New York over whether the state was within its rights when it rejected the pipeline in 2016. Constitution has been searching for a legal or regulatory action that would trump New York's decision but hasn't found one yet.
Its latest gambit was asking the Supreme Court to hear its case as a constitutional matter — specifically, a matter of national security. The high court announced yesterday that it won't, effectively letting New York's decision stand for now (Greenwire, April 30).
Constitution remains "fully committed" to pursuing its other legal options, said Chris Stockton, a spokesman for Williams Cos. Inc., the lead sponsor of the project.
The project has become one of the flashpoints of the ongoing legal conflict between pipeline companies that want to build infrastructure and states that claim to have the authority to stop them.
Under Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, New York has been especially assertive in using its authority under the Clean Water Act to stymie gas projects that have been greenlighted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
FERC overruled New York in one of those cases, but pipeline companies and their Republican sympathizers continue to seek further restraints for what they see as runaway state authority over pipelines.
The Supreme Court's decision yesterday suggests these cases will continue to get worked out in the same messy case-by-case, state-by-state way.
In the case of Constitution, New York's last legal win was in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But Constitution's backers said they're still pressing its case at FERC and, if necessary, will take it to the D.C. Circuit Court.
Rob Rains, an energy analyst with Washington Analysis LLC, said the status quo favors states for now.
"[I]t would have been surprising if the Supreme Court had taken this case," he said by email. "Developers have been appealing to White House officials and the President has sought to address state obstruction in his infrastructure plan. That policy faces very long odds, however, in the Senate, and so we are likely to be treated to more risks for pipelines for the foreseeable future."
Kim Ong, a staff attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the decision bolsters state authority with respect to pipelines.
"Today's decision by the Supreme Court reaffirms the established precedent that states have the power to stop dangerous natural gas pipelines within their borders, even after the federal government has otherwise approved the project," she said by email. "It is a victory not just for New Yorkers, but for all Americans who care about clean water."
The National Association of Manufacturers, which filed an amicus brief in the Constitution case, called for new federal regulations to help gas pipelines break through.
"[T]his was a disappointing result and manufacturers hope it prompts EPA rulemaking to ensure Section 401 of the Clean Water Act focuses on protecting vital water resources," Ross Eisenberg, vice president for energy and resources policy, said by email. "Additional clarity is needed to prevent states like New York from twisting the law into a pretzel to block important infrastructure projects that would actually help them achieve their clean energy objectives."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/05/01/stories/1060080481
-
Too Often, Safety Advances in Offshore Industry Grew from Tragedy
May 1, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By L.M. Sixel
The offshore energy industry has spent the past half-century pushing into deeper and deeper waters, using ever-advancing technologies to find oil and gas thousands of feet below the ocean’s surface and produce millions of barrels a day in the most challenging conditions.
But these advances have come at the cost of hundreds of lives and billions of dollars in property, financial and environmental losses. And it has often taken tragedies, followed by litigation, government fines and bad public relations, to spur companies to improve safety, legal and safety specialists and worker’s advocates said.
"It’s not an industry that says, ‘Gosh, we could be doing better. Let’s do this,’"said Kim Nibarger, chairman of oil bargaining for the United Steelworkers Union which represents 30,000 oil workers, including oil and gas production workers in California and Alaska.
Over the years, post-mortems analyzing equipment and operations after rigs have capsized, exploded or caught fire have led to improvements. Operating systems have become automated, back-up systems are standard practice and monitoring can be done from anywhere are among some of the steps energy companies have taken to improve safety.
Some drillers also are trying to change their culture by shortening shifts and providing more training so employees can make better on-the-fly decisions. And when it looks like a bad storm is brewing like Hurricane Harvey in the Gulf of Mexico last summer, crews are evacuated, no doubt to avoid another tragedy like the Alexander L. Kielland, a platform off the coast of Norway that capsized during a 1980 storm and killed 123 workers, mostly by drowning.
Wafik Beydoun, who chairs the French oil major Total in Kuwait and is chairman of the Offshore Technology Conference, said companies have designed platforms and rescue boats to withstand the heaviest seas and winds. Today, he added, it is standard operating procedure to disconnect the well head from the platform when storms are approaching. That way, even if a storm destroys the platform, the the well head and environment are protected.
The drilling industry — onshore and offshore —has a fatality rate seven times higher than for all U.S. workers, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Helicopter crashes were among the leading cause of death, according to a 2013 study that looked at seven years of on-the-job deaths in the energy industry.
Eighty-nine workers in the oil and gas extraction industry died in 2015, according to the Labor Department, down from 144 the previous year. The number of drillers who die on the job roughly corresponds with the price of oil. The low point in the past 15 years was 2009 - a year when average oil prices fell to $53.48 per barrel from $91.48 the previous year.
When the worst happens in the offshore oil and gas industry, the consequences can be so catastrophic that industry insiders have to just mention the rig name to trigger memories of explosions, fires and loss of life. In the oil industry, the mention of Piper Alpha brings back the summer day in 1988, when the world’s worst oil disaster killed 167 workers.
The rig in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland was undergoing maintenance and workers removed a pressure safety valve on one pump. The crew didn’t finish and a warning not to use the pump wasn’t passed along to the next shift. The pump was activated and a series of explosions quickly engulfed the entire platform in fire, preventing many workers from reaching the life boats.
Scotland launched a public inquiry that recommended the government split oversight of production and safety between two separate parts of government with the Department of Energy overseeing production and the nation’s health and safety executive in charge of safety. At the time of the explosion, the Department of Energy was responsible for ensuring both production and safety in the North Sea.
Deepwater Horizon, the 2010 disaster that killed 11 workers, is still fresh in the minds of many oil industry executives. The rig, owned by the British oil major BP, was in the final stage of drilling an exploratory well off the coast of Louisiana, but a host of problems including leaky cement, valve failures and the misinterpretation of pressure tests led to an explosion and one of the largest oil spills.
Bob Dudley, chief executive of BP, referred to Deepwater Horizon in public comments as rocking the company to its core. Since then BP trains employees on drilling simulators, monitors well operations from Houston and performs more well maintenance. The company also reinforces the notion that everyone at BP has the power and the responsibility to stop a job if something doesn’t seem right.
Worker advocates had high hopes that a widespread decrease in injuries would follow Deepwater Horizon. But that hasn’t happened, said Houston lawyer Jason Itkin. Instead, the number of oil and gas workers who died on the job has jumped since then. The year following Deepwater Horizon the drilling death toll jumped to 142 and remained in the triple digits for several years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
"Ninety-nine-point-nine percent of the time, the time the problem is that someone on the rig feels pressure from someone on land to do it quicker," said Itkin, who represented injured Deepwater Horizon workers, including the family of one who died. "They’re worried they’ll lose their job it they don’t speed it up because their performance is based on production or speed or how much the company will make."
As oil companies have moved into deeper water to drill, technology has become more complex. But when disaster strikes, human error or negligence, rather than technology, is often the problem.
Tests on the strength of the cement to seal the well on the Deepwater Horizon, for example, were misinterpreted by BP employees on land and the blowout preventer which would have automatically sealed off the well and prevented an explosion was not checked while out at sea, said Ramanan Krishnamoorti, who recently received a grant from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine to predict when an offshore rig is at risk of a catastrophic accident.
But a cultural shift is happening in the oil industry, he said, as some companies rethink 12-hour shifts and ways to give their workers more rest. When people get more sleep, the number of accidents declines, he said. In addition, the industry is increasing automation, which means fewer workers at risk on offshore rigs.
“As you go into more and more challenging areas, you are likely to have accidents,” Krishnamoorti said. “But the scope will be less loss of life and less environmental danger.”
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/Litigation-image-concerns-forces-drilling-12876490.php?t=3dd58a1724
-
'Minor' Fire at Sabine Pass Plant Extinguished, Cheniere Says
May 1, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Cheniere Energy Inc.'s Sabine Pass liquefied natural gas plant experienced a "minor" fire last week, not long after LNG leaked from a breached tank at the country's first modern gas export facility.
Cheniere spokesman Eben Burnham-Snyder said the fire, which broke out last Thursday at the company's LNG facility in Cameron Parish, La., was extinguished by staff fire personnel.
"There were no injuries, all emergency response procedures were followed and required notifications were made to officials. There is no danger to our workforce, the facility, the environment or the community, and we do not expect impacts to operations from this minor incident," Burnham-Snyder said.
The incident is under investigation, and no cause for the fire has been publicly identified, he said.
In January, Sabine Pass was the site of an LNG leak when a storage tank ruptured and supercooled natural gas, stored at minus 260 degrees Celsius, escaped from the tank. LNG is a liquid at that temperature but instantly gasifies at outdoor air temperatures, and its release can lead to fires or, under certain circumstances, explosions. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration describes LNG spills as "low-frequency, high-consequence events."
The Jan. 22 incident did not result in any reported injuries, fires or explosions, but PHMSA ordered Cheniere to shut down the breached tank and another that was found upon inspection to be leaking natural gas.
Use of those two tanks remains suspended, but the rest of the facility is operational at what Burnham-Snyder has described as full operational capacity. Last week, Cheniere and PHMSA finalized a consent agreement surrounding follow-up steps by the company to identify the root cause of the tank failure (Energywire, April 24).
It is unclear what caught fire at the LNG export plant last week or how long the fire burned before it was extinguished by "in-house fire personnel." PHMSA confirmed that Cheniere reported the incident.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/05/01/stories/1060080477
-
Maryland Congressman Calls for Focus on Grid Hacks
May 1, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), who sits on the House Appropriations Committee, is calling for more congressional oversight of government efforts to protect the power grid from hackers.
Ruppersberger urged lawmakers on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee to review the Department of Homeland Security's handling of cyberthreats to industrial control systems, such as those underpinning the grid.
"We've seen the emergence of concerted efforts targeting industrial control systems worldwide in recent years," Ruppersberger said in a report, based on expert briefings and cybersecurity roundtables.
He also called for the subcommittee to hold its first-ever cybersecurity-specific budget hearing, among five other recommendations.
"We are spending billions of dollars a year on the Department of Homeland Security's cybersecurity mission and the threat is only getting worse," Ruppersberger said in a statement. The accompanying report from his office pointed to mounting evidence of cyberthreats to U.S. infrastructure.
He suggested more funds could be allocated to defending the 16 critical infrastructure sectors, where a cyberattack could cause crippling damage to the nation. The fact that the vast majority of infrastructure in the U.S. is privately owned and operated "[makes] it hard for [DHS] to predict future attacks and help respond effectively," the report noted.
The document also cited "troubling" reports of hackers using smaller utilities as "training" targets for attacks on larger businesses.
"The Subcommittee should, therefore, evaluate whether the Department needs more resources for the express purpose of better understanding the threats posed to critical infrastructure systems, especially at smaller energy, water and other infrastructure companies," the report concluded.
This year, DHS merged its grid-focused Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team into a broader cybersecurity office. Agency officials claim that shift has not resulted in any cutbacks to ICS-CERT services or the government's ability to respond to a major attack on U.S. infrastructure.
Ruppersberger indicated he would be open to future shifts at the agency, including a "fundamental restructuring" of how the government approaches cybersecurity risks.
"We should continue to ensure that the government is making the best, most effective use of its capabilities and assets to defend both the .gov domain as well as, perhaps even more importantly, the American private sector," he wrote.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/05/01/stories/1060080493
-
SEC Sounds Cyber 'Wake-Up Call' to Public Companies
May 1, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced an unprecedented $35 million cybersecurity penalty last week against Altaba Inc., putting other publicly traded companies on notice.
The financial regulator claimed Altaba, formerly known as Yahoo Inc., brushed a "massive" 2014 cybersecurity breach under the rug, keeping investors in the dark for two years about a hack affecting hundreds of millions of its users.
The fine adds teeth to recent SEC guidance on cybersecurity disclosure, experts say (Energywire, Feb. 22).
"Everybody was waiting on the SEC to drop the hammer," said Patrick Miller, managing partner at Archer Energy Solutions. "Anybody that doesn't disclose what could potentially be a market-swinging data breach is going to have similar problems."
Miller said he expects the first-of-its-kind penalty to reverberate among large electricity companies. "They're bound by the SEC like anyone [investor-owned] is, whether they're selling sneakers or electrons."
The Yahoo data breach — really a series of cyber intrusions dating back to at least 2014 — ranks among the largest in history, affecting 3 billion accounts at the former tech giant. Verizon Communications Inc. bought most of Yahoo's assets in 2016, and the remnants of the company became Altaba.
Yahoo executives knew they had lost their "crown jewels" in late 2014, the SEC says, including usernames, email addresses, birthdays and answers to security questions, among other data. But the company kept mum about the crisis, at least publicly, until December 2016. Altaba declined comment on last week's settlement with the SEC, in which it neither confirmed nor denied the breach.
"We do not second-guess good faith exercises of judgment about cyber-incident disclosure," said Steven Peikin, co-director of the SEC Division of Enforcement. "But we have also cautioned that a company's response to such an event could be so lacking that an enforcement action would be warranted. This is clearly such a case."
Riana Pfefferkorn, cryptography fellow at Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society, said the enforcement action could "light a fire" under other public companies to disclose their own cybersecurity incidents, though the case may not help determine where to set the bar for reporting.
"If you're an executive for a publicly traded company, you might be looking at this data saying, 'That was so bad — laughably bad,'" she said. "'How do we know, when we have an incident like this, where that falls on the spectrum of what the SEC's going to decide merits enforcement?'"
Pfefferkorn suggested companies are likely to continue underreporting cybersecurity incidents despite the $35 million settlement. She pointed to several factors weighing against disclosure, from a desire to avoid giving away any information that could be used in future attacks, to pressure from law enforcement who may not want to tip off hackers to an ongoing investigation.
Still, the SEC has cautioned that the presence of an internal or external investigation isn't grounds to avoid sharing general information about a significant incident.
"It's not a get-out-of-reporting-free card," Pfefferkorn said.
She was also skeptical of claims that sharing data about an attack or intrusion could open the door for more malicious activity in the future.
"I understand the desire not to put in too much detail," she said. "But I think there are ways of saying enough to comply, and give meaningful information to your investors, without necessarily giving a road map to attackers."Life and limb
Major energy companies have drawn a sharp line between a "material" breach and more mundane attempted cyber intrusions, while still opting to disclose the latter to investors.
Entergy Corp. pointed out in an SEC filing earlier this year that it had been subject to scrutiny from hackers (Energywire, Feb. 8).
"While malware was recently discovered on our corporate network and remediated on a timely basis, it did not affect the company's operational systems, nuclear plants or transmission network, nor did it have a material effect on our operations," Entergy said.
Exelon Corp., which owns and operates gas and electric utilities across the U.S., said in a recent filing that the risk of security breaches "continues to intensify."
"While the Registrants have been, and will likely continue to be, subjected to physical and cyber-attacks, to date none has directly experienced a material breach or disruption to its network or information systems or our service operations," the company said, while cautioning that subsidiaries "may be unable to prevent all such attacks in the future."
Michelle Reed, co-leader of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP's cybersecurity, privacy and data protection practice, said in an email that the harm that can befall energy companies may make them more inclined to disclose their cybersecurity risks.
"Companies should be considering very closely what systems they have in place to identify even the small breaches to make sure that it isn't laying a predicate for a future breach of more devastating consequences," she said.
While Reed said she expects the "trickle of disclosures" to tick up following the Yahoo/Altaba enforcement action, she warned against going overboard with new reporting.
"Companies should be aware of concerns related to burying disclosures: courts have recognized the harm that can be caused to investors by an 'avalanche of trivial information,'" she said.
Electricity companies already face an avalanche of routine threats, the vast majority of which are rebuffed without fanfare, according to recent filings.
Some firms can face "thousands to millions of 'attempts' per day, depending on how an attempt to compromise is defined," said the Edison Electric Institute, which represents major investor-owned utilities, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, in February commentsto the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Reporting such a flood of events to any regulator — be it the SEC or FERC, which is weighing expanded reporting rules for bulk power utilities — would be a daunting task, in the industry's telling.
"Much of these attempts are not likely to be malicious attempts, but entities would have to inspect and analyze every packet that attempts to enter their network to filter through all of the rejected noise and 'find the needle in the haystack' based on a determination of a sender's intent," EEI and NRECA said.
But if a malicious attempt slips through a utility's defenses, the effects could be dire.
Tom Finan, client engagement and strategy leader at risk management and insurance firm Willis Towers Watson, said a "material" cyber event in the electric sector could put more than user data at stake.
"Hackers want to go after attractive targets — historically it's been data and money," said Finan, a former Department of Homeland Security cybersecurity official. "But with the trends we've been seeing, there's a lot of interest in meddling with critical infrastructure like oil and natural gas, and the electric sector.
"The consequences there are not only going to be financial and reputational; it's going to affect life and limb, as well," Finan said.
Finan called the SEC penalty move a "wake-up call" for the private sector, suggesting it will spur executives to treat cybersecurity seriously, if they don't already.
"Cyber risk is a business risk that just can't be ignored," he said. "And if it's not treated as a business risk, there are going to be consequences."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/05/01/stories/1060080491
-
(ACC Mentioned) Norfolk Southern Receives Chemical Industry Award for Safety
May 1, 2018 | Progressive Rail Roading
The American Chemistry Council yesterday honored Norfolk Southern Railway with the Responsible Care® Partner of the Year Award for the Class I's exemplary performance and safety record in transporting chemicals.
NS was one of the three companies and the only freight railroad to receive the council's premier partner award. The award goes to high-performing companies involved in the distribution, transportation, storage, use, treatment, disposal, and sales and marketing of chemicals vital to American businesses and households, NS officials said in a press release.
"Our partnership with the council and its member shippers represents a strong commitment across business sectors to ensure the safety and security of our employees, communities and environment while delivering the quality service that our customers expect," said NS Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Mike Wheeler.
Since 1996, NS has participated in the voluntary Responsible Care Partner program, which is the chemical industry's environmental, health, safety and security performance initiative.
As a program participant, NS must achieve third-party certification of its business management systems every three years, a rigorous process that includes reviews of the railroad's safety, environmental stewardship and security.
https://www.progressiverailroading.com/norfolk_southern/news/Norfolk-Southern-receives-chemical-industry-award-for-safety--54547
-
LIRR Misses Critical Juncture for Positive Train Control
May 1, 2018 | The National Law Review
Last week, the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) confirmed interruptions in its ability to fully install positive train control (PTC) across its system by the end of the year. Newsday reported that the LIRR system, which is a unit of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) network, failed 16 out of 52 factory tests performed in early March using a computerized simulation of the new technology.
Although its PTC contractor continues to investigate the cause of the failures, MTA officials said they believe it stems from the complexity and density of the LIRR, which is the busiest commuter railroad in the country averaging more than 311,000 daily riders.
PTC is designed to eliminate human error by using four components: GPS satellite data, onboard locomotive equipment, the dispatching office and wayside interface units. The system communicates with the train’s onboard computer, allowing it to audibly warn the engineer and display its safe braking distance based on its speed, length, width and weight, as well as the grade and curvature of the track, according to railroad operator Metrolink. If the engineer does not respond to the warning, the onboard computer will activate the brakes and safely stop the train.
The installation began in January as part of a $1 billion safety upgrade, although it had been on the LIRR’s strategic plans for years. So far, substandard testing results are not instilling much confidence that PTC will be complete by the federal deadline of Dec. 31, 2018. If that deadline is missed agencies without properly-installed PTC may face fines of up to $25,000 per day, as enforced by the U.S. Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008.
MTA Board member Neal Zuckerman told Newsday he is less concerned about meeting a federal deadline than he is about “having a system that works for riders.”
“It is better to have this right than fast,” Zuckerman said. “A nonfunctioning system is not worthwhile. It’s a waste of money and time and ultimately will not serve the needs of the riders.”
The LIRR is not the only major transit system to be missing the mark. Risk Management Monitor reported on Amtrak’s struggle to meet the deadline in February and that by the end of 2017, only 8% of NJ Transit’s locomotives and none of its tracks were updated with PTC.
Efforts to upgrade train technology has been a nationwide priority. There have been a number of accidents in recent years. The most recent was a major derailment occurring on Dec. 18, 2017 when an Amtrak train derailed near Tacoma, Washington, killing three passengers and injuring about 100. That crash was the result of excessive speed in a steep curve, which experts suggested could have been prevented with PTC’s automatic braking technology. Amtrak Train No. 501, on its inaugural run, was traveling 80 miles per hour in an area limited to 30 miles per hour when it derailed on an overpass, sending the train’s 12 coaches and one of its two engines careening onto the highway below.
As previously reported in Risk Management, a similar derailment in Philadelphia in May 2015 that killed eight, was also blamed on excessive speed and could have been avoided if PTC had been in place.
After Congress passed the PTC Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015 it also authorized the FAST Act, which allocated $199 million in PTC grant funding and specifically prioritized PTC installation projects for Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing funding. The Association of American Railroads estimates that freight railroads will spend $10.6 billion implementing PTC, with additional hundreds of millions each year to maintain. The American Public Transportation Association has estimated that the commuter and passenger railroads will need to spend nearly $3.6 billion on PTC.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/lirr-misses-critical-juncture-positive-train-control
-
Climate Talks Are Underway. Here's Why They're Important
May 1, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
International negotiators are in Bonn, Germany, for a high-stakes two-week session aimed at getting the Paris Agreement up and running.
When it comes to making the 2015 climate deal operational, 2018 is go time. The deal struck outside the French capital over two years ago was celebrated globally for breaking a decadeslong logjam over how the world would work together to respond to climate change. But it provided only a broad outline for delivering on that goal through emissions cuts and climate finance — a sketch that must now be completed by the end of U.N. climate talks slated for Katowice, Poland, in December. A failure to deliver implementation guidelines — known as a "rulebook" — in December would cast doubt on the accord's future and on the world's ability to avert the worst consequences of climate change.
"Success this year will rest on whether countries agree to finalize a robust rulebook for the Paris Agreement and whether they clearly signal a readiness to enhance their national climate commitments by 2020," said David Waskow, director of the World Resources Institute's International Climate Initiative. The talks now underway in Germany will be a "key milestone that will set the stage for those outcomes," he said.
Talks this month on the rulebook, a storytelling exercise, and negotiations over other issues of concern to developed and developing nations will begin to demonstrate whether the cooperative spirit of Paris is still in place. The true test will come at the Poland summit.
If there's not more certainty, then "it could affect the ability to get countries to do their homework and come into 2020 with more detailed and hopefully more ambitious national commitments," said Alden Meyer, strategic director at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Here's a breakdown of what's being hashed out in Bonn:The rulebook
The Paris Agreement rests heavily on voluntary national commitments of emissions reduction and aid, but its value as a global platform depends on the integrity of those pledges. Making so-called nationally determined contributions (NDCs) transparent, holding countries accountable for them and encouraging countries to commit more over time are the aims of the Paris rulebook, a collection of mechanisms and issues that must be set up and sorted through by the time the gavel comes down in Katowice.
It's a tough task, and one that has already been delayed by the revival of old conflicts.
"We have very little time left," said Harjeet Singh of ActionAid International. "All of us are nervous about not finishing it by the end of the year."
"It would be a pretty obvious failure if they kicked the can down the road to COP 25 on this," Meyer said, referencing the 2019 talks to be held in Brazil — only one year before countries are asked to revise their 2015 pledges. "It would start to raise questions about some of the splits between countries," he said.
One thing at stake this week and for the rest of the year is how the Paris accord will call on countries to demonstrate that they've delivered on their commitments. The 2015 agreement acknowledged that some poor countries would need flexibility on accounting and reporting requirements because they lack the capacity to track and inventory their emissions and actions with the same rigor as richer nations. But which countries receive that flexibility, how it's implemented and for how long are all still to be decided. So is the international process for vetting those reports.
Developed countries have said only the poorest nations should be afforded extra consideration, while major developing countries like China and India want to face less robust requirements for reporting and verification than those that apply to some other nations. They also want the process to take them largely at their word.
"This is something that's been very sensitive, particularly for China and India but for others, as well, not wanting any invasion of their sovereignty or questioning of their methodology and their data," said Meyer. "But the gold standard is to have some kind of independent peer review and verification of what countries are saying."
It's also a bid to reinstate the old, bifurcated system of developed country obligations and poor country voluntary action that rich countries say Paris finally laid to rest.
That's an issue of particular importance to the small band of U.S. negotiators at the talks, led by State Department Office of Global Change director Trigg Talley. If the "firewall" between developed and developing countries is reconstructed, that could complicate U.S. involvement in the deal over the long term. Despite President Trump's plans for the United States' withdrawal from the Paris accord in 2020, the State Department still retains joint leadership with China of a transparency working group within these talks and is taking a role in the negotiations.
Developing countries, for their part, are angry that the European Union and others appear more interested in doubling down on emissions reduction goals — and demanding others do the same — than in helping provide clarity on climate finance. The U.S. delegation is not engaging on climate finance under the Trump administration. But Singh of ActionAid International, who is based in New Delhi, said other rich countries are hiding behind U.S. intransigence.
"They're reinterpreting Paris by making sure that the rulebook doesn't go beyond mitigation," he said.
Poor countries are demanding that rich ones offer a clearer picture of how they plan to deliver on a pledge to provide $100 billion in climate finance annually by 2020. It's a sum that developed nations have always cautioned would include significant leveraged private capital, but poor nations want details about the public money that will be made available and about how much of it will go to adaptation efforts — something private corporations have been slower to finance than, say, renewable energy.
African negotiators briefly held up talks in Bonn last December, demanding that rich nations give advance notice of how much public finance they plan to provide. They and other developing nation negotiators say that if they don't know what resources will be available years down the line, they can't plan multiyear adaptation or clean technology projects, and they want to codify that in the rulebook. But rich countries say they're confined by their annual domestic budgeting processes.
"Both sides are right on the merits, but what you need is a political compromise about what's the balance between short-term flexibility for the developed countries and long-term certainty for the developing countries," said Meyer.
Other rulebook issues at stake include the role carbon markets will play in Paris implementation and the construction and design of the global stocktaking process that will take place every five years beginning in 2023. It's intended to inform each round of new NDCs, with the hope of keeping the world on a path to achieve Paris' objective of limiting warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius with best efforts at 1.5 C.Talanoa Dialogue
Paris commitments would see warming balloon to dangerous levels above 3 C, according to last year's U.N. Environment Programme report. So this year, parties will go through a process that Fiji — the current holder of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change presidency — has called the Talanoa Dialogue.
The name recalls a Fijian tradition of storytelling to build empathy and collective decisionmaking. The process is effectively the first stocktake of Paris.
This December, ministers will give their first accounting of their countries' progress toward their Paris commitments. But this Sunday, nonstate delegates to the Bonn talks will take a turn at telling stories and sharing views about the progress of Paris.
It's still unclear exactly how the dialogue will be constructed and what its relationship will be to the next round of NDCs, which countries are invited to put forward in 2020.
Singh said he hopes the process will be more than a "talk shop."
"If you're only going to tell stories and not really challenge each other, that is not acceptable because we are already in a situation where the consequences are rising," Singh said.
While Meyer said he looks forward to a "rich discussion" this weekend, he said the real test will be the minister-level event in Poland.
Polish Deputy Energy Minister Michal Kurtyka will take over leadership of the process from Fijian Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama, Poland announced last week. Poland is seen as a fairly regressive force on climate change policy within the European Union.
A coalition of the world's least developed countries, which negotiate collectively within the U.N. climate process, said in a statement yesterday that their survival depends on keeping warming below 1.5 C.
They "look forward to the Talanoa Dialogue resulting in more ambitious action and support, as science tells us that even full implementation of current commitments under the Paris Agreement will not be enough to reach the 1.5-degree temperature goal," said Ethiopia's Gebru Jember Endalew, who leads the group.Beyond Bonn
This month's Bonn intersessional is the first meeting this year to tackle these questions, but it won't be the last.
Issues that require higher-level attention may be referred to venues like the Petersberg Climate Dialogue in Berlin in late May and the Ministerial Meeting on Climate Action in Brussels in June.
They may also come up during this year's Group of 20 and Group of Seven multilateral processes, led by Argentina and Canada, respectively. And an additional meeting of the UNFCCC is likely to be held in September in Bangkok.
Outside the Paris accord, this month's Bonn gathering will include discussion of what primarily wealthy countries are doing to reduce emissions before Paris takes effect in 2020. It will also include the Suva Expert Dialoguen on loss and damage tomorrow and Thursday, which will look at ways to deal with losses poor countries and populations face from climate change. Suva, the capital of Fiji, is very vulnerable to climate change.
Developing countries hope to see loss and damage issues elevated in climate discussions.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/05/01/stories/1060080503
-
Warren, Sanders Want Climate Change Considered in Selection of Homeland Security Adviser
May 1, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By John Bowden
Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) are calling on the Trump administration to consider the effects of climate change when selecting President Trump's next homeland security adviser.
In a letter to Trump, the two senators urge the president to select an individual who "takes seriously" severe weather patterns and storms caused by a changing climate.
"The Homeland Security Advisor regularly attends meetings of the National Security Council and is responsible for overseeing the Administration's response to natural disasters, including hurricanes," reads a statement from Warren's office.
"[Tom] Bossert, who served as Homeland Security Advisor since January 2017 until his resignation last month, had refused to acknowledge the overwhelming scientific consensus that human-induced climate change contributes to severe weather events."
Bossert resigned in April, after John Bolton joined the White House as national security adviser and sought to shake up the team. A replacement for the homeland security adviser has not yet been announced.
"Without a dedicated federal effort to reduce the quantity of greenhouse gasses that human activity releases into the atmosphere, climate change will continue to worsen and cause increasingly severe weather events, including hurricanes," the two senators wrote in the letter. "Climate change is having and will have a tangible and harmful impact on our national security and disaster readiness."
The Trump administration has moved to strip fighting climate changefrom government websites and policies. The president announced last year that the U.S. would exit the Paris climate accord, a global agreement aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/385650-warren-sanders-want-climate-change-considered-in-selection-of-homeland
-
U.S. Air Pollution Falling More Slowly Than EPA Data Suggests
May 1, 2018 | Eco Watch
By Olivia Rosane
To track the levels of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide, two pollutants that contribute to smog formation, an international research team used satellite pollution measurements backed up by local air quality monitor readings.
They compared this to EPA data, which is based on readings from air monitors and pollution estimates from vehicles and industry, and came to a surprising conclusion.
While nitrogen oxide levels had fallen by a healthy 7 percent annually from 2005 to 2009, from 2011 to 2015 the decline stalled to a mere 1.7 percent per year. This meant a 76 percent slowdown in pollution decline and contrasted with EPA data, which put the slowdown from 2011 to 2015 at only 16 percent.
"We were surprised by the discrepancy between the estimates of emissions and the actual measurements of pollutants in the atmosphere," lead author Zhe Jiang said in a National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) press release. "These results show that meeting future air quality standards for ozone pollution will be more challenging than previously thought."
The researchers, who were funded by NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the University of Colorado Boulder and the NCAR-sponsoring National Science Foundation, hypothesized that the difference between the satellite data and the EPA measurements of nitrogen oxide were due to three factors.
The researchers found that carbon monoxide levels had also slowed their decline and hypothesized that this was due to the effectiveness of catalytic converters in cars.
NCAR scientist and study co-author Helen Worden told Bloomberg News that the slowdown in air pollution decline was influenced by the fact that, as the 1970 Clean Air Act succeeded in reducing pollution from cars and factories, pollution sources such as boilers and off-road vehicles that had fallen under the radar before were playing a bigger role.
"To some extent, this is a product of our own success," Worden said. "The relative contribution of those sources is now more important because cars and power plants have gotten better."
Unfortunately, the findings come at a time when the EPA is backtracking on its commitment to its former successes. Since December 2017, the EPA has passed four memos weakening controls on industrial air pollution. And in April, EPA head Scott Pruitt announced the agency would adapt less stringent car emissions standards through 2025.
https://www.ecowatch.com/air-pollution-us-epa-2564950809.html
-
Groups Accuse EPA of Violating 2 Laws with Policy Repeal
May 1, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
EPA may have transgressed two federal laws in abruptly repealing a decades-old industrial air pollution policy earlier this year, a coalition of 10 environmental groups alleged in a new court filing.
In their nonbinding statement of issues, California Communities Against Toxics and nine other lawsuit plaintiffs on Friday suggested EPA violated the Administrative Procedure Act by rolling back the "once in, always in" policy without advance notice or first giving the public a chance to comment.
They also asked whether EPA air chief Bill Wehrum relied on an "unlawful" interpretation of the Clean Air Act in opting to scrap the policy and whether that decision was arbitrary and capricious in part because it failed to address "the original rationales for EPA's prior, contrary interpretation of the act."
The policy, laid out in a 1995 memo by a top EPA air official at the time, applied to factories and other "major" industrial polluters subject to maximum achievable control technology (MACT) emissions standards because they annually released at least 10 tons of a single air toxic or 25 tons of any combination of hazardous pollutants.
Under the "once in, always in" framework, the MACT standards stayed in place even if a plant's emissions dropped below those "major source" thresholds on the grounds that polluters could otherwise backslide.
In repealing the policy this January, Wehrum argued that it ran contrary to the "plain language" of the Clean Air Act. In the law, he added, Congress had defined major sources and smaller "area sources" differently and given EPA no authority to create "an artificial time limit that does not exist on the face of the statute."
Asked about Wehrum's decision at a hearing last week of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment, EPA chief Scott Pruitt said that it was intended to give companies an incentive "to invest to lower emissions."
But environmental groups have objected that the reversal could lead to a surge in releases of hazardous air pollutants as companies take advantage of the leeway to save money by turning off pollution controls. Last week, almost 90 House Democrats urged Pruitt to reinstate the policy (E&E Daily, April 26).
Besides California Communities Against Toxics, the plaintiffs in the litigation now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit include the Sierra Club, Ohio Citizen Action and the Environmental Integrity Project.
Their suits have been consolidated with one brought by the state of California, which has yet to spell out the issues it intends to raise.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/05/01/stories/1060080557
-
Wis. Plant Wins as EPA About-Faces on Ozone Designation
May 1, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
In a decision that's likely to be closely scrutinized, EPA has handed Wisconsin state officials a partial victory in deeming the county that's slated to be the home of a massive manufacturing plant in compliance with its 2015 ground-level ozone standard.
EPA officials had earlier recommended designating Racine County in nonattainment for the 70-parts-per-billion threshold. The county in Wisconsin's southeastern corner is the site of a future Foxconn Technology Group plant that is predicted to employ thousands of people making consumer electronics and imaging equipment. The proposed nonattainment designation could have required Taiwan-based Foxconn to install state-of-the-art pollution controls, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported in March.
But in the final rule released today, EPA classified Racine County as "attainment/unclassifiable" and applied that same designation to two other nearby counties that also had previously been recommended for nonattainment designations.
The agency went ahead with nonattainment designations for parts of a half-dozen other counties. Gov. Scott Walker (R) had wanted the entire state classified in attainment; a spokesman had no immediate comment this afternoon.
For Wisconsin, the attainment process had acquired political overtones both because of Walker's concerns and because President Trump, who owes his surprise 2016 election victory in part to Wisconsin voters, has touted the Foxconn project.
Otherwise, EPA appears to have stayed relatively close to its previous recommendations nationwide in issuing this round of final attainment designations, which were required by a court order. In all, 51 areas in 22 states were designated in nonattainment, according to an agency fact sheet.
"Following the data and the law, today's designations reflect continued progress in addressing ground-level ozone and its precursors," EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a press release. "EPA will continue to work closely with our state and tribal partners to improve air quality for all Americans."
While only made public today, the final rule indicates that Pruitt signed it yesterday in accordance with the court-ordered deadline.
Ground-level ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is formed by the reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunshine; it has been linked to asthma attacks in children and worsened breathing problems in people with chronic respiratory disease. In 2015, EPA tightened the standard from 75 ppb to 70 ppb on the grounds that the stricter limit was needed to adequately protect the public in light of added research on ozone's health effects.
Under the Clean Air Act, all attainment designations for the 2015 standard were due by the beginning of last October. But although EPA in November declared about 85 percent of U.S. counties to be effectively in attainment, agency officials held off on making designations for Houston, Los Angeles and dozens of other areas likely to be out of compliance.
In a ruling last month on lawsuits brought by Democratic-led states and environmental groups, U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. of the Northern District of California ordered EPA to make most of those remaining designations by today. The sole exception was an eight-county area in and around San Antonio; Gilliam gave EPA until July 17 to sign off on that decision (E&E News PM, March 12).
The designations start the clock for states to come up with cleanup plans for bringing nonattainment areas into compliance. Under a classification scheme published last month, the amount of time allowed to meet the 2015 threshold will vary along a five-point sliding scale that ranks nonattainment areas from "marginal" to "extreme."
At one end of the scale, marginal nonattainment areas will get three years to meet the 70 ppb threshold. At the other, extreme nonattainment areas will be allowed 20 years.
But the broader boundaries of EPA's implementation strategy for the 2015 standard are still tangled in litigation over its rule for putting in place the previous 75 ppb ozone benchmark set in 2008. In February, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that EPA had illegally weakened air quality protections when it opted to revoke a previous standard as part of that rule.
The Trump administration, which has been mulling a similar move for implementation of the 2015 standard, argued in a motion for panel rehearing last week that EPA acted reasonably (Greenwire, April 24). As of today, the rehearing motion was still pending.
Also enmeshed in litigation is EPA's Obama-era guidance to streamline its handling of states' applications for waivers of air pollution violations caused by wildfires or other "exceptional events" outside their control.
States regulators had complained of the cost and time needed to prove an exceptional event under EPA's previous guidance. In issuing the revised version, EPA explicitly pitched it as a tool for helping states — particularly those in the West — meet the 70 ppb ozone standard.
But the Natural Resources Defense Council has challenged the guidance in court, arguing that would also allow large amounts of industrial pollution and thus violate the Clean Air Act. A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral arguments on the case in March (Greenwire, March 22). The panel has not yet issued a decision.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/05/01/stories/1060080567
-
Trump Administration to Launch Major Climate Satellite
May 1, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
The Trump administration will launch a major climate science satellite mission later this month to track the movement of water around the planet.
The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment Follow-On satellites are scheduled to be launched as soon as May 19, NASA announced yesterday. They will monitor the polar ice caps, aquifer storage around the country and other key data related to climate change. The mission will also track changes in deep ocean currents, which drive climate change.
The GRACE missions have resulted in the most scientific findings and publications of any earth science mission in recent years, said Michael Watkins, director of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Almost every part of the world observed by GRACE has a story to tell. Because of GRACE, scientists now understand that the melting of the polar ice caps accounts for more than a third of sea-level rise globally, he said.
"This is very important data, and it's very important to how we understand our home planet and how it's changing," he said. The satellites can also track changes to the Earth's crust, including the retreat of glaciers since the last ice age and the impact of large earthquakes, according to NASA.
The twin satellites of GRACE-FO will travel 137 miles apart, measuring the distance from one to the next with microwave signals. As they pass over the Earth, they will be slightly jostled by the gravitational pull of features like mountain ranges and underground aquifers. The satellites have extremely sensitive equipment — capable of tracking movements the width of a human hair — that will measure the distance and record changes, according to NASA.
The new satellites are an extension of the original GRACE mission, which ended its 15-year run last year. The new mission will provide an additional five years of data.
The Trump administration and congressional Republicans have repeatedly proposed cutting NASA's climate satellite missions, but they have been restored by congressional appropriators during budget negotiations. The GRACE-FO mission will be the first major climate satellite launched since former Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.) was confirmed as NASA administrator last month. Bridenstine has been an opponent of federal climate science in the past but has pledged to continue supporting the agency's earth science research in his new role.
Late last year, the administration launched another climate satellite. The Joint Polar Satellite System-1 provides data essential to understanding how climate change is transforming the planet, including changes in Arctic sea ice and the ozone hole over Antarctica.
One key function of the GRACE satellites is tracking the mass of the polar ice sheets. The GRACE-FO mission is launching at a time when researchers are anxiously tracking major glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica to monitor their potential effect on sea-level rise.
The new satellites will provide long-term data on changes to water on the Earth's surface, an important part of the climate record.
"The only way to know for sure whether observed multiyear trends represent long-term changes in mass balance is to extend the length of the observations," said Frank Webb, project scientist at JPL.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/05/01/stories/1060080507
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested