Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 10/19/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Seeking Work After Congress? Sharp Partisans Need Not Apply
Oct 18, 2018 | New York Times
By Carl Hulse
Dozens of soon-to-be former lawmakers will be looking for work come mid-November, but big K Street trade associations might not be the best place for them to send a résumé. -
5 Things to Watch on Science Panel Next Year
Oct 19, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Christa Marshall, George Cahlink and Sean Reilly
Change is coming to the House Science, Space and Technology Committee in January, but will there be a sharp shift in direction or simply a passing of the gavel? -
Despite Suggestion, EPA Floats First SNURs Using Streamlined Framework
Oct 18, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA has for the first time proposed significant new use rules (SNURs) to address risks that a group of new chemicals could present if used in certain reasonably foreseen ways, an approach that follows a draft framework for considering new chemicals... -
Schools, Crash Sites Scoured for Nonstick Chemicals in New England
Oct 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
New England states, investigating the sources and effects of a ubiquitous family of chemicals, are finding different forms of them and looking in unexpected places. -
Nonstick Chemicals Could Spur Landfill Investigations (1)
Oct 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
A ubiquitous chemical found leaching from a New Hampshire landfill could indicate a costly problem on the horizon for waste sites around the country. -
U.K. Chemical Makers Pin Hopes on Last-Ditch Brexit Talks
Oct 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
The prospect of a “no-deal” Brexit, in which the U.K. would exit the European Union without reaching agreement on relations with other countries, has European chemical makers worried about having to comply with a patchwork of registrations and laws. -
One Click Away: We Discovered Just How Easy It Still Is to Purchase Deadly Paint Strippers
Oct 18, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Sam Lovell and Andrew Reagan
Methylene chloride is a deadly chemical used in common paint stripping products. It is known to have caused over 50 deaths from acute exposure – though many more likely have gone unreported. -
Trump Administration Plans to Continue Dismantling Obama-Era Rules in 2019
Oct 18, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The Trump administration plans to continue dismantling a host of regulations enacted during the Obama era, including several that affect the oil and gas industry. -
Poland, U.S. Firm Sign Long-Term Imports Deal
Oct 19, 2018 | AP (In E&E Energywire)
Poland's main gas company says it has signed a long-term contract for the purchase of some 40 million tons of liquefied natural gas from a U.S.-based producer in the first such deal in Central and Eastern Europe. -
FERC Signs off on Cyber Rules for 'Highest-Risk' Grid Systems
Oct 19, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Federal energy regulators have approved a new set of cybersecurity rules aimed at addressing fears that hackers could infiltrate the U.S. power grid via third-party equipment and software. -
Senators Examine Grid's Readiness for a Very Bad Day
Oct 19, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Blake Sobczak
Senators took stock of a vital spare tire for the U.S. power grid at a hearing on "blackstart" generation capacity yesterday. -
White House Signs off on Ozone Implementation Rule
Oct 19, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
The White House's regulatory shop has completed its review of EPA's long-awaited implementation rule for the agency's 2015 ground-level ozone standard. -
Maryland Sues EPA over Interstate Ozone Petition Denial
Oct 18, 2018 | Inside EPA
Maryland is suing EPA over its denial of the state's petition seeking direct federal regulation of out-of-state air emissions, as East Coast states fight for new federal measures to combat interstate ozone problems. -
Court Sets New Date for Fight Over Monitoring Rules
Oct 19, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
A federal appellate court has rescheduled oral arguments in environmentalists' lawsuit challenging EPA air quality monitoring rules. -
Dems Look to Make Climate a Midterm Issue
Oct 19, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk and Geof Koss
The report issued earlier this week by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change offers a bleak outlook if greenhouse gas emissions aren't curbed in the next decade and if warming spikes above 1.5 degrees Celsius over preindustrial levels. -
U.S. Asks Supreme Court to Stop Teenagers’ Climate Change Suit
Oct 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Greg Stohr
President Donald Trump’s administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court stop a novel and sweeping lawsuit pressed by children and teenagers seeking to force the federal government to take steps against climate change. -
How Can Half a Degree of Warming Matter so Much?
Oct 18, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Ilissa Ocko
Half a degree Celsius is just an average; some regions of the world will experience a lot more.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Seeking Work After Congress? Sharp Partisans Need Not Apply
Oct 18, 2018 | New York Times
By Carl Hulse
Dozens of soon-to-be former lawmakers will be looking for work come mid-November, but big K Street trade associations might not be the best place for them to send a résumé.
Once a comfortable landing spot for retiring and defeated members of Congress seeking to keep their hand in federal affairs and be paid well to do so, the trade groups that represent the nation’s businesses, industries and professions in the nation’s capital are, as they say, moving in a different direction.
“The model has changed,” said Michael Sommers, who served as chief of staff to John A. Boehner when he was House speaker. After a stint at one trade group, Mr. Sommers was in May named head of the American Petroleum Institute, one of the country’s largest and most powerful industry organizations.
He and others say that influential trade groups are no longer looking to build instant status and credibility by bringing on prominent former lawmakers. Instead, they are looking for skilled managers and communicators with Washington expertise who are capable of effectively running large, multimillion-dollar organizations and being held accountable to representing the interests of their members.
But there is another big reason departing members of Congress are not as attractive as they once were: the sharp partisan atmosphere on Capitol Hill. Association leaders have to work with people of all political persuasions, and many of those coming off of Capitol Hill these days are inextricably linked to one political perspective or the other, diminishing their marketability afterward.
“Partisanship today is a factor,” said Dave McCurdy, the former centrist Democratic House member from Oklahoma who has overseen three trade groups and is retiring from the American Gas Association — and Washington itself — early next year. “I was selected because they knew I had respect on both sides of the aisle, that I could talk to both sides of the aisle and that I was a fact-based leader.”
Mr. Sommers agreed that today’s intense political environment was a factor for association search committees. “The member companies, I think, see Washington as a place that has become so partisan,” he said. “If you hire a partisan who has been on the ballot, that is not how you want your trade association to be portrayed. It is not that former members or former senators aren’t capable; they are. They could run these trade associations. But I think they are not being hired by what outside of Washington views as dysfunction.”
Some Washington groups continue to be supervised by former lawmakers such as James C. Greenwood, a former Republican House member from Pennsylvania who leads the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, and Calvin M. Dooley, a former Democratic House member from California who is president of the American Chemistry Council after running other trade organizations. But they are a diminishing presence.
In the past five months, more than half a dozen top association jobs have gone to former high-level nonelected officials from Capitol Hill or the executive branch or to seasoned executives from other associations. And in at least two cases, the new heads replaced former elected officials who left — Tim Pawlenty, the former Republican governor from Minnesota, at the Financial Services Roundtable, and Dirk Kempthorne, the former Republican governor and senator from Idaho, at the American Council of Life Insurers. This week, the Distilled Spirits Council hired Chris R. Swonger, a longtime government affairs specialist, as its new leader.EDITORS’ PICKSThe Bright Future and Grim Death of a Privileged Hollywood DaughterStruggling to Bring the ‘Blue Wave’ to Deep-Red AlabamaA Tragedy in the Tattoo Parlor
Mr. McCurdy said that there was “no shortage” of former members of Congress or high-level administration types interested in his soon-to-be vacant post, but that they were probably at a disadvantage.
And it is not just partisanship. Many politicians are not seen as having the skill set necessary for running large organizations. Senate and House offices are essentially small businesses, run very top-down, with a single goal — the re-election of the chief executive. Not to mention that politicians are often coddled with staff aides enthusiastically tending to their needs and frequently very reluctant to challenge them — or get an earful when they do. Association executives have to contend regularly with executives who are successful in their own right, with proven track records in their field.
“Even though politicians say they have a lot of bosses, they really don’t,” Mr. McCurdy said. “You have to understand it is a different role. You have to understand how to effectively work with boards, manage boards, lead boards, but also learn from and listen to boards.”
And while politicians get judged every two or six years at the ballot box, those running the associations say they are constantly evaluated.
“With how much politics has changed in the last 10 years and the continuing focus on the bottom line, every company in America is looking at their trade association and trying to figure out what value they are getting out of it,” said Mr. Sommers, who is overseeing an organization with a $230 million budget and 350 employees worldwide.
No doubt some Washington-based advocacy groups will always welcome a big-name former lawmaker with extensive contacts who is considered capable of bringing in members and drawing the attention of the news media. And to organizations with a strong ideological bent of their own, partisanship won’t be a problem. But given the turnover in Congress and potential losses by incumbents of both parties next month, there could soon be a glut on the market.
A few departing members such as Speaker Paul D. Ryan will be able to rake in substantial speaking fees — at least for a while. Others could catch on with lobbying and law firms to serve as strategic advisers while waiting for lobbying bans to expire. But the job market isn’t what it once was for ex-office holders, particularly those who weren’t committee chairmen or in leadership.Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer
A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.
SIGN UP
“For the junior member who never held a gavel, there is not a demand,” said Tom Davis, a former Republican House member from Virginia.
And those who do stick around Washington and secure a job are expected to work, not solely entertain clients, share their Rolodexes and treat their private-sector jobs as a deserved retirement.
As for Mr. McCurdy, he is heading out of town after being first elected in 1980 at age 30.
“It is time,” he said. “It has gotten so sharply partisan here that I think it is time for me to take a break.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/us/politics/congress-divisive-partisanship.html
-
5 Things to Watch on Science Panel Next Year
Oct 19, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Christa Marshall, George Cahlink and Sean Reilly
Change is coming to the House Science, Space and Technology Committee in January, but will there be a sharp shift in direction or simply a passing of the gavel?
If Democrats take the House, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), one of the House's most senior African-American members, is favored to claim the chairmanship. Last November, she told E&E News, "I hope that I will" be the next leader of the committee.
She'd likely use the panel to push back against the administration's doubts about climate science and press for more Energy Department and NASA research spending.
Johnson has shown a willingness to sometimes work across party lines, and some say she might soften the partisan tone of the panel, led in recent years by Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas).
"We'll catch a break if she is chairwoman of Science because she is pretty reasonable. Now, she'll be a lot more left of center than the Republicans," said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), long a leading conservative voice on energy issues who is retiring at the end of this Congress.
The chairmanship picture is more muddled for Republicans, with Reps. Frank Lucas of Oklahoma, Dana Rohrabacher of California, Randy Hultgren of Illinois and Mo Brooks of Alabama in the mix.
All but Lucas and Brooks face competitive re-election contests and are not locks to return next year. Each of the lawmakers has a conservative track record and would likely not offer much of a shift from Smith's tenure.
Though more clarity will come on Election Day, here are five issues that have frequently sparked partisan fighting at Science and that could see a very different future if Democrats win the chamber but only modest changes if the GOP stays in power.
Climate
If it's Chairwoman Johnson or another Democrat, committee watchers expect an early airing of mainstream climate science, including findings released this month from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a U.N.-convened group. The IPCC report concluded that the world needs to act quickly to hold warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels and avoid catastrophic consequences to the planet.
Johnson declined to be interviewed for this article, but she has released multiple statements in recent years criticizing lawmakers who do not share the view of most scientists that humans are the primary cause of rising temperatures.
She called efforts by Smith to subpoena documents related to climate change studies "disturbing," and she will be under pressure from advocates to push back on Smith's policies and rhetoric.
"Smith kept holding hearings where you didn't air the scientific evidence. That needs to be undone," said Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Democrats also would be pushed to investigate efforts by the Trump administration to roll back spending on climate science at agencies like NASA.
As chairman, Smith published an op-ed for Fox News saying he was falsely labeled a climate denier and asked tough questions about "how much the climate has changed and how much of an impact humans have had on the climate."
Many analysts think conservatives in line for the chairmanship, including Lucas and Rohrabacher, would have a similar strategy on climate. Lucas has been critical of government efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and Rohrabacher told E&E News this month that the human impact on climate is "minimal" and that there need to be more debates on climate science (E&E Daily, Oct. 10).
A wild card could be Hultgren. The Illinois lawmaker cast similar votes to Smith's and supported President Trump's announced withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, but also joined the Climate Solutions Caucus this year.
"My state, our nation and our world are blessed with an abundance of resources and natural beauty, and it is our responsibility to be good stewards of creation," Hultgren said when joining the caucus, a bipartisan group focused on reducing risks from climate change.
EPA
Under Smith, the committee became a powerful antagonist to the Obama-era EPA, subpoenaing records and holding hearings on everything from air pollution studies to "regulatory overreach." Since Trump took office early last year, the relationship has mellowed dramatically.
The full panel and various subcommittees have held only a handful of hearings on environmental programs; the first was titled "Making EPA Great Again" (E&E Daily, Feb. 6, 2017).
Moreover, bills sponsored by Smith and Vice Chairman Lucas were the basis of two particularly contested EPA initiatives: a proposed rule to limit the agency's use of scientific research in drafting new rules and a directive that bars EPA grant recipients from serving on agency advisory committees.
Expect the committee to resume a more aggressive oversight stance should Democrats retake control of the House next month.
Johnson spokeswoman Kristin Kopshever declined to say whether the Texas lawmaker would ask House Democratic leaders to grant the panel subpoena authority.
But some ideas of possible targets come from Democrats' priorities thus far. Last month, for example, Johnson and several colleagues asked the EPA inspector general to dig into a Tennessee Tech University study used to justify the proposed repeal of Obama-era regulations on high-polluting "glider trucks" (Greenwire, Sept. 27).
In June, Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia, the Oversight Subcommittee's top Democrat, unsuccessfully sought a hearing on a news report that the White House had considered ignoring federal climate research.
Should Republicans stay in charge, the status quo is likely to continue over the next two years. Lucas, who is also weighing a bid to lead the House Financial Services Committee, would run the Science Committee along the same lines as Smith should he become chairman, spokeswoman Meg Wagner said.
Rohrabacher, another potential challenger for the gavel, told E&E News last year after Smith announced his retirement that "[Smith] and I don't disagree on anything; we're soul mates" (E&E Daily, Nov. 7, 2017).
DOE
The committee oversees DOE research spending, and in recent years, partisan debates often followed the pattern of Democrats criticizing proposed budget cuts and Republicans arguing that DOE needs to shift more to early-stage research.
Yet Republicans and Democrats who rarely agree sometimes join together on DOE bills, because of either shared support for national laboratories in home districts or interest in energy technologies with heavier use in regions of the country. That makes it murkier to predict how changing leadership on the committee might shift the priorities on DOE.
Lucas, for example, joined with Johnson in introducing the "ARPA-E Act," which would expand the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy's mission to cover environmental cleanup of nuclear waste sites and require the agency to coordinate with other DOE programs to avoid duplication.
Trump targeted ARPA-E for elimination. Hultgren is the co-founder of the House Science & National Labs Caucus, and his district is home to the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, a DOE research center on particle physics.
Colin Cunliff, a clean energy policy analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, said carbon capture research is another area to watch, considering support for the technology from Republicans on the committee and Johnson.
She co-introduced this year the "Fossil Energy Research and Development Act," which would focus DOE's fossil office more on using, sequestering and capturing carbon dioxide from emitters and the air. It also would authorize higher funding for the DOE office and establish an interagency task force assessing carbon dioxide pipelines.
Cunliff said he would watch whether a committee shift pushed back against appropriations language that has appeared in the past restricting CCS research to coal. "I'm curious to see if support builds for natural gas with CCS," Cunliff said.
Scientific 'integrity'
The phrase "scientific integrity" likely will be emphasized regardless of who wins the chamber, but the spin could be very different.
Johnson, along with more than 150 Democrats in the House, co-sponsored the "Scientific Integrity Act," which would require federal science agencies to develop policies that guarantee research is published and conducted without censorship or political influence.
"It shouldn't be controversial, and it shouldn't be partisan," Rosenberg at UCS said.
The bill would codify the 24 existing scientific integrity policies at federal agencies and require that agencies make policies public and train employees about them. If Johnson or another Democrat leads the panel, there's likely to be more of a focus on which agencies do or do not have "integrity" policies and an examination of whether such policies are effective, committee watchers said.
When the bill was introduced last year, Johnson said she was concerned about the "increasing suppression or denial of widely supported and tested scientific findings."
A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists released this summer, based on a survey of federal employees, found that 32 percent of responding EPA scientists listed influence of the White House or political appointees as a top barrier to their research. Scientists at EPA, the Interior Department and other agencies also reported cases of being asked to remove "climate change" from their work.
Lucas, Smith and other Republicans also have emphasized "scientific integrity," but usually in the context of attempts to restructure EPA or alter funding of government programs, efforts that could continue next year.
Last year, the House passed legislation to revamp the membership of EPA's Science Advisory Board, which Lucas said would restore "scientific integrity and transparency" to the agency.
Johnson warned that the measure would limit the input of scientists and restrict the board's ability to respond to important scientific questions (Greenwire, March 30, 2017).
Smith also held hearings on the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer, which got pushback from agribusiness giant Monsanto Co. after finding that the herbicide glyphosate, used in weedkiller, is "probably carcinogenic" (Greenwire, Dec. 8, 2017).
Lucas co-wrote a letter with Smith criticizing IARC for not "adequately" addressing concerns about its scientific integrity.
National Science Foundation
Some of the biggest fights between Republicans and Democrats on the committee in recent years have revolved around grants from the National Science Foundation. Smith and other Republicans have targeted social and behavioral research from NSF and what they termed frivolous research.
NSF grants on studying animal photos in National Geographic magazine and the Icelandic textile industry during the Viking era were slammed by conservatives. Johnson and others countered that many grants termed "silly" actually yielded important scientific findings.
During Smith's tenure, the House passed a bill that would require NSF grants to include an explanation of how they serve the national interest. The legislation was supported by many Republicans in line for the chairmanship, including Lucas, Brooks and Rohrabacher.
It's unclear how much a GOP chairman would emphasize NSF, but considering earlier debates, it's likely that if Republicans are in charge, there would be more of a focus on whether NSF spending is being used effectively. Democrats have focused more on Trump's proposed budget cuts for NSF, which would have reduced spending levels at NSF in fiscal 2019 by about 30 percent.
Proposed cuts to behavioral, economic and social sciences — targets of conservatives — were around 11 percent. In a statement this spring, Johnson said the ongoing "devaluing" of social science at NSF would have "damaging consequences."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/10/12/stories/1060102393
-
Despite Suggestion, EPA Floats First SNURs Using Streamlined Framework
Oct 18, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA has for the first time proposed significant new use rules (SNURs) to address risks that a group of new chemicals could present if used in certain reasonably foreseen ways, an approach that follows a draft framework for considering new chemicals that the agency floated last year but appeared to abandon after environmentalists sued.
The new proposed SNURs, which EPA published in the Federal Register Oct. 16, appear almost certain to face similar suits as environmentalists charge the draft framework, as well as the latest proposed SNURs unlawfully lack an associated enforcement order to prevent uses of the chemical that may present risk before a SNUR could be finalized.
“It raises all the issues which we and others addressed in commenting on the December 2017 [draft] framework,” says one environmentalist attorney.
But industry attorneys are welcoming the agency's approach, suggesting it sets a precedent for future agency action. “The proposed SNUR is interesting, important, and controversial, as this is the first time under the new law for which EPA is proposing to apply SNUR authority to non-[enforcement] order . . . cases,” the Bergeson & Campbell law firm said in an Oct. 16 memo.
EPA did not respond to a request for comment on the proposal by press time.
EPA's draft framework for reviewing new chemicals, released in late 2017, sought to speed agency review of new chemical applications for approval, known as premanufacture notices (PMN), as the agency faced a backlog after enactment of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The revised statute generally requires EPA to issue a finding on each PMN received. Each must meet TSCA's risk standard of not posing unreasonable risk to human health or the environment based on the proposed conditions of use, as well as “reasonably foreseen uses.”
But the draft framework sought to speed new chemical reviews in large part by dropping use of section 5(e) enforcement orders that the agency had previously issued in advance of SNURs as an interim step to ensure new chemical uses do not pose unreasonable risks or inadvertently allow other uses that may pose risks before issuing SNURs.
Under the voluntary consent orders, signatories agree to limits on the “new” chemical's uses or additional environmental safety and health testing until the agency finalized SNURs, formal regulations that can require lengthy notice-and-comment rulemakings.
But environmentalists sued, charging the draft approach is unlawful because the new law requires use of the orders.
While they never detailed their legal arguments in court, they argued in comments that the approach is unlawful because dropping enforcement orders violates a requirement for EPA to reach a determination on the safety of a chemical substance rather than simply review the risks of a use identified in a PMN.
“TSCA does not allow EPA to avoid issuing a section 5(e) order for a new chemical substance based on a SNUR; if a chemical substance may present an unreasonable risk under its reasonably foreseen conditions of use, or if EPA has insufficient information on the substance, or if EPA makes an exposure‐based finding, the plain text of TSCA requires that EPA issue a section 5(e) order,” Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), which was not a party to the suit, said in comments.
TSCA “expressly states that if EPA makes” one of these three determinations, as defined in TSCA section 5(a)(3)(B), “then EPA 'shall' issue a section 5(e) order 'to prohibit or limit' the conditions of use of such substance to the extent necessary to protect against an unreasonable risk,” EDF's comments add.
Environmentalists also charged that SNURs alone are inadequate to mitigate potential risks and using them in lieu of issuing enforceable 5(e) consent orders backstopped with SNURs violates the Administrative Procedure Act.
EPA Declaration
While the suit appeared to stall implementation of the draft framework, environmentalists eventually dropped it after EPA toxics chief Jeff Morris appeared to hedge on whether the agency would implement it.
In a declaration, Morris said the agency "is continuing to consider those comments submitted in response to the Framework."
And he emphasized that the framework had not, as of the July 31, 2017 declaration date, been used. For 19 of the 150 PMNs issued since November 2017, "EPA determined that the PMN substance is not likely to present an unreasonable risk” requiring no regulation, he said.
“For the remaining 131, EPA concluded that either it had insufficient information to reach a conclusion or the PMN may present risk, absent additional information. For these 131 PMNs, Morris said, "As required by Section 5(a)(3)(B), these determinations were followed by an order under Section 5(e)."
But for the 13 substances governed by the proposed SNURs, EPA outlines risk concerns that are addressed in their PMNs through various means, then indicates that the SNUR will maintain these means and expand them to cover any future manufacturers, processors or importers.
The agency's Federal Register notice says that through the SNURs, any company wishing to use a new chemical in one of the uses described in the SNUR will have to notify EPA before it does so, allowing EPA to “review and evaluate data.” The agency would be “obligated to make a determination” that the substance is not likely to pose an unreasonable risk or determine that it does and regulate it before it can be manufactured or processed, EPA adds.
Bergeson & Campbell says it has learned that “since signature” of the notice, EPA has determined that the 13 substances are “not likely” to pose unreasonable risks. “Thus, it appears that EPA believes it has sufficient information to make this determination under the conditions of use,” the memo says.
The firm also backed EPA's approach, arguing in its memo that “[b]ased on our experience, there are many PMN chemicals for which some regulatory requirement may be needed to meet the provisions of amended TSCA, but we do not believe that a Section 5(e) order is needed in all such cases.”
“EPA did not need additional information, so there was no need for testing, so EPA did not need a consent order to obligate testing. It only needed to restrict the conditions of use,” Rich Engler, Bergeson & Campbell's director of chemistry, tells Inside EPA. “The effect of the SNUR is to limit conditions of use for all potential manufacturers, importers, and frankly processors. The consent order only applies to the [PMN] submitter.”
But environmentalists are signaling that if the agency finalizes the proposed SNURs in their current form, they will sue. “This is the first batch where EPA has made the illegal decision, as it proposed to do in its Nov. 2017 decision framework, to separate its consideration of intended versus reasonably foreseen conditions of use [of] a new chemical,” Richard Denison, EDF's lead senior scientist, tells Inside EPA.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/despite-suggestion-epa-floats-first-snurs-using-streamlined-framework
-
Schools, Crash Sites Scoured for Nonstick Chemicals in New England
Oct 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
New England states, investigating the sources and effects of a ubiquitous family of chemicals, are finding different forms of them and looking in unexpected places.
The per- and polyfluorinated compounds are known for their use in nonstick products and firefighting foam. The contaminants have come to national prominence by showing up in drinking water supplies, but some states are finding them in schools’ floor wax, at plane crash sites where fires never ignited, and as lesser-known, little-studied variants.
“We really don’t understand the scope of this issue yet, and how to address it,” Brandon Kernen of New Hampshire’s Department of Environmental Services said at the Association for Environmental Health and Sciences Foundation’s annual East Coast conference, Oct. 18 in Amherst, Mass.
The Environmental Protection Agency has guidance on two of the more common compounds, known as PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid or perfluorooctanoate) and PFOS (perfluorooctanesulfonic acid or perfluorooctane sulfonate). New York developed a list of 21 compounds to search for, including not only PFOA and PFOS, but also those known as PFBA, PFHsA, and PFBS.
“Numerous [compounds] are being found in the environment together” in samples of soil, water, and fish, Jason Johnson of the state’s Division of Environmental Remediation said at the conference.
Thousands and CountingThe contaminants states are finding are part of a family of 3,000 fluorinated chemicals that can cause adverse health effects, including liver tissue damage, immune system or thyroid effects, and changes in cholesterol, according to the EPA.
Fluorinated compounds have also been used to manufacture clothing, fast-food wrappers, carpets, and a broad range of other consumer and industrial products. 3M, DuPont, and its spinoff Chemours Co. were major U.S. manufacturers of the compounds.
Vermont is investigating floor wax and floor cleaning products in schools because they may contain fluorinated compounds, Michael Nahmias of the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation said at the conference. Some schools have drinking water wells on site, which could be affected by fluorinated compounds, especially if the compounds are present. The state is working to sample wells at those schools.
Firefighting foam, which is effective in putting out fuel fires, is another potential source for states to investigate. The foam was applied pre-emptively in at least two 2002 airplane crashes in Vermont, Nahmias said, broadening the state’s investigation of the compounds beyond crashes with confirmed fires to incidents where fire was only a possibility.
Federal GuidanceSome New England states are looking to the EPA for guidance and health standards for the compounds, but others aren’t holding their breath.
New Hampshire is among the states seeking federal leadership and guidance on fluorinated compounds.
In particular, some states “badly need” guidance for soil contaminated with the compounds, Kernen said. “We don’t know what to do with the soil at this point.”
With new fluorinated compound studies being released daily, “it’s hard for EPA to keep up with the modern pace of publishing data, and not only the regulated community getting a hold of it, but the public seeing it,” Paul Locke, assistant commissioner of Massachusetts’ Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup, said at the conference.
The EPA is deciding whether to issue an enforceable limit for several of the compounds in drinking water, which would be the first from the federal agency.
States may be “forced” to develop their own enforceable limits for the compounds in drinking water, Locke said, and not just because of public pressure.
The Department of Defense is able to provide funding for cleanup based on contamination that exceeds standards, not contamination that exceeds guidance. Firefighting foam has been a source of the chemicals at many defense sites that states want cleaned up.
“We rely upon [EPA] for a lot, but as you know, we have to make decisions now,” Locke said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/schools-crash-sites-scoured-for-nonstick-chemicals-in-new-england
-
Nonstick Chemicals Could Spur Landfill Investigations (1)
Oct 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
A ubiquitous chemical found leaching from a New Hampshire landfill could indicate a costly problem on the horizon for waste sites around the country.
At the Coakley Landfill Superfund site in New Hampshire, a contractor has found two chemicals, known as per- and polyfluorinated compounds, that have also turned up in drinking water supplies across the country.
Depending on conditions at individual landfills, other waste sites that were once considered safe could be re-opened for further investigation and cleanup, an Environmental Protection Agency official said Oct. 17.
At the Coakley landfill, per- and polufluorinated compounds could be coming from the cap separating the waste from the outer environment, the pipes carrying water away from the waste, or the waste itself. The contaminating compounds are members of a family of hundreds used in the production of food wrappers, carpets, non-stick pans, raincoats, and other consumer goods.
The compounds may cause adverse health effects, including developmental effects to fetuses, testicular and kidney cancer, liver tissue damage, immune system or thyroid effects, and changes in cholesterol, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
It’s unclear how much cleanup may be needed at the New Hampshire site to deal with the compounds. In other parts of the country, per- and polyfluorinated compound contamination has forced communities to switch from tap water to bottled water.
“This landfill happens to be, like many landfills, not in a very isolated place, but not far from residential homes,” Alex Dunn, EPA’s Region 1 administrator, said at the Association for Environmental Health and Sciences Foundation’s annual East Coast conference, Oct. 15 in Amherst, Mass.
Dunn, who confirmed the Coakley landfill is leaching the compounds, said it’s possible that other closed landfills could be reopened to check if they are also a source.
Finding the SourceThe cap on the landfill at the Coakley site, and the system conveying its runoff to stormwater ponds, were built in the 1990s, according to one of the contractors working at the site, CES, Inc. The contractor’s spring 2018 stormwater samples suggest that rainwater is coming into contact with materials that contain per- and polyfluorinated compounds, and carrying the compounds toward the ponds.
The same type of materials that make up the landfill’s cap and piping, low-density and high-density polyethylene, tested positive for poly- or perfluorinated compounds in some lab tests, but not all, James Occhialini, vice president at Alpha Analytical in Westborough, Mass., said at the conference.
“We’re not really sure about this,” he said.
In New Hampshire alone, there are about 150 landfills with no lining separating the waste from the soil and groundwater underneath, New Hampshire State Rep. Mindi Messmer told Bloomberg Environment in August, when CES announced the results of its preliminary sampling. The contractor is working to confirm its findings.
Messmer was skeptical that the landfill’s cap could be the source of the contamination.
“I find it hard to believe that the cap material, 25 years later, could be causing these kinds of levels,” Messmer said.
States are setting their own limits for the compounds in drinking water.
New Hampshire requires waste sites, including federal Superfund sites and landfills where groundwater is being monitored, to be screened for the presence of those compounds, including the two most common: PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid or perfluorooctanoate) and PFOS (perfluorooctanesulfonic acid or perfluorooctane sulfonate).
CES’ samples found concentrations of PFOA and PFOS in stormwater samples at Coakley ranging from about 500 to 3,000 parts per trillion, much higher than the EPA’s health advisory level of 70 parts per trillion for the compounds in drinking water.
(Added comment from James Occhialini in 10th and 11th paragraphs.)
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/nonstick-chemicals-could-spur-landfill-investigations-1
-
U.K. Chemical Makers Pin Hopes on Last-Ditch Brexit Talks
Oct 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
The prospect of a “no-deal” Brexit, in which the U.K. would exit the European Union without reaching agreement on relations with other countries, has European chemical makers worried about having to comply with a patchwork of registrations and laws.
REACH, the European Union’s all-encompassing chemicals law, requires substances be registered with the European Chemicals Agency as a condition for EU market access.
Companies reacted with concern over recent proposals for a U.K. version of REACH, in the event of no deal—or a failure to reach agreement on alternative plans for relations with the EU. A summit is underway Oct. 18 in Brussels.
A coalition industry groups and nongovernmental organizations in the EU and U.K. issued a joint letter Oct. 16, urging ministers to keep the U.K. in REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals) to avoid duplicating effort and costs after Brexit in March.
Companies based in the U.K. that don’t have an EU subsidiary could face additional registration costs and legal and tax expenses.
“We are firmly convinced that keeping the U.K. in REACH would create a win-win for all players,” said Erwin Annys, REACH director for the European Chemical Industry Council in Brussels.
Keeping the U.K. within REACH is also best from a regulatory standpoint, Annys told Bloomberg Environment, since setting up a parallel authority would be much more costly than simply allowing the U.K. to continue contributing to ECHA.
“Don’t forget, the U.K. accounts for the second-highest number of chemical registrations at ECHA, they are also very active participants in ongoing work underway” at the chemical agency headquarters in Helsinki, Annys said.
Annys pointed to the fact that U.K. authorities are responsible for around 35 to 40 percent of the work being done by ECHA’s biocidal product working group. That work will have to be taken over by the other members of the EU if the U.K. is kicked out of REACH.
Duplication of Efforts, CostsIn the event of a failure to agree exit terms with the EU, the U.K.’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), would establish U.K.-specific chemicals regulations to replace REACH.
In a briefing paper presented to the House of Commons, Steve Elliott, chief executive of the U.K.’s Chemical Industries Association (CIA), warned ministers that leaving REACH “would seriously bring into question 10 years of investment, as registrations and authorizations that permit access to the EU single market would suddenly become non-existent on exit day.”
“Not to mention the potential ongoing costs of responding to the demands of two regulatory bodies, making a mockery of any regulatory simplification outcome through Brexit,” he added.
The London-based association also mentioned that businesses already spent over 550 million pounds ($720 million) investing in registrations under EU-REACH.
Question Over Joint RegistrationsAccording to information Defra provided to Bloomberg Environment, there would be no fees associated with transferring registrations that have been “grandfathered” into the U.K. system, and new registrations, made after March, would incur the same fees as those levied by the ECHA.
Companies transferring registrations would still be required to submit a complete data package when re-registering. For sole registrants, that process is simple because they hold all that data.
“But many of the chemicals registered under REACH are joint registrations, where one company is considered the data owner,” said Raminta Dereskeviciute, an attorney focusing on chemical regulatory affairs working in London and Brussels, for K&L Gates LLP.
Dereskeviciute told Bloomberg Environment it isn’t cut and dried whether a company would simply provide that data for free, or require a company purchase a “letter of access.”
For larger companies that have EU-based affiliates, registrations could simply be transferred between those groups. But those that don’t, “It raises some very important, and potentially costly questions,” said Dereskeviciute. “Are these new entities a sister company, or a subsidiary, or branch? These distinctions have important legal and tax implications.”
In addition to the costs associated with recreating the data packages, industry groups also point out that companies filing joint registrations under U.K. REACH would be spreading those costs among fewer companies and much smaller sales tonnages.
“That will of course make U.K. businesses less competitive,” Peter Newport, CEO of the U.K.-based Chemical Business Association, told Bloomberg Environment.
Health and Environmental ConcernsAccording to environmental groups, placing the U.K. outside REACH post-Brexit would not only be bad for business but also would risk divergence from years of progress on health, safety, and environmental protections.
“It risks creating an un-level playing field that degrades health and environmental standards,” Kate Young, a Brexit and chemicals campaigner at CHEM Trust, a U.K.-based non-governmental organization.
Young told Bloomberg Environment that Parliament has a target of $11.7 billion in budget cuts through deregulation, which for the first time could mean paring back former EU environmental regulations.
The current summit in Brussels was previously expected to be a final discussion on Brexit negotiations, before a special one-off summit in November to sign on the dotted line.
If there is no deal by Jan. 21, the British government must make a statement within five days on what the U.K. plans to do, according to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act of 2018.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/uk-chemical-makers-pin-hopes-on-last-ditch-brexit-talks
-
One Click Away: We Discovered Just How Easy It Still Is to Purchase Deadly Paint Strippers
Oct 18, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Sam Lovell and Andrew Reagan
Methylene chloride is a deadly chemical used in common paint stripping products. It is known to have caused over 50 deaths from acute exposure – though many more likely have gone unreported. Health impacts from lower-level, chronic exposure to the chemical through use of these products, while much harder to measure, have no doubt occurred as well. Due to its health risks, the EPA proposed a rule to ban consumer and most commercial uses of the chemical in paint and coating removal products on January 12, 2017. Over a year and a half later, the ban on methylene chloride in paint strippers still has not been finalized.
As the current Administration continues to delay action on this critical ban, some companies have stepped up and committed to take paint strippers containing methylene chloride off their shelves. Unfortunately, this isn’t enough to protect all consumers or workers. We found out that it’s still shockingly easy to buy products containing the chemical from other companies – it’s a simple click away.
To figure out just how easy it is, we searched for “paint stripper” and “paint remover” on Amazon. On the first page of our search results were several products containing methylene chloride. (This information is not at all obvious to consumers – you need to read the fine print on the product description.)
See the screenshot below. Three of the first six products showing up with a simple search contain methylene chloride. Would you have been able to tell which contained the chemical if we hadn’t circled them?
Next, we proceeded to checkout to purchase two of the products containing methylene chloride.
Several days and only $25 later, a package containing the two paint strippers arrived at our offices. See our new purchases in the photo below.
The process to buy a product containing a lethal chemical was shockingly easy. These products should not be readily available online, even as some stores across the country remove them from their shelves. EPA proposed a ban on methylene chloride in paint strippers for a reason: it is simply too dangerous.
In May, families whose sons died from methylene chloride exposure came to Washington, D.C. to meet with then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to urge him to take action on the chemical. Just two days later, the agency announced that it would move forward with the ban.
We were cautiously optimistic at this news. However, in the months since this announcement, the action on methylene chloride that was promised has not been taken. Recently, EPA has hinted that it may take action in December.
The agency has in its power the ability – right now – to make sure that this chemical is banned from use in paint strippers. Until we see that an effective ban is in place, we’ll keep pushing to get products containing this deadly chemical removed from the marketplace.
Lethal paint strippers should not be a single click away.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/10/18/one-click-away-deadly-paint-strippers/
-
Trump Administration Plans to Continue Dismantling Obama-Era Rules in 2019
Oct 18, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The Trump administration plans to continue dismantling a host of regulations enacted during the Obama era, including several that affect the oil and gas industry.
The White House's Office of Management and Budget on Wednesday released a Unified Agenda (UA) that projects $18 billion in regulatory cost savings for 2019. The UA also outlined the 2019 plans at numerous government departments and agencies, including the Interior and Energy (DOE) departments and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
"Regulatory reform is a cornerstone of President Trump's agenda for economic growth," wrote Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator Neomi Rao. "This plan reaffirms the principles of individual liberty and limited government essential to reform."
According to the UA, Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering revising rules issued in November 2016 for oil and gas site security, as well as for measuring oil and natural gas.
Although the initial rules were promulgated following "external and internal oversight reviews, which found that many of the BLM's production measurement and accountability policies were outdated and inconsistently applied," a follow-up review led the BLM to consider a rulemaking action designed to "reduce unnecessary and overly burdensome regulatory requirements."
Meanwhile, the UA said Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) had "reconsidered its financial assurance policies" that were in a 2016 notice to lessees related to offshore oil and gas activities.
"BOEM is currently working on a proposed rule to protect taxpayers from unnecessary liabilities while minimizing unnecessary regulatory burdens on industry," the UA said.
BOEM is said to be completing a final rule on offshore air quality control, reporting and compliance. The UA said the rule is designed to implement BOEM's statutory responsibility to ensure that operations in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) are conducted under an approved plan, and that the operations comply with statutory mandates. The final rule now under development by BOEM is more limited than a rule that was published in April 2016 by the Obama administration.
The UA also said BOEM, after consultation and a joint review with its twin Interior agency the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), is considering whether to scrap all or parts of a final rule covering oil, natural gas and sulfur operations on the OCS. The parts of the rule in question cover requirements for exploratory drilling on the Arctic OCS. The original rule was published in July 2016.
BSEE also plans next year to take further action on the well control rule that was issued in April 2016 in response to the 2010 Macondo well blowout. BSEE reviewed the well control rule and issued a proposed rule in May. In developing the proposed rule, the bureau identified 59 of the 342 provisions for possible revision or deletion.
The UA said DOI is also developing a rule "to update and streamline" processes under the National Environmental Policy Act.
At the DOE, the UA said the department was currently "engaged in a number of deregulatory activities aimed at reducing regulatory costs and burdens," including efforts to expedite and simplify the process for selling oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. DOE also published a final rule to provide faster approval of applications for small-scale exports of natural gas, including liquefied natural gas, from U.S. export facilities.
EPA is said to be continuing its review of the Clean Power Plan. Specifically, it is looking into a final rule issued during the Obama administration that established standards for states to follow in developing plans to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (EGU), and a separate final rule that established CO2 emissions standards for newly constructed, modified and reconstructed fossil fuel-fired EGUs.
EPA is also reviewing its new source performance standards for oil and gas, and plans to issue a proposal for public comment this fall.
The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers are also reportedly in the second phase of their process to revise the controversial definition of what constitutes Waters of the United States (WOTUS). Last February, EPA and the Army Corps successfully delayed an Obama-era rule on WOTUS from taking effect until 2020.
"Until the new [WOTUS] definition is finalized, the agencies will continue to implement the regulatory definition in place prior to the 2015 rule consistent with Supreme Court decisions and practice, and as informed by applicable agency guidance documents," the UA said.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/116158-trump-administration-plans-to-continue-dismantling-obama-era-rules-in-2019
-
Poland, U.S. Firm Sign Long-Term Imports Deal
Oct 19, 2018 | AP (In E&E Energywire)
Poland's main gas company says it has signed a long-term contract for the purchase of some 40 million tons of liquefied natural gas from a U.S.-based producer in the first such deal in Central and Eastern Europe.
Piotr Woźniak, the president of Poland's PGNiG, said Wednesday that the deal would help cut the country's dependence on Russian gas imports.
Under the 20-year deal signed late Tuesday, Poland will import 2 million tons of liquefied natural gas annually from Louisiana-based Venture Global Calcasieu Pass and from Venture Global Plaquemines LNG.
Woźniak said the price was some 20 percent lower than the costly contract with Russia's Gazprom, which ends in 2022.
The gas will be delivered to the Świnoujście terminal, which has been adapted to take the fuel, which is transported by ship.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/10/19/stories/1060103687
-
FERC Signs off on Cyber Rules for 'Highest-Risk' Grid Systems
Oct 19, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Federal energy regulators have approved a new set of cybersecurity rules aimed at addressing fears that hackers could infiltrate the U.S. power grid via third-party equipment and software.
Commissioners at a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission meeting yesterday unanimously voted to adopt Order 850, which requires large utilities to review their business supply chains for weak points that could be exploited by hackers.
The top grid security regulator also directed the North American Electric Reliability Corp. to draft an addendum to the standard for protecting electronic access and monitoring tools, such as firewalls. FERC gave NERC two years to come up with that additional rule and refine which systems should be covered, saying that "a significant cyber security risk remains" unaddressed in the meantime.
The latest regulations leave out "low-impact" grid systems as well as physical access controls, like door locks and security cameras. Republican FERC Commissioner Neil Chatterjee said at yesterday's meeting that the standards are "rightly focused on the highest-risk targets" for hackers.
"I've spoken before about the need to ensure that our cybersecurity standards address significant risks without placing an undue financial and compliance burden on industry," he said. "I'm confident that today's rulemaking achieves that balance."
The backbone of the new cybersecurity rule lies in a requirement for utilities to prepare a "supply chain cyber security risk management plan" that covers at least six issues, from verifying grid operating software hasn't been tampered with to scrutinizing outside vendors' remote access to critical grid systems. Under the new standards, which are on track to become enforceable by summer 2020, large power companies will need to have some way to boot out vendors from grid networks in case the supplier has been compromised by hackers.
The risk of such a third-party intrusion isn't just theoretical: In 2014, hackers took over the websites of three European industrial control system vendors in a bid to spy on their customers. When energy companies visited the hacked sites for updates, attackers pushed out malicious downloads, offering them a way into critical computer systems (Energywire, July 1, 2014).
In 2013, hackers stole data from tens of millions of customers at Target by breaking into a heating, ventilating and air conditioning contractor's networks, then maneuvering into the retail giant's payment systems.
"Supply chain is without a doubt the biggest cyber risk for any industry nowadays — but especially for the power industry," noted cybersecurity and NERC compliance consultant Tom Alrich.
No quick fix
Alarmed by these trends, FERC first instructed NERC to come up with supply chain security standards in July 2016.
Question marks abounded: How could NERC, which has FERC-designated authority to regulate grid reliability and security, hope to shore up cybersecurity practices at major control system vendors and other companies with no direct role operating the power grid? And if a major software or equipment provider suffered a cyberattack, how could utility industry customers be held accountable for a security lapse outside their own systems? Penalties for failing to meet NERC's Critical Infrastructure Protection standards can quickly add up to millions of dollars.
By September 2017, NERC's members managed to agree on a draft set of supply chain security standards for FERC to review. While NERC's drafting team hadn't untangled all of the thorny issues, the supply chain standards floated then largely match the version that FERC's commissioners signed off on yesterday (Energywire, Oct. 6, 2017).
"The standard as it's written is fairly objective-based; so that means the [utility] has got to do the work to figure out 'OK, what are the supply chain risks to me? I need to define them,'" said Michael Johnson, independent cybersecurity and regulatory compliance consultant. "It's not an easy thing to do. Even though the standard has some specific items that are called out, those are not the only things that you need to consider."
Utilities will have 18 months to take that hard-nosed look at their supply chains, six months longer than FERC proposed in a draft rule early this year. NERC and several industry trade groups had pushed for the longer timeline, with NERC noting that compliance "involves performing a complex risk assessment process for planning and procuring" cyber systems. The 18-month clock starts ticking 60 days after the final rule appears in the Federal Register.
"What will be most interesting to see is how the 'vendors' respond to this," Patrick Miller, managing partner at Archer Energy Solutions, said in an email. He said issues have already cropped up in which no "vendor," as defined by NERC, actually exists — such as when a utility manager goes to a big-box store to pick up a piece of equipment rather than using formal procurement processes. "The kid in the blue shirt won't be able to answer questions about incident response or vulnerability notification," Miller pointed out.
Alrich observed that many established grid vendors have already been "inundated" with requests from utilities scrambling to stay one step ahead of both hackers and NERC auditors.
"All these utilities just Google 'supply chain cybersecurity contract language,' then send this off to their vendors and say, 'We want you to put this in the contract,'" he said. "Each one is different."
While the first audits for the new supply chain rules aren't slated to take place until July 2020, FERC has made clear that large utilities are, to some extent, responsible for catching missteps from their suppliers.
"While a responsible entity is not directly liable for vendor actions, the responsible entity is required to mitigate any resulting risks," FERC said in Order 850.
'Dangerous' threats
Democratic FERC Commissioners Cheryl LaFleur and Richard Glick joined Chatterjee in voting to approve Order 850 yesterday. Republican FERC Chairman Kevin McIntyre, who is dealing with health issues, did not attend the meeting. McIntyre was treated for a cancerous brain tumor last year, and sources have suggested he may soon step down from his post (Greenwire, Oct. 18).
The three commissioners present also voted to approve a budget increase for NERC that earmarks more than $27 million for the cyberthreat-focused Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC), a $5.5 million boost from 2018 (Energywire, June 6).
"Cyber threats are becoming more sophisticated and increasing in number," NERC noted in its 2019 budget summary, which calls for E-ISAC to ramp up to 24-7 staffing for cybersecurity response and analysis.
NERC keyed in on "third-party risks" as a "near term" priority for E-ISAC and its utility industry members.
"Security threats continue to evolve and become more dangerous," NERC said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/10/19/stories/1060103719
-
Senators Examine Grid's Readiness for a Very Bad Day
Oct 19, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Blake Sobczak
Senators took stock of a vital spare tire for the U.S. power grid at a hearing on "blackstart" generation capacity yesterday.
If enough of the bulk grid is brought down in a catastrophe, utilities rely on blackstart resources to get their networks back online. These typically consist of small diesel or gas-fired generation units but can also include hydropower and battery storage.
Lawmakers on the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee invited experts to Capitol Hill to testify about the U.S. grid's preparedness to pick up the pieces after an extraordinarily bad day.
"Just imagine a scenario where everyone living within an interconnected electrical grid system loses power," Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said at the outset of the hearing. "Here on the East Coast, that would effectively mean a blackout that spans from Maine to Florida, all the way to Minnesota, back to Louisiana — hundreds of millions of people could be left in the dark."
Such a widespread outage has never happened in the history of the U.S., though a few have come close, such as the 2003 North American blackout that affected some 50 million people and took weeks to fully recover from in some regions.
Murkowski pointed out that "the increasing risks presented by cyberattacks — and the threats of electromagnetic pulses and solar storms — make it more important that we be prepared."
Panelists at the hearing spoke to the U.S. grid's resilience, noting that physical and logical separations among the three major interconnections in America provide a buffer against certain worst-case scenarios.
However, the government and academic and industry specialists also spoke to the need to periodically check in on blackstart capacity, given its complexity and importance.
"The blackstart process is not so simple," said Juan Torres, associate laboratory director for energy systems integration at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado.
He painted the painstaking process of re-energizing the grid as an "intricate and multifaceted endeavor, fraught with potential unforeseen technical challenges that are unique to each specific outage scenario."
For instance, an especially dire hypothetical blackout could combine a natural disaster like a hurricane with a malicious cyberattack aimed at hampering recovery.
Hackers could focus on disabling utilities' communication lines, forcing them to fall back on potentially unreliable or overcrowded radio networks to coordinate delicate "cranking paths" for restoring power.
"You need radio spectrum to operate them, and if you have interference during a restoration or a blackstart, you're not going to have the level of communications you need," said Joy Ditto, CEO of the Utilities Technology Council, which represents major power utilities and other critical infrastructure providers.
Ditto urged lawmakers to push for additional coordination and education between the Federal Communications Commission, which oversees the radio spectrum shared by everything from utilities to entertainment providers, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which is responsible for monitoring the reliability of the bulk power grid.
"There hasn't been a focus on critical infrastructure sectors" in discussing allocation of finite radio spectrum, she said. "This is an area that we'd like to get the FERC and the FCC together around."
Assuming the worst
Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) pressed witnesses on the likelihood a grid disruption could ever reach the scale needed to trigger widespread use of blackstart resources.
"We haven't had a major blackout of that nature for 50 years," King pointed out, sharing his own memories of the Northeast blackout of 1965 that affected tens of millions of people from New York to Ontario. "Is this a realistic risk — is it something that should be on the top of our list, or is it not as high a priority as perhaps other parts of grid security?"
Tom Galloway, president and CEO of the North American Transmission Forum, replied that the bulk power grid operators that constitute NATF treat blackstart — and particularly cyberthreats to blackstart systems — as a "serious" concern.
"We in the Transmission Forum have been spending a lot of time on the issue of resiliency under the assumption that, however unlikely, something of this scale could happen," Galloway said.
A report from grid regulators at FERC and the nonprofit North American Electric Reliability Corp. earlier this year found that U.S. utilities maintained enough blackstart resources to bounce back from a major outage, despite retirements of some blackstart-capable generating units over the past decade. The study team based its review on an evaluation of nine utilities large enough to fall under NERC's jurisdiction.
The availability of backup generators, paired with the low likelihood of a devastating grid event, should inform the level of action and economic investment in blackstart capacity, said Andrew Ott, CEO of PJM Interconnection.
"This is a realistic threat," he said. "Certainly, we haven't seen it in the past. But the way to approach it is with thoughtful analytics, not panic. And I think you're seeing that" among large grid operators and transmission organizations like PJM, he added.
Witnesses at yesterday's hearing offered more general lessons than specific action items for lawmakers, though Tim Yardley, senior associate director of technology and workforce development at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, urged Congress to consider allocating more funds for "test beds" to rehearse blackstart processes.
Yardley is involved with a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency effort to simulate cyberattacks on grid infrastructure and develop methods to quickly detect hackers, boot them out of crucial networks and restore electricity.
Some of DARPA's tools will be put to the test during a first-of-its-kind exercise hosted by the Department of Energy next month (Energywire, Aug. 3).
Yardley credited grid operators' ability to bounce back from a conventional blackout but cautioned that hackers could throw a wrench into recovery plans.
"I fear that we are still not prepared to [use blackstart] in the face of a cyberattack that eliminates our ability to trust the systems that we use to operate and restore our grid," he said. "There is urgency necessary in closing that gap. The risk is growing, and all of us involved know it."
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), ranking member of the ENR Committee and an outspoken advocate of greater critical infrastructure cybersecurity, seized on climate change and cyberthreats as two major concerns for future grid reliability.
"We take for granted the lights will always come on when we flip the switch. But our electric system is increasingly being tested and stressed," she said. "There are daily cyberthreats to our electricity infrastructure."
This story also appears in Energywire.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/10/12/stories/1060102395
-
White House Signs off on Ozone Implementation Rule
Oct 19, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
The White House's regulatory shop has completed its review of EPA's long-awaited implementation rule for the agency's 2015 ground-level ozone standard.
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs wrapped up the review Tuesday, according to a newly updated entry on the Reginfo.gov site. OIRA is a branch of the White House Office of Management and Budget; EPA had sent the draft to OIRA in early July (Greenwire, July 5).
EPA press aides did not immediately reply to an email this afternoon asking whether the implementation rule had since been signed, typically a prelude to its public release.
The rule, proposed almost two years ago, is supposed to spell out the steps that states must follow in assembling cleanup plans for areas in nonattainment for the 70-parts-per-billion standard. But its fate has been entwined with the ultimate outcome of environmental groups' lawsuit challenging the Obama-era rule for implementation of the previous ozone standard of 75 ppb, set in 2008 by the George W. Bush administration.
Those regulations had initially been the model for the proposed implementation rule for the 2015 threshold.
Last month, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit brushed off an EPA rehearing request and largely upheld a February ruling that threw out large chunks of the earlier rule (Greenwire, Sept. 17).
Ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is produced by the reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunlight. When EPA tightened the standard from 75 ppb to 70 ppb in October 2015, it cited the need to adequately protect public health in light of current research on ozone's health effects.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/10/18/stories/1060103703
-
Maryland Sues EPA over Interstate Ozone Petition Denial
Oct 18, 2018 | Inside EPA
Maryland is suing EPA over its denial of the state's petition seeking direct federal regulation of out-of-state air emissions, as East Coast states fight for new federal measures to combat interstate ozone problems.
In a suit filed Oct. 12 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the state seeks review of EPA's Oct. 5 final denial of petitions filed by Maryland and Delaware for EPA to regulate ozone-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx)
The states petitioned EPA under Clean Air Act section 126 to curb NOx from power plants in upwind states. Maryland's petition sought regulation of NOx from 36 electric generating units at power plants in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Delaware's four petitions targeted emissions from individual power plants in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
Both states claim the out-of-state emissions are compromising their ability to meet national ambient air quality standards for ozone. But EPA earlier this month rejected the petitions and published the decision in the Oct. 5 Federal Register, starting a 60-day clock for filing legal challenges to it.
“Our administration will continue to fight for clean air for all Marylanders, and this legal action to hold the EPA to its commitments is a necessary step to ensure our tremendous progress in improving our air quality continues. Requiring upwind states to utilize the pollution controls that are already installed is a simple, immediate, and impactful measure to protect the health of our citizens and our environment,” said Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) in a statement.
Meanwhile, a Delaware air official said Oct. 18 that “Delaware continues to consider all legal options” in response to the denial of its petitions.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/maryland-sues-epa-over-interstate-ozone-petition-denial
-
Court Sets New Date for Fight Over Monitoring Rules
Oct 19, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
A federal appellate court has rescheduled oral arguments in environmentalists' lawsuit challenging EPA air quality monitoring rules.
The arguments in the Sierra Club's suit against the agency had originally been slotted for next month, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently delayed them after the environmental group cited a scheduling conflict (E&E News PM, Oct. 4). The court set Dec. 10 as the new date.
Following standard practice, the makeup of the judicial panel presiding over the session will be announced later, according to the order issued yesterday.
The suit, filed in 2016, challenges some aspects of changes to EPA monitoring requirements for ozone, lead and four other pollutants named in the Clean Air Act. A tentative settlement reached near the end of the Obama administration broke down after the Trump EPA declined to go along, court filings indicate.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/10/18/stories/1060103691
-
Dems Look to Make Climate a Midterm Issue
Oct 19, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk and Geof Koss
The report issued earlier this week by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change offers a bleak outlook if greenhouse gas emissions aren't curbed in the next decade and if warming spikes above 1.5 degrees Celsius over preindustrial levels.
Just a few days later, Michael made landfall as a Category 4 hurricane, bringing storm surge and 155 mph winds to the Florida Panhandle.
"We've had lots of warnings about the dangers of climate change, but this most recent U.N. report is like the big scream," Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said on a call with reporters yesterday.
Democrats are hoping that the foreboding nature of the report, combined with the noticeable effect more intense storms can have on individual communities, will drive people to the polls to vote out Republican candidates who often downplay or outright deny climate change.
"This issue is on the ballot," said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). "People are going to vote on it, young people especially."
Even Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) took to the floor yesterday to lament that Republicans and fossil fuel interests resist action on climate change.
Schumer's comments on the floor and to reporters are more often focused on health care and President Trump's controversies, two issues Democrats see as being at the top of the list for their base headed into the midterms.
"While we're thinking about the people of Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and North Carolina, and everyone in Hurricane Michael's path, let's remember we are running out of time to do something about climate change, and the kinds of storms we are seeing now will only increase if this body continues to keep its head in the sand," Schumer said before pivoting to talk about health care.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) added that younger voters want to see something besides lawmakers "throwing fruit at each other" on climate science on Capitol Hill.
"I think particularly young people are interested in hard, objective, scientific facts," Wyden said. "They see very often that kind of is an afterthought in the debates going on in Washington, D.C., and I think they'll respond positively."
On the press call yesterday, League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski pointed to the Senate races in Florida, Nevada and Arizona as places where climate change could be "sharpened" as a political issue in the wake of natural disaster and the IPCC report. LCV's political action committee has thrown its weight behind candidates in all three states.
The group, for example, has panned Florida Gov. Rick Scott — in a tight race against Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson — for his handling of the state's algae blooms in a partnership with American Bridge (E&E News PM, Sept. 6).
Nelson, for his part, laid blame for Michael's widespread devastation on climate change during an appearance on CNN yesterday.
"The Gulf of Mexico was 4 degrees hotter than is usual," Nelson said. "Listen to the scientists ... and they'll tell you that the Earth is heating up and the ferociousness of these storms is as a result, in part, of that heating up."
LCV has also run ads against Republican Sen. Dean Heller in Nevada and is backing Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema for Senate in Arizona.
All told, it plans to spend $25 million backing Democrats for the House and Senate and touting their credentials on climate change and the environment, and green groups are hoping the events of the past week will magnify their efforts.
Climate change will also get a more direct referendum in Washington state, where environmental groups and the oil industry have both spent millions of dollars on opposing sides of a carbon fee ballot initiative (Climatewire, Aug. 23).
If Democrats take one or both chambers in Congress, Markey suggested they could move on an energy package similar to the one passed after they won both chambers in the 2006 midterms.
But the easiest way to make it an issue would be to make acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler and other environment and energy officials in the Trump administration "famous" through oversight hearings, Markey said.
"There's no question that the whole dynamic changes just because the hearings are conducted in a way that reflects respect for the science," he said.
Hurricane relief
In the more immediate future, Congress may have to consider a supplemental package of disaster aid for victims of Michael, which has prompted emergency declarations as far north as Virginia.
In his own CNN appearance yesterday, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) likened Michael's devastation to Hurricane Andrew, the Category 5 storm that struck South Florida in 1992.
"This is going to take a lot of money and a lot of time to sort of rebuild, and obviously the federal government is going to have to be a big part of it," Rubio said, who added that he planned to visit Federal Emergency Management Agency headquarters before flying to northwest Florida to view the damage firsthand.
Rebuilding "will be expensive because it will be rebuilt to the new code that we have in Florida post-Andrew, which is costlier, safer, but costlier than some buildings that might have been grandfathered in," he said.
Rubio added that it will be a "multiyear recovery effort," including possibly rebuilding the electric grid around Panama City.
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said he was awaiting word on Michael's impact on his state, which is still recovering from last month's Hurricane Florence. "I'm more worried about power outages," he told E&E News yesterday afternoon. "Just the wind and the trees."
House Appropriations Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) said in a statement yesterday that FEMA "has sufficient funds for immediate disaster response" but that his panel would be prepared to put together additional money quickly.
Senate Appropriations Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), meanwhile, said he had not heard from the White House or FEMA on any funding needs associated with the storm.
But he raised the possibility of packaging disaster relief with the remaining appropriations measures in the lame-duck session. That could attract enough votes for a potentially controversial package that could also include money for Trump's border wall.
"They seem to be on top of things, but they'll probably need more money down the road," Shelby said of FEMA. "The Carolinas are getting hit again, which is a double whammy."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/10/12/stories/1060102385
-
U.S. Asks Supreme Court to Stop Teenagers’ Climate Change Suit
Oct 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Greg Stohr
President Donald Trump’s administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court stop a novel and sweeping lawsuit pressed by children and teenagers seeking to force the federal government to take steps against climate change.
The emergency filing on Oct. 18 aims to head off a trial that’s set to start Oct. 29 in federal court in Oregon. It’s the administration’s second attempt to have the nation’s highest court intervene in the case.
Although the Supreme Court rejected the first request in July as premature, the justices hinted at skepticism about the lawsuit, saying its breadth was “striking.” Since that order was issued, the Senate has confirmed Justice Brett Kavanaugh to succeed the retired Justice Anthony Kennedy.
The Trump administration on Oct. 12 also asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to step in and stop the trial. The appeals court hasn’t yet ruled on the motion—though they declined a similar government request to kill the case in March.
The group of mostly teenagers says U.S. government policies have exacerbated global warming in violation of their constitutional rights and those of future generations. They want the government to put in place a plan to phase out carbon emissions and stabilize the Earth’s climate. A federal judge in Eugene, Ore., on Oct. 15 said the case could proceed to trial, though she dismissed Trump as a defendant.
The Trump team inherited the case from the Obama administration, which had similarly tried to have it thrown out.
—With assistance from Abby Smith (Bloomberg Environment)
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/us-asks-supreme-court-to-stop-teenagers-climate-change-suit
-
How Can Half a Degree of Warming Matter so Much?
Oct 18, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Ilissa Ocko
Highlights
· Half a degree Celsius is just an average; some regions of the world will experience a lot more.
· We already know what 1°C warming can do. More warming will exacerbate catastrophic weather events like the Atlantic hurricanes we've seen in recent years.
· Challenges for people and ecosystems will accumulate if we go from 1 °C to 1.5 °C – and then on to 2 °C – since each half degree adds to the overall impact.
Half a degree: It's barely detectable on the thermometer outside your window. And yet, a new global report says each increase of half a degree of warming will deal huge incremental blows to life on Earth as we know it.
How can such a seemingly tiny change in average temperatures have such dramatic impacts? Here's how.
Not all warming is created equal
Earth has already warmed by 1 degree Celsius, or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, above 19th-century global average temperatures, and we're on our way toward 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) by as early as 2030. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in its recent reportthat we'll face significant less risk if we halt this trajectory and keep temperatures from reaching 2 °C (3.6 °F).
But the global average temperature is just that – an average. There are parts of the world that will warm less, and some that will warm far more.
In a 2 °C world, land can be two to three times warmer than the global average, and the Arctic may be up to four times warmer at 8 °C (14 °F).
In parts of Southern Africa, for example, temperatures are already reaching the 2 °C mark to double the average global increase so far, research shows. The region is looking at 40-day stretches of extreme hot spells unless the world keeps overall warming below 1.5 °C.
At the same time, the hottest days are getting hotter as overall warming leads to higher extreme temperatures. There were record heatwaves on all four continents this summer as temperatures soared far past normal averages in places like Japan and Sweden.
The seemingly modest change of a half degree, in other words, is really not that modest at all.Already observed changes are a clue
We don't need models to tell us that future warming will have dire consequences – we've already seen what 1° C can do.
In just the past few decades, rising temperatures have worsenedextreme weather events, chunks of ice have broken apart, wildfire seasons are months longer, coral reefs are bleached of their colors, islands have been swallowed by sea level rise, and disease-carrying mosquitoes are spreading to new places. Even sports like hockey and skiing have suffered.
Scientists have established how just 1° C of warming so far triggered these changes. So it's unsurprising that another half a degree, or full degree, will worsen and add to these impacts.A chain of cause and effect triggers impacts
There are many ways that increased temperatures can affect the world around us – it's a cascading chain of cause and effect that ultimately lead to dramatic impacts.
A warmer world, even at just half a degree Celsius, has more evaporation and thus more water in the atmosphere. Unevenly distributed temperature changes, meanwhile, affect air flow patterns.
Envision a cotton farm in North Carolina that has been around since 1960, with global average temperatures steadily rising by more than half a degree since it grew its first crop. This change has increased evaporation and added moisture to the atmosphere, which for southeastern United States has translated into 30 percent more rain during heavy downpours.
When a hurricane like Florence – already empowered by warmer oceans and higher seas – comes to town and dumps this excess rainfall over the cotton farm, its crops get more flooded and damaged than they did half a century ago. It's how you go from half a degree of warming to economic hardship.
The more extreme weather events we're seeing now – such as higher storm surges from sea level rise and exacerbated drought conditions from dried-out soil – affects society in countless ways.
In fact, an additional half a degree of warming from 1.5° C to 2 °C may cause 10 million more people to be at risk from sea level rise, several hundred million more people to be susceptible to poverty, and a 50-percent increase in the population exposed to water stress. It may double the population exposed to severe heat and cause an additional annual loss of 1.5 million tonnes of global fisheries catch.
However, neither of these warming levels are magic thresholds. Every incremental increase in warming is worse for the planet than the last.
Nor are they inevitable. The IPCC report makes it clear: It's not too late to save the world as long as we act today. With your help we can do this.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2018/10/18/how-can-half-degree-warming-matter-so-much
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested