Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - October 2, 2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) APR Guide Seeks to Standardise Plastics Data
Oct 2, 2018 | Plastics in Packaging
In an effort to facilitate greater consistency in plastics sorting, the Association of Plastic Recyclers in the US has developed a guide to standardise how data is collected in studies that seek to identify the composition of plastics in the waste and recycling stream. -
Ex-Koch Official Hired for Science Shop
Oct 2, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Robin Bravender
EPA has hired a chemical engineer from Koch Industries Inc. to serve as the top political appointee in the agency's science office. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Outlines Approach for Identifying TSCA Prioritisation Candidates
Oct 2, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has published a 'working approach' document on how it will identify existing chemicals as potential candidates to prioritise for risk evaluation under the recently reformed TSCA. -
(ACC Mentioned) Is the BPA in Plastic Actually Bad for Your Health?
Oct 2, 2018 | Virginmediatelevision.ie
As the war on plastic rages on, find out what the evidence says about plastic and the dangers that it may pose to the human body. -
APNewsBreak: EPA Says a Little Radiation May Be Healthy
Oct 2, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Ellen Knickmeyer
The Trump administration is quietly moving to weaken U.S. radiation regulations, turning to scientific outliers who argue that a bit of radiation damage is actually good for you — like a little bit of sunlight. -
Johnson & Johnson Talc Case Ends in Mistrial
Oct 2, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The latest Johnson & Johnson talc case has ended in a mistrial, after a California jury failed to reach a decision on whether the company’s baby product contributed to a woman's development of mesothelioma. -
Ueapme Pushes for More ‘Workable’ REACH for SMEs
Oct 2, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Greater promotion of product and process-orientated research and development (Ppord) notifications can make the REACH registration process "more workable" for SMEs, a European SMEs trade body has said. -
Trade Body Calls for Options to Secure Post-Brexit Chemicals Supply
Oct 2, 2018 | Chemical Watch
European SMEs trade body Ueapme has said that options need to be developed for small and medium enterprises to ensure the supply of chemicals, once the UK withdraws from the EU next year. -
That Other Trade Battle—in Energy—Heats Up
Oct 2, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Nathaniel Taplin
North America has a new free-trade agreement. But PetroChina may soon be tanking up in British Columbia rather than on the Gulf Coast. -
Report: Permian Will Need $300B over Next 5 Years to Maintain Growth
Oct 2, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Rye Druzin
The Permian Basin will need $310 billion over the next five years in order to continue to grow and potentially add 3 million barrels of oil production by 2023. -
Too Much Oil? Texas Boom Outpaces Supply, Transport Networks
Oct 2, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Liz Hampton, Devika Krishna Kumar, and Jarrett Renshaw
Texas is home to the Permian Basin, the largest U.S. oil field and the center of the country's shale industry. In the past three years, production from the Permian has risen a whopping 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd) to 3.43 million bpd. -
DOE Spent More Than $500M on Dead Projects
Oct 2, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
Nearly half the $2.7 billion in fossil research money spent by the Department of Energy over the last seven years supported nine carbon capture demonstration projects, the majority of which were canceled or withdrawn, according to a report yesterday from the Government Accountability Office. -
U.S. Net Natgas Exports More Than Double
Oct 2, 2018 | Kallanish Energy
Net natural gas exports from the U.S. from January through June 2018, averaged 0.87 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) — more than double the average daily net exports during all of 2017 (0.34 Bcf/d). -
FERC Strategy Plays up Focus on Cyberthreats
Oct 2, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is preparing to ramp up cybersecurity inspections of dams, natural gas pipelines and liquefied natural gas plants, according to a long-term strategy posted to the agency's website yesterday. -
DOE Offers $28m for 'Next Level' Cybersecurity
Oct 2, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The Department of Energy is awarding up to $28 million for new techniques to protect the power grid, oil pipelines and other energy networks from hackers, the agency announced yesterday. -
Senate to (Finally) Vote on FAA Bill
Oct 2, 2018 | Politico - Morning Transportation
By Brianna Gurciullo
The FAA bill cleared a procedural hurdle Monday night and Republican senators say they expect a vote today. “It’s gonna pass by an overwhelming margin,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) told MT. -
3 Environmental Rollbacks Could Result in 13,900 Deaths
Oct 2, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
A key data point has been buried in the back-and-forth over the Trump administration's rollback of former President Obama's climate legacy: EPA's own research has found that lifting public health protections on air pollution could kill thousands of Americans. -
Trump's Lawyers Head to Court to Defend Obama EPA Rule
Oct 2, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
The Trump administration has found at least one major Obama-era environmental regulation it can embrace: a 2016 rule to curb air pollution drifting across state lines. -
Greens Inject Cash into Midterms to Secure Climate Policies
Oct 2, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Mark K. Matthews
A top environmental group in Colorado plans to spend at least $3.2 million to help Democrats take control of the state Legislature and governor's mansion. -
Strong Views but Not Much Diversity at Climate Rule Hearing
Oct 2, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Some participants at yesterday's public hearing and protests on the Clean Power Plan replacement are challenging whether the process is really giving enough access to the people most likely to be affected by the proposed rule change.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) APR Guide Seeks to Standardise Plastics Data
Oct 2, 2018 | Plastics in Packaging
In an effort to facilitate greater consistency in plastics sorting, the Association of Plastic Recyclersin the US has developed a guide to standardise how data is collected in studies that seek to identify the composition of plastics in the waste and recycling stream.
The APR Plastic Sorting Best Management Practices Guide is part of an overall effort by APR to optimise plastics recycling across North America and beyond.
Developed in conjunction with the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and More Recycling, the tool was unveiled last week.
The Plastic Sorting BMPs provide three levels of newly defined sorting categories that address a variety of factors considered when waste/plastics sorts are conducted: Budget; a community’s specific recyclables list; anticipated waste stream; and items considered problematic.
“Optimising plastics recycling requires understanding what types of plastics materials are in the recycling stream,” commented Liz Bedard, APR’s Director of Olefin/ Rigids Program. “Municipalities and states regularly sort waste/recyclables to understand their streams. If they utilise the APR Plastic Sorting BMPs, the flexibility with the sorting categories would allow all studies to draw comparisons, develop trending data, and improve overall knowledge about plastics waste composition.”
The guide defines plastics sorting categories by resin and form. The categories align with plastics recycling commodities that are traded once the material has been sorted at a MRF. The terms also align with annual plastics recycling tracking.
https://plasticsinpackaging.com/online/apr-guide-seeks-to-standardise-plastics-data/
-
Ex-Koch Official Hired for Science Shop
Oct 2, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Robin Bravender
EPA has hired a chemical engineer from Koch Industries Inc. to serve as the top political appointee in the agency's science office.
David Dunlap, who was Koch's director of policy and regulatory affairs, is now deputy assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Research and Development. That's the top political slot below the assistant administrator, a role that will remain vacant for the foreseeable future, as President Trump has yet to nominate anyone to lead the research division.
"As a chemical engineer, Mr. Dunlap has worked on environmental issues for nearly 30 years with a focus on assessing risk," EPA Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson said yesterday in a statement. "His extensive experience on regulatory issues will be pivotal in our mission to protect human health and the environment."
Dunlap is filling the position vacated by Richard Yamada, a former Republican congressional aide who left EPA last month (Greenwire, Sept. 14).
Yamada was instrumental in some of EPA's most controversial moves on science under Trump. He was a quiet force behind former Administrator Scott Pruitt's efforts to add industry voices to agency advisory boards, sideline some research used to craft regulations and debate climate science (Climatewire, May 23).
At Koch, Dunlap provided technical, regulatory, policy and legislative leadership and support to all of the Koch companies, according to his LinkedIn profile. Those companies include refiners, petrochemical manufacturers, building product producers, pipeline operators and ranchers. He joined Koch in 2010 and has a degree in chemical engineering, according to the profile.
Inside EPA reported Dunlap's hire yesterday.
He joins the agency as EPA is reorganizing its science office. Officials last week informed staff that they plan to eliminate the science adviser's office and merge those positions into a division within the broader science division (Greenwire, Sept. 27).
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/10/02/stories/1060100275
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Outlines Approach for Identifying TSCA Prioritisation Candidates
Oct 2, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has published a 'working approach' document on how it will identify existing chemicals as potential candidates to prioritise for risk evaluation under the recently reformed TSCA.
Amendments to the law in 2016 require the agency to select, by December 2019, the next 20 high-priority substances that will be subject to risk evaluation. It will also have to identify 20 low-priority substances that do not currently warrant one.
Once designated, the EPA will be under a statutory deadline to complete risk evaluations for the high-priority substances. This will be the second batch to be evaluated under the updated law, following the first ten that are underway.
The document, A working approach for identifying potential candidate chemicals for prioritization, contains a 'near-term approach' for accomplishing the work. This will focus on substances included in the TSCA work plan released in 2014.
It also discusses a "longer-term, risk-based strategy for managing the larger TSCA landscape." This includes dividing some 40,000 substances active in US commerce into 'bins' that can "be used to inform multiple activities and priorities through EPA".Near-term approach
The EPA's near-term approach calls upon it to look first at the TSCA work plan to identify potential high-priority candidates. There is a statutory requirement that at least 50% of the substances prioritised by next December come from this list.
But the EPA may also select candidates not in the work plan, where other federal agencies, public input or the agency administrator have identified them as "particularly suitable".
The approach lays out three main factors for determining potential candidates:priorities, including consideration of overarching EPA priorities as well as those of of other federal agencies;quantity and quality of information, with an intent to screen out "information-deficient candidate chemicals that would hinder EPA's ability of performing scientifically sound risk evaluations". The document notes that additional information may need to be developed for these, which could be used to support selection of candidates beyond the initial 20;workload, with an aim to leverage existing expertise. The guidance suggests, for example, selecting candidates that share characteristics with the first ten substances undergoing risk evaluations, such as solvents.
To gather a "data landscape" and support the determination of a chemical's "information readiness", the EPA will be taking comments on the 73 work plan substances that are not already undergoing risk evaluation, or that are not covered by the agency's ongoing work on persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) substances.
To this end, the agency has invited the public to submit use, hazard and exposure information.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) told Chemical Watch it is encouraging manufacturers of those substances to "consider providing reasonably available, relevant information they might have … to assist EPA in its prioritisation process".
A separate docket will allow for the submission of additional chemical candidates not included on the work plan. All 74 dockets will be open until 1 December.Longer-term approach
With regard to the remaining 40,000 or so existing substances active in US commerce, the document outlines a process by which the EPA would 'bin' chemicals. This would involve loosely grouping them into pools that could "inform potential prioritisation based on risk-based data and information availability". Other countries, such as Canada, are undertaking similar exercises, the document says.
Such an approach would entail assigning substances a 'binning score', taking into account:human hazard relative to exposure;ecological hazard;genotoxicity;susceptible populations;bioaccumulation; andpersistence.
It also calls for the determination of an 'information availability score', based on the potentially relevant hazard- and exposure-related data that exists.
Following assignment of these two scores, substances would be parsed into multiple bins. The aim is to "identify a portion of the active inventory that can be set aside as not containing candidates for high-priority designation, so that EPA can focus on chemicals that are most likely to meet the statutory standard of high-priority chemicals."
The document calls for this to be a transparent process, under which the EPA will "actively engage with the public on both the application and interpretation of the results of the approach".
The agency has noted, however, that its intent in outlining this process is to "begin a public discussion, beginning in late 2018". Comments on the long-term approach will be accepted until 15 November.Prioritisation process, timeline
Prioritisation is the process by which the EPA designates a substance as either a high priority or low priority for risk evaluation under TSCA.
High-priority substances are defined under the law as: "A chemical substance that the [EPA] administrator concludes, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment because of a potential hazard and a potential route of exposure under the conditions of use, including an unreasonable risk to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations identified as relevant by the administrator."
A low-priority substance, by contrast, is one that does not meet this standard.
Final designation of a substance as high priority immediately starts the risk evaluation process. This, in turn, must be completed within three years, with a possible six-month extension.
Once a risk evaluation has been completed, the law requires the agency to designate at least one new high-priority chemical to ensure that it continues to have at least 20 substances undergoing review.
Early last year, the EPA proposed a prioritisation framework rule that outlined a 'pre-prioritisation' process, during which it would identify a pool of potential candidates and gather information on them. But the step – which was not explicitly called for in the Lautenberg Act – met industry resistance, for fear it would be a 'black box' with no transparency or opportunity for public input.
The EPA abandoned the pre-prioritisation step in its final rule, noting that it would address the process for identifying candidates separately. It has since released a discussion document, convened a public meeting and solicited public comments – feedback which the agency says it incorporated into this document.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70661/epa-outlines-approach-for-identifying-tsca-prioritisation-candidates
-
(ACC Mentioned) Is the BPA in Plastic Actually Bad for Your Health?
Oct 2, 2018 | Virginmediatelevision.ie
As the war on plastic rages on, find out what the evidence says about plastic and the dangers that it may pose to the human body.
We all know that plastic is bad for the environment. Scientists estimate that eight metric tons of new plastics end up in our ocean every year, adding to the 150 million that are already floating about in the water, killing marine life and taking hundreds of years to decompose.
It only took that episode of Blue Planet (remember the albatross parents unwittingly feeding their chicks discarded plastics?) to mobilise thousands of TV watchers to cut down on the amount of takeaway cups, water bottles and single-use products used on a daily basis.
But as well as being bad for the planet, there’s a growing body of evidence to suggest that plastic may also be bad for our health too.
Some experts claim that the materials used to create most common plastics are toxic, and that we should try to avoid using them – but should we actually be concerned?
What’s so bad about plastic anyway?
It’s all down to a chemical called BPA. Since the 1960s, we’ve been adding this industrial compound to plastic to create something called ‘polycarbonate plastic’ – the robust and hard-wearing material that’s used in everything from baby bottles to lunchboxes.
BPA is also used to make something called ‘epoxy resins’. They’re used to create the smooth inner lining of canned foods like baked beans, which keeps the metal from corroding over time.
As well as foods, it’s also found in many feminine hygiene products, nappies, household electronics, CDs and DVDs and bathroom toiletries.
It’s no surprise then that BPA is now one of the most commonly produced chemicals in the world, although its wide use has recently been thrown into question by mounting health concerns.
This is why you might have started to spot more ‘BPA-free’ labels on products in the supermarket over the past year or so.
How does BPA get into my system?
BPA is ingested or absorbed through skin contact, and studies have found that the main source of exposure is through eating foods that have been packaged in plastic containers – think, the tomatoes and avocados you pick up in the veg aisle of supermarkets.
The chemical leaches out of packaging and into food and drink, especially when the plastics are scratched or heated during cooking and in the dishwasher.
Because of this, it’s not unusual for many of us to have BPA in our bodies on a daily basis. In fact, a recent study by Exeter University suggested that traces of the synthetic chemical can be found in more than 80% of UK teenagers.
What does the evidence against BPA say?
The science is not yet completely clear on how BPA may affect humans. The most worrying thing though is that it has been found to be an Endocrine Disrupting Chemical (EDC). Some studies have found that these qualities cause it to mimic the female hormone oestrogen and can bind to the oestrogen receptors in a cell.
Scientists believe that this oestrogen-like behaviour could increase the risk of breast, prostate, and other cancers in people who were exposed to it in the womb.
Those calling for a ban suggest that it may affect development of mammary glands in women, as well as contributing to type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular problems.
Some experts have also warned that children and pregnant women are particularly susceptible to damage from the chemical, because they have more growth and developmental hormones in their bodies than other age group. As such, the EU, Canada and some American states have already banned the use of BPA in baby feeding bottles.
So should you actually avoid it?
The Food Standards Agency suggest not. Despite acknowledging that “uncertainties” remain around the potential health effects of BPA on the mammary gland, reproductive, metabolic, neurobehavioural and immune systems, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) says that it has assessed the evidence and found that dietary exposure to BPA is not a health concern for any age group.
“Scientists estimate how much of a chemical people can consume daily over their lifetime without being harmed by it,” the Food Standards Agency says. “This is known as the chemical’s tolerable daily intake (TDI). BPA has a temporary TDI set for it.”
“We currently consume less than the TDI for BPA from sources such as food containers. We agree with the EFSA’s conclusion that BPA currently poses no risk to health.”
The National Toxicology Programme (NTP) in the US also recently conducted a long-term study on BPA, looking at the effects of exposure to BPA in rats – before and after giving birth.
The researchers specifically wanted to find out if BPA could increase the risk of cancer in humans. The landmark two-year research programme, which published its results last month, concluded that the plastic additive isn’t a health our threat.
“The scope and magnitude of this study are unprecedented for BPA, and the results clearly show that BPA has very little potential to cause health effects, even when people are exposed to it throughout their lives,” said Steven Hentges from the American Chemistry Council.
BPA-free living
Plasticisers and BPA have been used in household products for more than 50 years, our supermarkets are drowning in them, so it’s pretty difficult to avoid them and live a non-reclusive lifestyle. That being said, occasionally drinking from a plastic bottle or eating from a can is probably not a reason to panic.
If you’re still concerned though, there are ways that you can cut down on your BPA intake, help the environment and generally live a healthier lifestyle at the same time.
Shopping for unpackaged foods at organic fruit and veg shops, butchers, fishmongers and farmers markets can reduce contact with the plastic containers you find in meats, fish and loose produce at the supermarket.
Avoiding processed foods, like ready meals, can cut down on leached BPA exposure, while using a reusable tote bag for your shopping will cut down on the amount of plastic bags you use (and save you money in the long run).
Carry a metal water bottle and store food in glass containers, opt for plastic-free toiletries in the bathroom (Lush have a whole range of solid shampoo bars and body washes) and there are also plenty of BPA-free feminine hygiene products on the market (check out yoppie.comfor organic, biodegradable tampons).
The US Department of Health and Human Services has published BPA information for parents on reducing their child’s exposure.
The choice, as ever, is up to you, but more is discovered about the impact of plastic, we’re sure that this isn’t the last we’ll hear about BPA.
https://www.virginmediatelevision.ie/xpose/article/lifestyle/277538/Is-the-BPA-in-plastic-actually-bad-for-your-health
-
APNewsBreak: EPA Says a Little Radiation May Be Healthy
Oct 2, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Ellen Knickmeyer
The Trump administration is quietly moving to weaken U.S. radiation regulations, turning to scientific outliers who argue that a bit of radiation damage is actually good for you — like a little bit of sunlight.
The government’s current, decades-old guidance says that any exposure to harmful radiation is a cancer risk. And critics say the proposed change could lead to higher levels of exposure for workers at nuclear installations and oil and gas drilling sites, medical workers doing X-rays and CT scans, people living next to Superfund sites and any members of the public who one day might find themselves exposed to a radiation release.
The Trump administration already has targeted a range of other regulations on toxins and pollutants, including coal power plant emissions and car exhaust, that it sees as costly and burdensome for businesses. Supporters of the EPA’s new proposal argue the government’s current no-tolerance rule for radiation damage forces unnecessary spending for handling exposure in accidents, at nuclear plants, in medical centers and at other sites.
“This would have a positive effect on human health as well as save billions and billions and billions of dollars,” said Edward Calabrese, a toxicologist at the University of Massachusetts who is to be the lead witness at a congressional hearing Wednesday on EPA’s proposal.
Calabrese, who made those remarks in a 2016 interview with a California nonprofit, was quoted by EPA in its announcement of the proposed rule in April. He declined repeated requests for an interview with The Associated Press. The EPA declined to make an official with its radiation-protection program available.
The regulation change is now out for public comment, with no specific date for adoption.
Radiation is everywhere, from potassium in bananas to the microwaves popping our popcorn. Most of it is benign. But what’s of concern is the higher-energy, shorter-wave radiation, like X-rays, that can penetrate and disrupt living cells, sometimes causing cancer.
As recently as this March, the EPA’s online guidelines for radiation effects advised: “Current science suggests there is some cancer risk from any exposure to radiation.”
“Even exposures below 100 millisieverts” — an amount roughly equivalent to 25 chest X-rays or about 14 CT chest scans — “slightly increase the risk of getting cancer in the future,” the agency’s guidance said.
But that online guidance — separate from the rule-change proposal — was edited in July to add a section emphasizing the low individual odds of cancer: “According to radiation safety experts, radiation exposures of ...100 millisieverts usually result in no harmful health effects, because radiation below these levels is a minor contributor to our overall cancer risk,” the revised policy says.
Calabrese and his supporters argue that smaller exposures of cell-damaging radiation and other carcinogens can serve as stressors that activate the body’s repair mechanisms and can make people healthier. They compare it to physical exercise or sunlight.
Mainstream scientific consensus on radiation is based on deceptive science, says Calabrese, who argued in a 2014 essay for “righting the past deceptions and correcting the ongoing errors in environmental regulation.”
EPA spokesman John Konkus said in an email that the proposed rule change is about “increasing transparency on assumptions” about how the body responds to different doses of dangerous substances and that the agency “acknowledges uncertainty regarding health effects at low doses” and supports more research on that.
The radiation regulation is supported by Steven Milloy, a Trump transition team member for the EPA who is known for challenging widely accepted ideas about manmade climate change and the health risks of tobacco. He has been promoting Calabrese’s theory of healthy radiation on his blog.
But Jan Beyea, a physicist whose work includes research with the National Academies of Science on the 2011 Fukushima nuclear power plant accident, said the EPA proposal on radiation and other health threats represents voices “generally dismissed by the great bulk of scientists.”
The EPA proposal would lead to “increases in chemical and radiation exposures in the workplace, home and outdoor environment, including the vicinity of Superfund sites,” Beyea wrote.
At the level the EPA website talks about, any one person’s risk of cancer from radiation exposure is perhaps 1 percent, Beyea said.
“The individual risk will likely be low, but not the cumulative social risk,” Beyea said.
“If they even look at that — no, no, no,” said Terrie Barrie, a resident of Craig, Colorado, and an advocate for her husband and other workers at the now-closed Rocky Flats nuclear-weapons plant, where the U.S. government is compensating certain cancer victims regardless of their history of exposure.
“There’s no reason not to protect people as much as possible,” said Barrie.
U.S. agencies for decades have followed a policy that there is no threshold of radiation exposure that is risk-free.
The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements reaffirmed that principle this year after a review of 29 public health studies on cancer rates among people exposed to low-dose radiation, via the U.S. atomic bombing of Japan in World War II, leak-prone Soviet nuclear installations, medical treatments and other sources.
Twenty of the 29 studies directly support the principle that even low-dose exposures cause a significant increase in cancer rates, said Roy Shore, chief of research at the Radiation Effects Research Foundation, a joint project of the United States and Japan. Scientists found most of the other studies were inconclusive and decided one was flawed.
None supported the theory there is some safe threshold for radiation, said Shore, who chaired the review.
If there were a threshold that it’s safe to go below, “those who profess that would have to come up with some data,” Shore said in an interview.
“Certainly the evidence did not point that way,” he said.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which regulates electronic devices that emit radiation, advises, broadly, that a single CT scan with a dose of 10 millisieverts may increase risks of a fatal cancer by about 1 chance in 2,000.
The EPA tucked its proposed relaxation of radiation guidelines into its “transparency in science” proposal in April. The proposal would require regulators to consider “various threshold models across the exposure range” when it comes to dangerous substances.
While the EPA rule change doesn’t specify that it’s addressing radiation and chemicals, the EPA’s official press release announcing the change does.
Supporters of the proposal say it’s time to rethink radiation regulation.
“Right now we spend an enormous effort trying to minimize low doses” at nuclear power plants, for example, said Brant Ulsh, a physicist with the California-based consulting firm M.H. Chew and Associates. “Instead, let’s spend the resources on minimizing the effect of a really big event.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/apnewsbreak-epa-says-a-little-radiation-may-be-healthy/2018/10/02/b42d39fa-c661-11e8-9c0f-2ffaf6d422aa_story.html?utm_term=.97fbbd0900e7
-
Johnson & Johnson Talc Case Ends in Mistrial
Oct 2, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The latest Johnson & Johnson talc case has ended in a mistrial, after a California jury failed to reach a decision on whether the company’s baby product contributed to a woman's development of mesothelioma.
The case concerned Carolyn Weirick, who alleged that asbestos fibres in J&J's talcum powder caused her to develop the disease. She was seeking $25m or more in damages.
But after several days of deliberation, the jurors couldn't agree a verdict, and the presiding judge declared a mistrial.
Imerys talc, J&J's supplier, reached a settlement with the plaintiff before the trial had finished. The terms of that agreement have not been made public.
The outcome comes in the wake of a similar Missouri trial, where a jury ordered the company to pay nearly $4.7bn in damages to 22 women who claimed that asbestos in baby powder contributed to their development of ovarian cancer.
J&J plans to appeal against that decision, as it has done with several others.
Across the country, the company continues to face thousands of claims from consumers who allege that the product's use has caused development of ovarian cancer or mesothelioma. The company nevertheless has continued to defend the safety of its products.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70663/johnson-johnson-talc-case-ends-in-mistrial
-
Ueapme Pushes for More ‘Workable’ REACH for SMEs
Oct 2, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Greater promotion of product and process-orientated research and development (Ppord) notifications can make the REACH registration process "more workable" for SMEs, a European SMEs trade body has said.
It is a "very useful tool", Ueapme said, which "could be much better exploited", especially when using a substance in a professional context.
Its comments come from a position paper on improving the Regulation for small and medium enterprises, which it discussed with DG Grow last month.
Ppord is defined as any scientific development related to product development or the further development of a substance, on its own, in mixtures or in articles. Substances used for Ppord may be exempt from REACH registration for at least five years. It applies to chemicals produced in quantities exceeding one tonne/year.
Encouraging companies to launch inquiries into their substance registrations could raise awareness, Ueapme said. Now that the final REACH registration deadline has passed, and as authorities ramp up evaluation efforts, "practically every registration" needs an inquiry, it added.
During their inquiry process, enterprises should establish a short Ppord 'navigator'. With this tool, Ueapme said, future registrants could pre-assess the relevance of a Ppord notification for their specific case.
The position paper also mentioned a more "fundamental problem" of the registration process – the "discriminatory" effect on low tonnage substances between 1 and 100 tonnes/year.
If a company in that range doubles its production, the registration costs are disproportionately multiplied, which could prevent SMEs from innovating and expanding economically.
This could be amended, the trade body said, by using a hybrid method between a Ppord notification and the current registration process. The testing costs could then be divided into three-year blocks, for example. This would free companies from having to submit the next information package if they have decided to stop using a chemical.‘Simpler’ authorisations
The authorisation process is a "considerable challenge" and can be "threatening" to the existence of SMEs, the paper said and went on to propose potential measures for improvement. The "most obvious" of these is quick implementation of a "simplified" application for authorisation for specific cases. This would comprise conditions including use of a substance:in low quantities;for spare parts of articles no longer produced; andfor maintenance of such articles.
This simplification, Ueapme said, would mean lower fees and "lighter" requirements or waiving of the socio-economic assessment and analysis of alternatives.
EU-wide valid authorisation is "significantly flawed" because "many" small users usually stay within their member state or a specific region, it added. An alternative would be an "optional regionally limited" authorisation, which "should be [a] simpler and more cost-efficient" solution, Ueapme said.Other subjects
In comments to Chemical Watch, Ueapme adviser Marko Susnik said the trade body had also repeated its concern over the last registration deadline and missing substances. Furthermore, it highlighted the need to "significantly" simplify safety data sheets and to make public consultations more transparent.
Ueapme shared concerns about potential problems in the data-sharing process of pigments and expensive letters of access. "Ueapme considers the pigment situation a good example on how REACH can influence a whole sector significantly and has suggested the Commission looks into this with more care, with [for example] a small study," Mr Susnik said.
In the coming weeks, the trade body will give a "stronger" focus to the pigment sector and await suggestions from the Commission.
According to Mr Susnik, Ueapme said DG Grow agreed to further discuss the paper and for the trade body to present it to member states and Echa in the near future. Ueapme has sent the position paper to the agency as well as DG Environment.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70725/ueapme-pushes-for-more-workable-reach-for-smes
-
Trade Body Calls for Options to Secure Post-Brexit Chemicals Supply
Oct 2, 2018 | Chemical Watch
European SMEs trade body Ueapme has said that options need to be developed for small and medium enterprises to ensure the supply of chemicals, once the UK withdraws from the EU next year.
Its proposal, which is part of a position paper on improving REACH for SMEs, was presented to DG Grow on 18 September.
There is "no doubt" that the UK plays an important role in the supply of chemical resources for the EU, the paper said, adding that many SMEs depend on suppliers and only representatives (OR) based in Britain.
While the webpage offered by Echa is a "very useful" information source, in parallel "options, guidance and tools" should be developed that allow:simple relocation of UK ORs to other member states;a three-year transitional period for downstream users, currently receiving a substance from a UK supplier and needing to register the substance on their own; anda five-year transitional period for downstream users, currently receiving a chemical from an UK supplier and needing to apply for authorisation for this substance on their own.
On 26 September the UK’s Chemical Industries Association and Cefic circulated a joint briefing notecontaining advice for companies in the event of Britain leaving EU REACH after Brexit.
The note came a few days after the UK government published its no-deal Brexit technical notice for the chemicals industry.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70727/trade-body-calls-for-options-to-secure-post-brexit-chemicals-supply
-
That Other Trade Battle—in Energy—Heats Up
Oct 2, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Nathaniel Taplin
North America has a new free-trade agreement. But PetroChina may soon be tanking up in British Columbia rather than on the Gulf Coast.
The Chinese state-owned energy giant on Friday gave the thumbs-up for its 15% stake in Canada’s first liquefied-natural-gas export port, at $30 billion the country’s largest infrastructure project ever. On Tuesday 40% ownerRoyal Dutch Shell and its other joint-venture partners followed suit.
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/that-other-trade-battlein-energyheats-up-1538473781
-
Report: Permian Will Need $300B over Next 5 Years to Maintain Growth
Oct 2, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Rye Druzin
The Permian Basin will need $310 billion over the next five years in order to continue to grow and potentially add 3 million barrels of oil production by 2023.
The investments would fund the drilling and completion of up to 41,000 new oil wells in the West Texas region, according to a new report by the consulting firm Arthur D. Little.Recommended Video
The Permian, which is the top oil producing field in the United States, is producing more than 3.4 million barrels of oil a day. Growth of 3 million barrels a day by 2023 would put it near 6.5 million barrels a day, a production level above Canada, Iran and Iraq.
The Permian has faced continuing constraints on its growth as pipelines out of the region fill and companies struggle to hire enough workers for the labor-heavy jobs in the field, from drilling rigs to transport trucks.
The analysts at Arthur D. Little suggest oil and gas companies in the Permian collaborate more on their operations in order to reduce the impact on the already strained infrastructure in West Texas. They pointed to Pioneer Natural Resources' effort to work with other companies to pool power generation resources as an example of such needed collaboration, but said more will need to be done.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Report-Permian-will-need-300B-over-next-5-years-13274898.php
-
Too Much Oil? Texas Boom Outpaces Supply, Transport Networks
Oct 2, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Liz Hampton, Devika Krishna Kumar, and Jarrett Renshaw
The west Texas drillers that drove the shale revolution have overwhelmed the region's infrastructure with oil production -driving up costs, depressing regional oil prices and slowing the pace of growth.
The U.S. government continues to forecast the country's oil output rising to fresh record. But competition for limited resources in Texas is making it harder for shale producers to turn a profit and encouraging some to invest elsewhere.
Texas is home to the Permian Basin, the largest U.S. oil field and the center of the country's shale industry. In the past three years, production from the Permian has risen a whopping 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd) to 3.43 million bpd.
All that oil means pipelines from the shale patch are full, so producers are paying more to transport oil on trucks and rail cars. Shortages of labor, water and even the fuel used in fracking are driving up production costs.
At the same time, Permian producers are getting less for their oil, which in August traded as much as $17 a barrel below the U.S. crude benchmark. Sellers have to offer the discount to compensate for the higher transport costs.
"We're our own worst enemy," said Ross Craft, chief executive of Approach Resources, a small west Texas oil producer which last year averaged about 11,600 barrels of oil equivalent daily output.
"We can drill, bring these wells on so quickly that we basically outpace the market. It is going to take a little bit of time," he said, for the infrastructure to catch up to producers.
Approach Resources is leaving some wells uncompleted. That means the firm drills the wells, but does not fracture the rock to produce the oil. Other shale producers are also leaving the oil in the ground, waiting for higher prices to make the drilling more profitable.
The number of uncompleted wells in the Permian jumped by 80 percent to 3,630 in August compared with a year earlier, according to U.S. Energy Department data. For the rest of the United States, uncompleted wells are up 10 percent from the same period a year ago.EDITORS’ PICKSWhen the Death of a Family Farm Leads to SuicideThe Towers Came Down, and With Them the Promise of Public HousingThe Evolution of One of Fiction’s Gay Liberators
Some companies are reducing the scope of their operations in the Permian. ConocoPhillips and Carrizo Oil & Gas each moved a Permian drilling rig to another oilfield, and Conoco idled a second, the companies have said.
Noble Energy also has cut back on its well completions and said it is moving some drilling resources to Colorado.
Global Drilling Partners, a drilling contractor based in the Woodlands near Houston, was set to drill seven wells with a Permian operator this July, but that has dropped to two wells starting in December due to lack of pipeline takeaway, said John Hopkins, a managing partner at the company.
"There will be a shift out of West Texas temporarily until they can solve their midstream problems," he said. Companies are looking to boost their drilling in other fields in Texas, Colorado and Oklahoma, he said.
Suppliers including sand and rail companies say they are hedging their bets by expanding elsewhere.
SHARES FALL ON HIGHER COSTS, LOWER REVENUE
The price discount on Permian oil has hurt the share price of shale producers such as Parsley Energy, which operates only in the Permian.
Parsley delivered an eight fold-rise in profits in the second quarter versus a year earlier, and boosted output by 57 percent over the same period.
But investors have dumped the stock on concern that plans to increase output by another 5 percent by spending 17 percent more will deliver diminishing returns. Parsley's shares are down about 8 percent since the company reported results on Aug. 7.
Spending plans in 2018 by 53 independent U.S. producers have risen a combined 18 percent over 2017, to $63.2 billion, according to investment firm Cowen & Co.
The U.S. in August produced a record 11 million bpd and continued investment in the Permian should see the country's total output to hit an average of 11.5 million bpd in 2019.
But rising costs and bottlenecks have already slowed the pace of growth.
Consultancy Wood Mackenzie estimates Permian oil production in 2019 will be 200,000 barrels per day (bpd) less than it could be because of transport constraints.
Permian output will be 3.9 million bpd next year, Wood Mackenzie estimates, but could have been 4.1 million bpd if more pipeline space were available.
"We've had a more significant increase in costs this year than we would have assumed," Timothy Dove, chief executive of Pioneer Natural Resources, one of the largest Permian oil producers, said in August.
TRANSPORTATION AND SUPPLY SHORTAGES
Smaller producers without contracts to use pipelines are getting hurt most because they are forced to use trucks and railcars. Shipping oil by truck to Gulf Coast refinery and export hubs costs $15 to $25 a barrel, compared to $8 to $12 a barrel by rail and less than $4 a barrel by pipeline, according to market sources.
The shift is leading to traffic jams on highways and rail crossings in far-flung parts of the Permian shale fields. It also means fuel for supply vehicles and fracking equipment can be in short supply locally.
"Truck traffic is unlike anything we've ever seen," said James Walter, co-CEO of Colgate Energy, a Midland-Texas based oil producer, who adds his company has agreements to transport all of its crude and gas production via pipelines.
Rail capacity is unlikely to increase because oil producers are reluctant to sign up to long-term contracts to lease rail cars. They would prefer to wait for the new pipelines to be built. Planned pipelines out of the Permian will add about 3 million bpd of oil capacity by late 2020, estimates Wood Mackenzie.
Rail firms are reluctant to buy new oil railcars without long-term contracts.
"We do think it's a short-term situation," Union Pacific Executive Vice President Beth Whited said in July. "So we will not invest to support that."
Sand suppliers have moved quickly to alleviate one supply shortage by opening new operations. Some 15 sand mines have popped up in the Permian in the past year, creating a $1.2 billion industry almost overnight, consultancy Rystad Energy estimates.
These mines sell sand for about $40 a ton, saving producers nearly $90 a ton compared with sand shipped in from other states.
Just as elsewhere in the Permian, however, the increase in activity is inflating costs. Preferred Sands, which has a sand mine in Monahans, Texas, is paying workers there about 30 percent more it does in other markets, said Chief Executive Michael O'Neill, prompting the firm to open its next sand mine in Oklahoma instead.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/10/02/business/02reuters-usa-oil-record-bottlenecks-analysis.html
-
DOE Spent More Than $500M on Dead Projects
Oct 2, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
Nearly half the $2.7 billion in fossil research money spent by the Department of Energy over the last seven years supported nine carbon capture demonstration projects, the majority of which were canceled or withdrawn, according to a report yesterday from the Government Accountability Office.
The GAO analysis highlights an ongoing debate about carbon capture, utilization and sequestration (CCUS). Opponents say that CCUS had its shot and shouldn't get extensive federal support, while supporters say the technology has received less federal money than nuclear and other low-carbon sources and is a critical component of holding global temperatures at manageable levels.
Models show that the technology is needed to ensure temperature rise stays below 2 degrees Celsius, according to Erin Burns, a Third Way analyst, during a breakfast event this morning. "You don't need 10 projects in the U.S. You need hundreds of projects in the U.S.," she said. She pointed to International Energy Agency data showing CCUS will be required at a much broader scale to meet climate targets.
The GAO examined 794 projects funneled through the National Energy Technology Laboratory between 2010 and 2017, as well as money distributed through the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. In general, recipients were required to share the cost of the projects.
Of the $2.66 billion spent on those projects, $1.12 billion went for nine large demonstrations. Within that, $475 million was provided to four projects from which DOE later pulled its support, either because they failed to meet technical milestones or because they could not meet deadlines enshrined in the Recovery Act.
The withdrawn projects included FutureGen 2.0, a planned zero-emissions coal plant in Illinois, and Summit Power's Texas Clean Energy Project, also a proposed low-emissions coal generator.
An additional $30 million went to two demonstration projects that were withdrawn by companies themselves, including American Electric Power's capture project on its Mountaineer coal plant in West Virginia. The other was Leucadia Energy LLC's plan to capture CO2 from a petcoke-to-chemicals plant, which the company withdrew in 2014 because of financial challenges.
Fifty-five percent of the total $1.12 billion for CCUS led to three demonstrations that are still active. NRG Energy Inc.'s Petra Nova project in Texas, the world's largest retrofit of a coal plant, was one of them, as was an Archer Daniels Midland Co. initiative capturing CO2 from an ethanol facility. Petra Nova came online last year (Energywire, Jan. 10, 2017).
The other remaining money — $1.54 billion — went for projects that were "relatively small," often funded at less than $1 million each. Those were not just CCUS, but encompassed research on rare earth elements, natural gas infrastructure, general coal efficiency, and offshore oil and gas.
Opponents of CCUS say the numbers indicate that money was lost and could have gone to develop other types of low-carbon technologies.
"This report is a clear reminder of money thrown into the abyss looking at increasingly obsolete technologies instead of investing in the clean energy future we need," said Ernesto Vargas, climate and energy project director at Friends of the Earth. "The DOE has spent billions of dollars to help coal, oil and gas industries to find new ways to keep polluting and destroying our environment."
At the breakfast event, which included Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and members of the Carbon Capture Coalition, advocates said CCUS will be necessary because of global projections of continued use of coal, gas and oil.
The focus should not be on overall dollar amounts but on changing the policy structure and understanding that DOE money helped progress understanding of the technology, they said. In their view, the tax code is a more efficient way to finance many projects and cuts back on federal review.
"All spending is not created equal. The technology has quietly been marching forward," said Jeffrey Bobeck, director of energy policy at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.
President Trump this year signed into law a measure supported by Whitehouse that doubled existing tax credits for carbon storage and set up an entirely different financial model for the technology, more similar to tax credits that exist for renewables (Greenwire, Feb. 9).
"We believe that is going to be a successful method for getting technology out into the market," said Kurt Waltzer, managing director for the Clean Air Task Force. "The 50 percent cost share approach is, I think, a more challenging way to go on that," he said.
The IRS has not yet released guidance on using the tax credit, but that is expected within a year.
Whitehouse is backing an additional bill, co-sponsored by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and others, that would establish guidance on CO2 pipelines and carbon capture facilities and alter federal laws to clarify permitting (E&E Daily, April 12).
Whitehouse said GOP lawmakers are holding back the legislation, but he didn't name names.
"I don't think anybody is holding it in bad faith. We're still optimistic," Whitehouse said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/10/02/stories/1060100325
-
U.S. Net Natgas Exports More Than Double
Oct 2, 2018 | Kallanish Energy
Net natural gas exports from the U.S. from January through June 2018, averaged 0.87 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) — more than double the average daily net exports during all of 2017 (0.34 Bcf/d).
The U.S., which became a net natural gas export annually in 2017 for the first time in almost 60 years, has continued to export more natural gas than it imports for five of the first six months in 2018, the Energy Information Administration reports.
U.S. natural gas exports have increased primarily with the addition of new liquefied natural gas export facilities in the Lower 48 U.S. states, Kallanish Energy reports.
U.S. exports of LNG through the first half of 2018 rose 58% compared with the same period in 2017, averaging 2.72 Bcf/d.
Total U.S. LNG export capacity reached 3.6 Bcf/d this past March. Cheniere Energy’s LNG facility at Sabine Pass in western Louisiana has an export capacity of 2.8 Bcf/d, including the recently completed Train 4.
Dominion Energy’s Cove Point LNG complex in Maryland, which has an export capacity of 0.8 Bcf/d, shipped its first cargo in March. In the first two full months of operation after the capacity additions (May and June), Cove Point exported an average of 0.57 Bcf/d (76%) of its nameplate capacity.
Another four LNG facilities are under construction and planned to enter into service by the end of 2019, ultimately increasing U.S. LNG export capacity to 9.6 Bcf/d.
U.S. LNG exports have continued to grow in 2018, as U.S. natural gas pipeline import and export volumes have either remained relatively flat or declined from 2017 levels.
Exports of natural gas by pipeline to Mexico grew by just 4%, while exports of natural gas by pipeline to Canada declined 14%. Most of this decline occurred in deliveries from St. Clair, Michigan, to the Dawn storage hub in Ontario, Canada.
While U.S. exports into eastern Canada declined, eastbound flows on the TransCanada Mainline from western Canada increased by 0.26 Bcf/d from 2017, as tolls on the pipeline were lowered this year, according to Canada’s National Energy Board.
EIA expects net natural gas exports to continue rising through the end of 2018 as additional LNG export capacity comes online and as gas infrastructure in Mexico is placed into service.
Overall net natural gas exports are expected to average 2.0 Bcf/d in 2018, and 5.8 Bcf/d in 2019, EIA projects.
http://www.kallanishenergy.com/2018/10/02/u-s-net-natgas-exports-more-than-double/
-
FERC Strategy Plays up Focus on Cyberthreats
Oct 2, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is preparing to ramp up cybersecurity inspections of dams, natural gas pipelines and liquefied natural gas plants, according to a long-term strategy posted to the agency's website yesterday.
These facilities "are at increased risk from new and evolving threats, including physical and cyber security threats, by sophisticated perpetrators that often have access to significant resources," FERC wrote in its new Strategic Plan spanning fiscal 2018 to 2022.
The independent regulator pledged to "conduct oversight activities" to make sure the full range of energy facilities under its jurisdiction don't fall short of cyber and physical security standards.
The 44-page plan also lays out FERC's top three organizational goals, unchanged since the previous draft of the Strategic Plan came out in 2014. These are ensuring "just and reasonable" energy rates; promoting "safe, reliable, and secure infrastructure"; and preserving "organizational excellence" via its workforce and ethical standards.
"The nation is experiencing significant changes in energy supply due to a number of factors, such as the increased availability of domestic natural gas and the emergence and growth of new energy technologies," FERC Chairman Kevin McIntyre said in an introduction to the updated plan. "Both the nation's energy infrastructure and energy markets must adapt to these changes to ensure that consumers have access to economically efficient, safe, reliable, and secure energy at a reasonable cost."
This year, McIntyre, a Republican, has joined other FERC commissioners in speaking out about the need for protecting U.S. energy infrastructure from emerging cyberthreats, which drew more than twice as many mentions in the 2018 document versus its predecessor.
FERC gets final say over binding grid physical and cybersecurity standards set by the North American Electric Reliability Corp.
This year, FERC has ordered NERC to draft rules that would require power utilities to report a greater range of hacking threats to their systems.
FERC officials intend to use that information to glean a "more complete picture" of the agency's handling of cyberthreats, according to the new strategy.
"By following, categorizing and tracking cyber events, FERC will better understand the root cause of cyber events," the agency noted.
Democratic FERC Commissioner Richard Glick has urged policymakers to "take a serious look" at the cybersecurity of gas pipeline systems, as utilities increasingly rely on natural gas as a fuel source for generating electricity (Energywire, May 29).
The strategy makes no direct mention of FERC's work with the Transportation Security Administration, the agency charged with overseeing the cyber and physical security of large natural gas pipelines.
But the document pledges FERC will "work with other federal agencies to improve information sharing and awareness of interdependencies and the need to address critical infrastructure issues using a holistic approach as opposed to acting in isolation."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/10/02/stories/1060100269
-
DOE Offers $28m for 'Next Level' Cybersecurity
Oct 2, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The Department of Energy is awarding up to $28 million for new techniques to protect the power grid, oil pipelines and other energy networks from hackers, the agency announced yesterday.
DOE said it will split the funds among 11 research projects led by industrial automation giants ABB Inc., GE Global Research and Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories Inc., among other organizations.
"These awards will spur the next level of innovation needed to advance cyber resilience, ensuring that the nation's critical energy infrastructure can withstand potential cyber attacks while also still keeping the lights on," Energy Secretary Rick Perry said in a statement, calling energy cybersecurity a "top national priority."
Most of the research-and-development efforts are geared toward helping electric utilities. But several grantees will key in on emerging threats in the oil and natural gas sector, including a GE and Baker Hughes-led project to develop an "advanced cyber-physical protection" system for natural gas compressor stations.
Industrial cybersecurity firm Dragos Inc., which won a multimillion-dollar DOE award for its "Neighborhood Keeper" project, is also casting a wide net with its cyber defense concept, according to founder and CEO Robert M. Lee.
"It's something that's meant for all of our small infrastructure players," Lee said. "It is not going to stop at electric."
Lee is joining several large power companies, the Idaho National Laboratory and the top U.S. grid regulator to parse cybersecurity information from smaller utilities that might lack the means to scour their own networks for signs of hackers.
If successful, the Neighborhood Keeper will offer analysts a rare, anonymized view into the operational networks of rural service providers that come into sophisticated hackers' crosshairs. If a Russia-backed hacking group targets a municipal utility in Kentucky, the Keeper will raise an early warning signal without revealing the identity or location of the victim.
"At a time when the Senate and Congress are worrying about what's actually going on [in utilities' networks], this says: 'Hold on, let's see what's going on,'" Lee said. "'Let's be truly informed with the actual intelligence we need to make the changes we want.'"
The funding announcement yesterday marks the largest research award to date from DOE's new Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security and Emergency Response.
If DOE doles out all $28 million, it would account for 70 percent of CESER's 2018 R&D budget, with the remaining $12 million largely earmarked for finishing a "test bed" to model the bulk electric grid.
DOE has devoted tens of millions of dollars to energy cybersecurity research in the past, helping develop tools for detecting anomalous activity on control system networks and supporting public power utilities with a cybersecurity "scorecard."
The latest funding round is part of DOE's long-term strategy to ensure "resilient energy systems are designed, installed, operated, and maintained to survive a cyber incident while sustaining critical functions" by 2020.
"I don't think we're going to be done in 2020," Lee said. But he credited DOE for being "very good about pinpointing what [technology] doesn't exist currently and pushing it to market."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/10/02/stories/1060100239
-
Senate to (Finally) Vote on FAA Bill
Oct 2, 2018 | Politico - Morning Transportation
By Brianna Gurciullo
The FAA bill cleared a procedural hurdle Monday night and Republican senators say they expect a vote today. “It’s gonna pass by an overwhelming margin,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) told MT. It’s been 460 days since the Senate Commerce Committee approved an FAA reauthorization bill (S. 1405 (115)), which never got floor time. The legislation the upper chamber is expected to vote on today, H.R. 302 (115), was unveiled Sept. 22 after weeks of negotiations between the House and Senate. The House last week passed the package, which also contains TSA and NTSB reauthorizations. Read our coverage of what’s in it for DHS, drone operators, airports, passenger airplanes and more.
IT’S TUESDAY: Thanks for tuning in to POLITICO’s Morning Transportation, your daily tipsheet on all things trains, planes, automobiles and ports. Feel free to send feedback about today’s newsletter, a tip for a story or a suggestion for lyrics to bgurciullo@politico.com or @brigurciullo.
“I’ve been workin’ on the railroad / All the live-long day / I’ve been workin’ on the railroad / Just to pass the time away / Can’t you hear the whistle blowin’ / Rise up so early in the morn’ / Can’t you hear the captain shoutin’ / ‘Dinah, blow your horn.’”
LISTEN HERE: Follow MT’s playlist on Spotify. What better way to start your day than with songs (picked by us and readers) about roads, rails, rivers and runways?
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS A RED WAVE IS COMING ON ELECTION DAY. Is he right, or will the tide turn blue? Compete against the nation’s top political minds in the POLITICO Playbook Election Challenge, by correctly picking the winning candidates in some of the most competitive House, Senate and gubernatorial races in the country. Win awesome prizes and eternal bragging rights. Sign up today! Visit politico.com/playbookelectionchallenge to play.
LOOKING TO 2019: The House Transportation Committee's two GOP chairman hopefuls as well as a top DOT official all think infrastructure will be the talk of the town in early 2019. “But when we’re talking about transportation, the biggest issue in the room is obviously going to be the Highway Trust Fund. If we don’t solve that, then we’re not going to be able to solve any problems that are out there,” Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.) said last week at a Ripon Society event, where Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.) and Derek Kan, undersecretary for policy at DOT, also spoke. The Republican group on Monday released some remarks from the event. “There are several ideas on the table — everything from a battery tax to a tire tax to increasing the fuel tax” to a vehicle-miles-traveled system, Graves added.
It’s always infrastructure week, etc.: To Kan, it's “pretty clear there’s going to be a long discussion on a major infrastructure bill early next year,” and he expects to “see” that legislation “probably in the next two years.”
Remember P3s? Denham said he supported dedicated lanes for trucks and having railroad systems “on dedicated track, so you improve efficiencies for freight rail, but also have greater capacity for passenger movement as well.” He also believes the “biggest opportunity is going to be public-private partnerships — utilizing capital that is out there from the private sector and combining that with federal funds that we could have through infrastructure banks.”
‘What scares me more than anything’: Graves mentioned positive train control, arguing that the federal mandate for railroads to install the technology has actually slowed down implementation. “Positive train control would have happened anyway because it gives a competitive advantage to the railroads,” Graves said. Today, “railroads are struggling to get PTC completely implemented because of the constraints by the government,” he said. “Government stifles technology, and that’s what scares me more than anything when it comes to some of the huge opportunities out there.” A spokeswoman for Graves told MT that his comments came after he met with BNSF Railway representatives in Dallas.
Related: Bruce Mehlman, founder of Mehlman Castagnetti Rosen & Thomas, listed infrastructure under the “potential deals” a Democratic House could make. (h/t POLITICO Influence)
PRIVATE DRONE PARTNERS FOR FAA: Nine new companies now have FAA authority to give — or deny — airspace authorizations to drone operators under the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability initiative. After a five-month onboarding process, Aeronyde, Airbus, AiRXOS, Altitude Angel, Converge, DJI, KittyHawk, UASidekick and Unifly now join five other companies that had already been accepted as LAANC service providers. LAANC is the foundation for developing an air traffic control system for drones. FAA will accept a new round of applications at the beginning of next year.
** A message from Delta Air Lines: As the leader in best-in-class operations, Delta Air Lines is honored to partner with the U.S. military to perform maintenance on military aircrafts. Visit DeltaTakingAction.com to see how Delta is helping make the world a smaller, more connected place. **
NOT GOOD: The DHS inspector general said in a report Monday that the department is coming up short when it comes to providing guidance to its sub-agencies on handling misconduct, our Stephanie Beasley reports. The IG recommended DHS create a central office to handle allegations and improve its oversight of human resources and employee relations programs, among other items. The findings were published less than a week after the House Oversight Committee issued its own report revealing a pattern of misconduct and whistleblower retaliation at TSA.
BACK ON TRACK: Amtrak’s inspector general released a report Friday mapping out the top challenges facing the company for the next two fiscal years. The watchdog flagged safety as a top priority, citing an NTSB report that found a “weak safety culture that has contributed to a poor record.” Crashes and other incidents have killed 20 people in the last six years. Amtrak also must address the fact that its operating budget remains in the red, despite significant financial improvement, the IG wrote. The high cost of long-distance routes remains a roadblock to eliminating the net loss.
THOUGHTS? FMCSA is asking for comments on an American Trucking Associations petition in which the group calls on the agency to say whether federal law preempts California rest and meal break rules for commercial truckers. The deadline for comments is Oct. 29. Readers may recall that this issue became a point of contention in FAA bill negotiations. (h/t Transport Topics’ Eugene Mulero)
SHIFTING GEARS: YJ Fischer has a new gig as Bird’s senior director of government partnerships. She was managing director of international business development at Virgin Hyperloop One. Bird also brought on Melinda Hanson, formerly of the National Association of City Transportation Officials, to be senior manager for sustainability and environmental impact.
MT INFLUENCE: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld is lobbying for the Academy of Model Aeronautics and Lime. Meanwhile, NiSource — the parent company of Columbia Gas, which is under scrutiny after natural gas explosions killed one person, injured others and damaged homes in and around Andover, Mass. — hired Alpine Group a week after the Sept. 13 accident to lobby on "issues related to pipeline safety and natural gas transportation and distribution," according to a disclosure form.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-transportation/2018/10/02/senate-to-finally-vote-on-faa-bill-358880
-
3 Environmental Rollbacks Could Result in 13,900 Deaths
Oct 2, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
A key data point has been buried in the back-and-forth over the Trump administration's rollback of former President Obama's climate legacy: EPA's own research has found that lifting public health protections on air pollution could kill thousands of Americans.
Much of the discussion has focused on what the reversals mean for the warming planet, weighed against the economic cost of those regulations. There's a more immediate effect: Reducing CO2 is often linked to a reduction in fine particle air pollution, which kills millions of people globally every year.
The Obama administration crafted rules to limit emissions at power plants and bar some heavy trucks. Under President Trump, those regulations are being reversed. And so are the lives that the Obama rules would have saved, estimated by EPA to number almost 14,000.
"These rollbacks have a tendency to provide some benefits for industry at the cost of increasing the number of people who die or become ill from pollution," said Daniel Shawhan, a fellow at Resources for the Future and a researcher at Cornell University's Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management.
The Department of Energy is expected to craft a plan to keep coal-burning and nuclear power plants operating, likely by arguing that they are necessary for national security. At the same time, the administration is looking at scrapping the "co-benefits" of some climate rules in considering their cost, which would eliminate the rules' protections against fine particle pollution.
A study published by EPA researchers and other academics earlier this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that fine particulate matter kills almost 9 million people worldwide each year, more than double a previous estimate from the World Health Organization.
Yesterday, at an event for Child Health Day at EPA headquarters, acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said the Obama administration's calculation of health benefits was "suspect." He said that the Trump administration's rollback of vehicle emissions rules and the Clean Power Plan would not affect public health protections.
"Neither one of those is health-based standards per se," Wheeler said. "We have our separate health-based standards. We have not changed those. They're still in effect. They'll still be in effect next year, tomorrow."
There is no level of air pollution that does not affect humans, and the higher its concentration, the greater the risk of premature death, said Joel Schwartz, a professor at Harvard University's School of Public Health. Air pollution controls, not climate considerations, accounted for most of the economic and health benefits of the Clean Power Plan, Obama's rule on power plants.
"The climate-related rules have air pollution co-benefits, so that hasn't gotten enough attention," Schwartz said. "They're missing that they're breathing the air, so they're going to be breathing the air tomorrow, and there is this strong anti-regulatory agenda that is proceeding on many different fronts that is going to make the air dirtier."
The coming year is expected to bring additional efforts to boost the energy industry and, in particular, the struggling coal industry. That could cause another spike in deaths, said Shawhan of Cornell, who has studied the effects of industrial plants. In a peer-reviewed paper to be published in the journal Energy Policy, he and other researchers concluded that the proposed policy by the Department of Energy would cause 27,000 premature deaths over 25 years. It would require grid operators to purchase power from coal and nuclear plants.
"Burning coal is a particularly effective way of releasing a lot of health-damaging pollutants into the air, and so policies that affect the amount of coal that is burned tend to have a big impact on projected premature deaths from air pollution," Shawhan said.
Here are a few of the possible rollbacks by the Trump administration.
The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards would avert 11,000 premature deaths every year, according to EPA figures. It's estimated to prevent 130,000 asthma attacks and 4,700 heart attacks, while saving up to $90 billion annually in human health costs. The 2012 rule requires reductions of emissions of mercury, arsenic and acid gases from power plants. The administration announced it was reviewing the plan in August.
A weakening of the Clean Power Plan and its replacement with the Affordable Clean Energy plan could result in 1,400 premature deaths a year as a result of air pollution by 2030. It could also cause 100,000 asthma attacks, according to EPA. By contrast, the agency projected that the Clean Power Plan could prevent 1,500 and 3,600 premature deaths per year in that time.
The glider truck rule would prevent 1,500 premature deaths, according to EPA figures. It would prevent 620 heart attacks and 370 asthma attacks, the agency found. The rule would allow the use of older engines in semitrucks, creating more pollution.
The Trump EPA has defended its action on the Clean Power Plan by arguing that the rule is focused only on greenhouse gases, and that other pollutants, such as fine particle pollution, are addressed in other regulations. The Obama administration counted the co-benefits of reducing air particle pollution, such as estimated benefits of between $37 billion and $90 billion for the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.
An EPA spokeswoman pointed out that the CPP never went into effect and that the ACE plan would achieve emissions reductions compared with now, with no plan in place.
"Compared to the world as it stands now, the ACE rule will result in dramatic reductions in emissions, including CO2, mercury, and fine particulate matter precursors," spokeswoman Enesta Jones said in a statement. "Thus, implementing ACE as proposed will also result in reduced mortality and morbidity effects such as asthma-related hospitalizations."
The administration has touted the economic effect of rolling back the rules, saying that it could save billions of dollars.
The data-crunching that goes into any regulation, or deregulation, is not immune to politics and is designed to boost the administration's argument for its actions.
Determining the health impacts of any rule is essentially educated guesswork, but it undergoes a peer-review process and has been the subject of reports by the National Research Council of the National Academies, said John Graham, a former head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under President George W. Bush.
It's also difficult to fact-check the estimates after the rules go into place because projections of mortality, or lives saved, cannot be validated since changes in the death rate are small compared with the total deaths from those causes, said Graham. (Graham is a member of EPA's Science Advisory Board selected by former Administrator Scott Pruitt.)
Still, when EPA officials make estimates about preventing premature deaths with a regulation, it's not as political as some might think.
"They are not as vulnerable as some Washington skeptics might think," Graham said. "The political staff of agencies have to persuade the career staff to make changes to technical inputs, obtain appropriate references, redo computer modeling, obtain credible peer reviews and so forth. This is not easy for political officials to engineer, and it certainly would take a considerable period of time."
Even if there is a debate on the exact number of premature deaths that could result from a policy shift, there's a vast body of science showing that air pollution kills.
The Obama administration proposed rules that would have resulted in significant reductions in fine particle pollution. Under Trump, those premature deaths won't be avoided, said Paul Billings, national senior vice president for advocacy with the American Lung Association.
"We're talking about a wide range of adverse health consequences: additional asthma attacks, emergency room visits, cardiac events, lost days from work and school, and the ultimate adverse health effect, premature death," he said. "Each of these proposals is taking pollution reductions that were on the books and rolling them back, which would mean more pollution in the air causing these very significant health consequences."
The health impacts of emissions regulations are an important way of measuring their usefulness, but that part of the debate over climate policy is too often ignored, said Nader Sobhani, a climate policy fellow at the libertarian Niskanen Center. Incorporating those kinds of costs would bolster the arguments for deep reductions in CO2 emissions because they have direct and measurable benefits for human health, he said.
"A big criticism of deep reductions in CO2 emissions is that the benefits of taking deep action and taking serious action happens sometime in the future and are dispersed," he said. "You can have pretty immediate benefits and pretty substantial benefits that happen right now from deep reductions in CO2 emissions and also aren't just dispersed around the globe. You can have benefits occurring locally, as well."
Laura Kellogg, a mother of asthmatic children who stood at Obama's side as he signed the Clean Power Plan, said its rollback will hurt people throughout the country. The costs saved by industry are being transferred to families, said Kellogg, who is a registered nurse and trained asthma educator. She said it will hit the most vulnerable the hardest.
"The burden is going to be paid by those who are suffering from the effects of air pollution, especially those with chronic lung conditions," Kellogg said. "This has a whole domino effect, the economics of asthma: Kids are missing school; parents are missing work, having to incur the expense of medical visits and medications. It certainly is a cycle, and the burden is paid by those who are suffering."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/10/02/stories/1060100271
-
Trump's Lawyers Head to Court to Defend Obama EPA Rule
Oct 2, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
The Trump administration has found at least one major Obama-era environmental regulation it can embrace: a 2016 rule to curb air pollution drifting across state lines.
Tomorrow, administration attorneys will head to court to defend that regulation during a marathon round of oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The administration is backing EPA's 2016 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule update, which is intended to cut coal-fired power plant emissions that contribute to downwind ozone problems, against a battery of claims from states, as well as industry and environmental groups.
The regulation is EPA's latest attempt to address what its lawyers label "the difficult problem of state-to-state-transported air pollution." While the Supreme Court in 2014 had affirmed EPA's basic approach to interpreting the Clean Air Act's "good neighbor" provision, the latest round of litigation revolves around how far the agency can legally go in enforcing it.
The update is "a step in the right direction, but really it's just a baby step," said Neil Gormley, an Earthjustice attorney representing environmental groups who say EPA should have done more to curb releases of nitrogen oxides (NOx) that make it harder for downwind states to meet the 2008 ground-level ozone standard of 75 parts per billion. By contrast, power producers and upwind states like Wisconsin contend that the agency again went overboard in setting state-by-state caps on NOx emissions.
EPA says it got the balance just right. The rule, typically known as the CSAPR update, therefore "should be upheld," agency attorneys said in one court filing.
Hearing the arguments — scheduled to last more than two hours — will be a three-judge panel made up of Obama appointees to the appellate bench: Sri Srinivasan, Patricia Millett and Robert Wilkins. The session is likely to be densely technical, with time set aside for discussion of issues like "banked allowances" and biogenic sources of pollutants.
Ozone, a lung irritant that is the main ingredient in summertime smog, is formed by the reaction of NOx and volatile organic compounds in sunlight. EPA had issued the original Cross-State Air Pollution Rule in 2011. The update, published two years ago, applies to 22 states, ranging from New York to as far west as Texas. The update came after the D.C. Circuit ordered the agency to reconsider the original NOx budgets for some states on the grounds that they were unnecessarily strict.
As E&E News reported at the time, the Obama EPA yielded ground in the final update rule, allowing power plants in the affected states to release about 16,000 more tons of summertime NOx last year than originally proposed (Greenwire, Sept 8, 2016). Even so, the agency later concluded that the new requirements led to a 21 percent drop in releases in 2017 (E&E News PM, Nov. 15, 2017).
But while the Trump administration is seeking to replace or amend Obama-era air rules ranging from the Clean Power Plan to regulations on brick kilns, EPA has proposed using the CSAPR update as its sole vehicle for satisfying "good neighbor" obligations needed to meet the 2008 ozone standard (E&E News PM, June 29).
That stance would appear to put the administration at odds with Bob Murray, head of the Ohio-based coal giant Murray Energy Corp. Murray, a close ally of President Trump, had included the CSAPR update last year on a wish list of rules that he wanted suspended (Greenwire, June 6).
Northeastern state regulators, however, say the update's requirements don't afford enough protection from upwind NOx, which is pushing them out of attainment with the 75 ppb ozone limit.
"EPA should not rely upon this as a full remedy," Maryland Environment Secretary Ben Grumbles said at an August public hearing on the proposed determination.
EPA signed off the proposal in June; under a federal court order, the agency must make the final determination by early December.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/10/02/stories/1060100315
-
Greens Inject Cash into Midterms to Secure Climate Policies
Oct 2, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Mark K. Matthews
A top environmental group in Colorado plans to spend at least $3.2 million to help Democrats take control of the state Legislature and governor's mansion.
If successful, the record-breaking campaign could yield state-level efforts to address climate change.
Yesterday's commitment by the Conservation Colorado Victory Fund, an offshoot of the League of Conservation Voters, came during a contentious fight for governor that pits Rep. Jared Polis (D) against Republican state Treasurer Walker Stapleton.
Polis has vowed to achieve 100 percent renewable energy use in Colorado by 2040; Stapleton has positioned himself as an ally of the state's oil and gas industry, a major economic force.
More significant, perhaps, is the battle for the state Senate. Democrats already have a majority in the House, and if they capture a net of one Republican seat in the Senate, they'll control the upper chamber too.
The stakes have helped turn Colorado's 2018 election into one of the most expensive in state history. Conservation Colorado's vow to spend $3.2 million would more than double the $1.3 million the group said it spent in 2016, its previous record.
"It's definitely our largest electoral program so far," said Kelly Nordini, the fund's executive director.
She said the money mostly would be directed toward the Polis-Stapleton fight and several key Senate races, and that the campaign would cover the waterfront of political spending — from mailers to TV ads.
The underlying hope, she added, is that a Democratic-led state government would build on past efforts to force state utilities to generate more of their power from renewable energy sources (Climatewire, Sept. 18).
"We will be looking for ways to further that transition," Nordini said.
A Democratic sweep is far from assured in November, however, as the oil and gas industry has ramped up efforts to influence the election, largely by drumming up opposition to a ballot initiative that would expand setbacks from oil and gas wells to 2,500 feet on nonfederal land.
Plus, Colorado remains a swing state despite its leftward shift in recent elections. Independents are the largest voting bloc, with about 1.2 million active voters as of Sept. 1, followed by Democrats at nearly 994,000 and Republicans at 973,000.
"It's pretty late in the day for a group to decide to spend that much money," Colorado Republican Chairman Jeff Hays said in a statement, referring to Conservation Colorado's effort. "I read it as a sign of serious concern. My guess is Conservation Colorado has seen polling that shows the Republicans in an uncomfortably strong position."
Ian Silverii, executive director of the left-leaning group ProgressNow Colorado, said a Democratic sweep on Election Day could clear the way for environmental measures big and small — from forcing Colorado utilities to generate more of their electricity from renewables to allowing state residents to include solar panels when calculating home property values.
"It's not going to be one thing that gets us to 100 percent [renewable] by 2040," he said. "It's going to be a combination of things."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/10/02/stories/1060100243
-
Strong Views but Not Much Diversity at Climate Rule Hearing
Oct 2, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Some participants at yesterday's public hearing and protests on the Clean Power Plan replacement are challenging whether the process is really giving enough access to the people most likely to be affected by the proposed rule change.
The twin hearing rooms were mostly packed during the all-day event in Chicago. Members of environmental groups testified alongside industry trade groups and utility cooperatives. Politicians and attorneys general alternately praised and lambasted the rule (Greenwire, Oct. 1).
Despite their diverging views, most of the people in attendance did share one thing in common: They were white.
That point didn't escape the notice of 18-year-old college freshman Ketura St. Fleurose, with the Illinois chapter of People's Action. The event was her first time attending an EPA hearing.
"I don't see much color; I don't see much minorities. I was testifying earlier, and one of the things I spoke about — I was hesitant at first, but I decided to speak because I was one of the only minorities or people of color," St. Fleurose said.
EPA's proposed Affordable Clean Energy, or ACE, rule is meant to cut carbon emissions from power plants. Unlike the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, the rule would not set specific targets for carbon emissions reductions and instead would allow states to use their discretion on whether individual plants require technology improvements. States can seek to exempt facilities based on the anticipated life span of a given plant.
The rule also proposes changing requirements for when technological modifications would trigger action under New Source Review, a pre-construction permitting program.
The relative lack of diversity in the public hearing room yesterday belied EPA's own warnings that minority and low-income communities, along with children and the elderly, are among those most likely to live in polluted areas and be vulnerable to the effects of climate change.
Among the limited representation of African-Americans at the hearing was Leah Clyburn.
Clyburn, 35 and from St. Louis, came to the day's event on a bus with girlfriends in the Sierra Club. She said she was particularly concerned about how higher pollution rates could affect school attendance. The agency's own proposal predicts the rule change would lead to 64,000 additional school absences per year.
Clyburn described missed school days due to high pollution as just another setback for minority children and their families.
"Children are already being policed in school enough. Now, if they miss more school, that's a straight, direct direction into the school-to-prison pipeline," Clyburn said.
She said she is also worried about how air pollution affects women's reproductive health.
"I don't want to have a hysterectomy because you don't feel like my life is necessary or valuable," she said.
Janice Gintzler, a 67-year-old retired public high school teacher in Chicago, told E&E News she has been attending EPA public hearings since the 1990s. Holding a homemade sign aloft during a protest, she lamented the general lack of public engagement in federal policy.
"I've been telling people all around here, pedestrians, to call Congress to activate a Clean Power Plan, and people just walk by. People don't contact Congress, which is why we have the Congress we have," she said.
She noted that only relatively advantaged people could afford to take the time in the middle of a workday to attend the hearing and protests.
Responding to questions of hearing timing and representation of different viewpoints, an EPA spokeswoman said the agency followed proper procedure in scheduling the hearing and that the public had the ability to post comments online. The comment deadline is Oct. 31.
Don Ferber, chairman of the John Muir Chapter of the Sierra Club, said the environmental group, for its part, is working on doing a better job of representing the concerns of people who aren't able to attend public hearings.
"If we are to live the principles of our democracy, that is something we are trying to incorporate in the Sierra Club to help elevate those voices," he said.
Ferber, who spoke to E&E News during a protest, also placed blame on EPA for giving what he described as limited notice for the hearing.
"They are only having this one [hearing] in Chicago. This is not how a democratic process should work," he said.
But although many people testifying yesterday questioned EPA's decision to hold only one public hearing on the ACE proposal, some also praised the agency for the way it had sought public comment on the rule.
"In a welcome departure from EPA's imposition of the extraordinarily complex CPP proposal without any opportunity for public input, the EPA here took the extra step of issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to solicit input and advice to enhance the design of the ACE proposal," said Heath Knakmuhs, vice president and policy counsel at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Global Energy Institute.
Knakmuhs also lauded the rule for allowing states to tailor their carbon reduction plans to their own needs, for not overstepping the agency's authority and for changing requirements for triggering New Source Review requirements.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/10/02/stories/1060100273
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested