Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) 14 Ways to Curb Food Waste at Home
Jul 6, 2015 | Paste Magazine
By Sara Bir
It’s all over the news: the massive volume of unspoiled, perfectly edible food that developed nations throw away. -
Lawmakers Send Chemical Safety Bill to Governor
Jul 6, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Oregon lawmakers, in a bipartisan vote, have sent a bill to require companies to report potentially hazardous chemicals to Gov. Kate Brown (D) for her signature. -
Appropriators Criticize EPA's Pending Draft Formaldehyde Risk Assessment
Jul 6, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
House and Senate appropriators are highlighting EPA's pending human health risk assessment of formaldehyde to reiterate long-standing concerns about the agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), calling in fiscal year 2016 appropriations bill report language for increased scrutiny of a controversial study underpinning the assessment. -
Wisconsin Bans Microbeads in Products
Jul 6, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Wisconsin has signed into law a ban on the manufacture and sale of personal care products and over-the-counter drugs containing synthetic plastic microbeads (WI Act 43). -
How Government, Business and Labor Can Better Protect Workers
Jul 6, 2015 | The Center for Public Integrity
By Jamie Smith Hopkins and Maryam Jameel
The country’s safeguards against toxic workplace exposures are dangerously weak, but they don’t have to stay that way. -
Fire at Texas Plant Burns for Hours
Jul 6, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
A chemical plant caught fire Saturday night in Waller County, Texas, northwest of Houston, prompting authorities to order nearby residents to remain indoors for hours as firefighters battled the blaze. -
EPA Sends Model Federal Plan for Carbon Rule to OMB
Jul 6, 2015 | Politico (Morning Energy)
In a sign that the administration is inching closer to releasing its Clean Power Plan, EPA on Thursday sent its proposed federal implementation plan for its power plant carbon rules to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review. -
24 States Late in Addressing Interstate Ozone -- EPA
Jul 6, 2015 | E&E PM
By Amanda Peterka
Twenty-four states have failed to submit required Clean Air Act plans spelling out how they will prevent air pollution from crossing state lines, U.S. EPA has found. -
OMB Begins Review Of Proposed ESPS Federal Plan
Jul 6, 2015 | InsideEPA
The White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) has started its formal review of EPA's proposed federal implementation plan (FIP) for states that do not submit a satisfactory compliance plan for the agency's forthcoming final greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants. -
Supreme Court Mercury Ruling Fuels EPA 'Regulatory Overreach' Claims, Including for Carbon Rules
Jul 6, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
U.S. EPA chief Gina McCarthy heads to Capitol Hill on Thursday to get grilled by Republicans on the House Science Committee about the agency's "regulatory overreach," following a Supreme Court decision last week that EPA's mercury rules for power plants should have considered industry costs. -
EPA Budget Faces Scrutiny from House Republicans; Tax Break Talk for Renewable Energy Industry
Jul 6, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Steven Overly
The House Committee on Appropriations is expected to revive and complete its debate of the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget this week. -
Moms, Kids to Hold Capitol 'Play-In' On Climate Change
Jul 6, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Tim Devaney
A group of concerned mothers and their children will descend on Capitol Hill on Tuesday to rally for stronger protections from climate change. -
Juan Williams: A Rising Tide for Dems on Green Issues
Jul 6, 2015 | The Hill - Opinion
By Juan Williams
If you think the most politically powerful decision out of the Supreme Court in recent weeks was on gay marriage or ObamaCare, think again. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Shippers Seek Tank Car Rule Exemption
Jul 6, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
...In an appeal filed by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the industry group says the rule’s tank car requirements should apply only to shipments of flammable liquids that “pose the highest risk,” namely crude oil and ethanol....
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
(ACC Mentioned) 14 Ways to Curb Food Waste at Home
Jul 6, 2015 | Paste Magazine
By Sara Bir
It’s all over the news: the massive volume of unspoiled, perfectly edible food that developed nations throw away. Restaurants and grocery stores are trying to turn the tide of this waste, both by utilizing product that would otherwise be pitched and by implementing more efficient systems of inventory and product turnover.
But it’s waste at the consumer level that accounts for the lion’s share of otherwise-edible landfill fodder: up to 20 percent of American landfills are composed of food waste, in fact, according to the EPA. If you want to see who’s to blame, go look in the mirror. (This includes me, who yesterday pitched a quarter of a giant but not very tasty Dairy Queen ice cream cake. Guilty as charged!) A recent study by the American Chemistry Council concluded that the average American household throws away $640 worth of food a year.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t feel great about throwing away ice cream cake, and I’d love to keep that $640 a year. Here are some ways we can reduce food waste in our own homes.
Give yourself a clean start
Ironically, throwing out food may be the first step to avoiding future food waste. Go through your fridge and toss out or give away anything you know you won’t eat—either because it’s fuzzy with mold, or because you bought it for a recipe you’ll never make again. That way you’ll have more room for the food you want to eat, making it more prominent and easily accessible.Plan meals out in advance
Easy to say, hard to do. But you don’t need to map out an entire month of menus. Instead, sit down when you make a grocery list and start by writing down three or four dinners you intend to make that week. Think about the ingredients you already have, plus the foods you’ll need to buy, and then craft your list accordingly.Use the freezer
Leftover soups, sauces, and even a lot of cooked vegetables freeze wonderfully. Your freezer is like a bank. Instead of letting the leftover stew you are tired of seeing get funky and over the edge, freeze it while it’s still good.And then remember to eat what you’ve frozen
That freezer bank needs withdrawals, not just deposits. Try to schedule those frozen foods as meals ahead of time—that way you’ll be able to pull out the package in the morning and let it thaw, instead of smacking your head after getting home from work, exclaiming,”d’oh!”Understand that a sell-by date is not an expiration date
No one wants to get sick from consuming rotten food, and that very reasonable fear propels many people to toss out food once it passes the sell-by date on its container. But milk and eggs do not instantly transform to poisonous time bombs the second they cross over the sell-by date on their cartons. When in doubt, use your nose, eyes, and—yes—mouth to determine if food’s gone bad. This chart might help, too. And keep in mind: far more people get sick from eating food contaminated at a foodservice or commercial level than food that spoiled at home.Make leftovers visible
Clear storage containers, either glass or plastic, are a lot harder to look over than an opaque re-used tub of yogurt—like the one I have in my fridge right now, full of perfectly good bean salad that I keep on forgetting to eat because I keep on thinking it’s full of yogurt. If you have leftovers that are more perishable than others, store them strategically in the front of the fridge.Think of leftovers as culinary gold
Leftovers are starter kits for your next meal. It’s food you’ve already paid for, and it’s halfway prepared. Any good restaurant kitchen uses this principle for creative specials or popular menu staples—leftover baked potatoes become stuffed potato skins, for example. Some home cooks have a flair for re-imagining leftovers and some don’t, so if you are in the latter camp, don’t freak out. But also, don’t discount the world’s most trusty user-upper of leftovers: hash.Be savvy when storing food
It helps to know the best ways to store food items. For instance, bananas ripen much faster when they are kept in close proximity to apples—it’s because of the ethylene gas the apples give off—so unless you looove to bake banana bread, store those fruits fairly far apart. Avocados and tomatoes, meanwhile, are totally okay to pop in the fridge once they’re ripe, despite the long-held myth that both will suffer texturally if not kept at room temperature. So when your fresh tomatoes or avocados are getting on the softer side, you can tease a few more days out of them by putting them in the refrigerator.Looking for more tips? There’s a free app for that.
Seek out recipes with smaller yields
Maybe you, or people you live with and cook for, don’t like leftovers. If that’s the case, a baked bean recipe that calls for four cans of beans is not the best fit for a household of two. Look for recipes that don’t make as many servings, or, if some of your favorite recipes make massive amounts, experiment and see if you can successfully halve it.Keep your good intentions in check
Sad, slimy cooking greens seem to be a big culprit in home food waste. The idea of cooking them for a healthful dinner seemed so noble a week ago, but somehow you never got around to it (I speak from experience here). Buy the food you know you’ll cook, and if you are trying out a new food item you’ve been curious about, purchase smaller quantities.Don’t get carried away at big box stores
Look, an entire side of salmon! A five-pound block of aged cheddar! A giant carton of baby spinach, all for such a seemingly reasonable price! There’s a bit of a mania that can set in once you set foot in a Costco or Sam’s Club, but think twice before you put fresh meat, produce, or anything with a shorter shelf life in that giant cart: how quickly will you realistically go through this?More is not necessarily better
Maybe a perishable item is on sale, or maybe there’s a package that includes 33% more for free. If you are not going to be able to use it before it goes off, there’s no point in bringing it home just so you can pitch half of it. Sometimes the unit cost of smaller packages is higher, but you’ll still come out saving money most of the time once the amount you truly utilize is taken into account.Order half-portions at restaurants
Ah, the glory of restaurant leftovers in a take-home box. It’s lunch or dinner for the next day or two, right? But sometimes it’s just not as good reheated as it was in the restaurant. If you visit a spot that has gigantic portions you know you can’t finish, see if that dish is available as a half-order. That way you won’t feel terrible for tossing the contents of a grease-spattered Styrofoam clamshell into the garbage the following week. And as for me, next time ask at Dairy Queen if the ice cream cake comes in a smaller size—if not, I’ll just nab a few pints of gelato and call it a day.Be okay with taking small steps
Don’t put a guilt trip on yourself for throwing food away. It happens. Meaningful changes in our shopping, cooking, and eating habits happen gradually, one step at a time. With some foresight and a little luck, next year hopefully we’ll all be pocketing some of that $640, not pitching it. -
Lawmakers Send Chemical Safety Bill to Governor
Jul 6, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
Oregon lawmakers, in a bipartisan vote, have sent a bill to require companies to report potentially hazardous chemicals to Gov. Kate Brown (D) for her signature.
The bill, S.B. 478, cleared the Oregon House of Representatives on Friday by a vote of 43-17.
The legislation would require manufacturers and importers of children's products to report 66 "high priority chemicals of concern," such as formaldehyde, arsenic and mercury, to the Oregon Health Authority or the Interstate Chemicals Clearinghouse.
Once these chemicals were reported, companies would be required to remove them from certain products within eight years.
The legislation echoes a similar Washington state law approved in 2009. In two previous sessions, Oregon lawmakers had tried and failed to pass the proposal.
Lawmakers said Friday that the bill would help parents avoid exposure to harmful chemicals, some of which have been linked to health problems and developmental disabilities. Opponents, though, said the issue of chemical regulation should be handled at the federal level and noted that Congress is in the process of considering changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, the federal law regulating chemicals in commerce.
"The science is not 100 percent conclusive, but I think the overwhelming amount [of evidence] is there," said state Rep. Knute Buehler (R), who was one of eight Republicans to support the plan.
State Rep. Jim Weidner (R) countered that Oregon should allow others to tackle the problem instead.
"We're such a small player, it's not going to make these markets change," Weidner said (Ian Kullgren, Portland Oregonian, July 3). -- SP
-
Appropriators Criticize EPA's Pending Draft Formaldehyde Risk Assessment
Jul 6, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
House and Senate appropriators are highlighting EPA's pending human health risk assessment of formaldehyde to reiterate long-standing concerns about the agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), calling in fiscal year 2016 appropriations bill report language for increased scrutiny of a controversial study underpinning the assessment.
In its recent update to its public schedule for its IRIS assessments, EPA indicated that its long-running assessment of formaldehyde is in step 4a, where staff is preparing the draft assessment for public release, peer review and comment. But the schedule did not provide a date for release of this draft -- merely stating that staff is addressing the recommendations in 2011 from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) regarding EPA's earlier draft of the assessment.
But both the House and Senate non-binding report language accompanying the FY16 bills suggest that a public draft may be released next fiscal year, saying, "The [NAS] has acknowledged that reproducibility of research results is fundamental to the scientific process. The Committee understands that EPA is likely to include the findings of the Zhang et al (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; Jan; 19(1):80--88) study for scientifically significant decisions in fiscal year 2016. The study, however, has drawn criticisms about its methods and interpretations."
EPA in its last public draft IRIS assessment relied on the Zhang study, so-known because its lead author is University of California Berkeley research professor Luoping Zhang, to decide that formaldehyde was a leukemogen. The study was also among the reasons that members of an International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) committee voted in 2009 that there is "sufficient evidence" to find there is a causal association of formaldehyde with leukemia in humans.
The unique study of 25 Chinese industrial workers exposed to formaldehyde on the job, however, has raised concerns from industry groups and others who questioned Zhang's findings. The study found key changes in the blood of some exposed to formaldehyde at work.
Critics argue that the epidemiological case for formaldehyde causing systemic cancers like various types of leukemia is weak. Industry and others generally base this argument on a 2003 study of some 14,000 British industrial workers, which does not show risks for various leukemia types.
In addition, they argue, there is no reasonable mechanistic explanation for how formaldehyde could cause such systemic diseases, and they have pointed to publications from the lab of James Swenberg, a research professor at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. Swenberg and colleagues have performed a series of studies seeking to determine how formaldehyde could cause leukemia, and his studies suggest there is no known mechanism by which this could occur.
Formaldehyde Monograph
But the Zhang study was also used in the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' monograph on formaldehyde in its 2011 Report on Carcinogens.
A separate 2014 NAS report reviewing the formaldehyde monograph found there is "largely consistent and strong" evidence supporting a genotoxic and mutagenic biological mechanism for myeloid leukemia, a conclusion that seemed contradictory to that of the 2011 NAS committee critically reviewing the IRIS assessment. Such an endorsement could support an EPA decision to use a conservative linear cancer modeling approach, which assumes that there is no safe level of exposure to the chemical, and it has spurred further research and analysis from industry-sponsored scientists.
Thus, the House report calls it "crucial" to validate the Zhang study's findings, and the Senate report says it is "important" to do so.
But the House, in an unusual move, calls for further action from EPA on the Zhang study, directing the agency to "develop a peer-reviewed protocol to replicate the scientific findings of this study. Following development of the protocol, the Agency is directed to issue a request for proposals and award a contract to conduct this replication study. Further, EPA is directed to incorporate the results of the replication study into any draft or final scientific assessments prior to making such assessments publicly available."
An EPA spokeswoman did not return a request for comment on the report language by press time.
The request is not the first time that someone has suggested replicating the unique Zhang study. When EPA's IRIS program hosted a workshop last year on formaldehyde, more than one researcher called for an attempt to replicate the Zhang study -- but without directing EPA to do it. Several speakers at the April 2014 meeting described the Zhang study as revolutionary, saying it changed their views on whether formaldehyde causes leukemias or just the rare -- and less risky -- nasal cancers seen in lab animal studies.
"The Zhang study was a game-changer," said Leslie Stayner, an epidemiology professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Calling it "such a small, simple study," he said that "it needs to be replicated."
He was joined in that opinion by Bernard Goldstein, a professor emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh, who said before the publication of the Zhang study that he thought the epidemiology studies provided weak evidence of formaldehyde exposure causing leukemia. He said having read the Zhang study, he now believes that formaldehyde is probably a leukemogen.
Jim Collins, an epidemiologist with Dow Chemical Company, called the formaldehyde epidemiology studies "not convincing" that formaldehyde is causing leukemeias. "Why don't you replicate the Zhang study?" he asked rhetorically. "Until we do, we'll keep arguing forever."
Report Language
The Senate report addresses its concerns with a different approach, directing EPA "to ensure that the Science Advisory Board Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee [SAB CAAC] specifically addresses the strengths and limitations of the Zhang et al. study during their peer review and takes this evaluation into account in their review of the total body of evidence for the carcinogenicity of formaldehyde."
EPA in its schedule update indicated that its new SAB CAAC would peer review the draft assessment of formaldehyde. The advisory committee was created after NAS' critical 2011 review of the last draft IRIS assessment of formaldehyde's human health risks. The report included a now-famous extra chapter outlining recommendations intended to improve all IRIS assessments, not just formaldehyde.
The Senate report refers to this set of recommendations, found in Chapter 7 of the 2011 NAS formaldehyde report. "The Committee appreciates the work of the Agency to implement the 2011 [NAS's] Chapter 7 recommendations for the [IRIS], but is concerned that the recommendations have not been fully implemented," the Senate report states. "In an effort to ensure that the IRIS program uses the best available science, the Committee encourages the Agency to implement the Chapter 7 recommendations as soon as possible."
The report provides specific elements of concern, relating to "transparent frameworks for problem formulation; processes for study selection, particularly data quality and relevance; use of a robust weight of the evidence process for applying scientific findings; and, apparent continued reliance on default linear modeling approaches to hazard determinations."
The last is a reference to EPA's default use of conservative linear approaches to model cancer potency, a science policy choice the agency makes in assessments where the chemical at issue has a mutagenic or unknown mode of action, meaning how the chemical causes cancer.
-
Wisconsin Bans Microbeads in Products
Jul 6, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Wisconsin has signed into law a ban on the manufacture and sale of personal care products and over-the-counter drugs containing synthetic plastic microbeads (WI Act 43).
The law's passage comes as several US states contemplate and pass similar legislation, following Illinois' July 2014 decision to phase out their use (CW 1 April 2015).
Microbeads, defined by the statute as “any intentionally added non-biodegradable, solid plastic particle measuring less than five millimetres at its largest dimension,” are added to such products as toothpaste and face wash, and can end up in waterways.
Under Act 43, personal care product manufacturers must halt the production of microbead-containing products by 2018, and can no longer offer them for sale from 2019. Over-the-counter drugs have an extra year to comply.
Director of government relations at environmental NGO Clean Wisconsin, Amber Meyer Smith, said: "given the potential danger microbeads represent, and the cost-effective replacements for these plastic particles, it's crucial we do all we can to get [them] out of our products and our waters."
The NGO notes that the estimated 10,000lbs of microbeads that are released into the Wisconsin water system each year accumulate in the environment and can biomagnify when they are mistaken as food by fish.
Efforts to ban microbeads are also being supported by the cosmetics industry (CW 6 May 2015).
-
How Government, Business and Labor Can Better Protect Workers
Jul 6, 2015 | The Center for Public Integrity
By Jamie Smith Hopkins and Maryam Jameel
The country’s safeguards against toxic workplace exposures are dangerously weak, but they don’t have to stay that way.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration takes years,sometimes decades, to develop rules for individual chemicals and other hazardous substances. That’s why most of the agency’s exposure limits haven’t been updated since 1971, and why the vast majority of chemicals have no workplace limits at all. It’s part of the reason that an estimated 50,000 Americans die from job-related illnesses each year.
Sweeping changes would require action from Congress, given how courts have interpreted what OSHA must do to set chemical limits. The agency could wait a long time for such assistance — Congress sometimes intervenes to make the process even harder.
But OSHA, employers and worker advocates can make strides against workplace disease and death right now. Here are some of the ways:
Approach health standards differently
OSHA sets exposure limits one chemical at a time, each with a long-slog rulemaking. As a result, it’s a rare substance that has an up-to-date limit in the U.S., and setting one can trigger “regulatory Whac-a-Mole,” as OSHA chief David Michaels puts it, with some companies turning to substitutes that have no legal threshold.
OSHA already tried updating many standards all at once, in 1989. A federal court ruled three years later that the abbreviated analyses the agency did weren’t sufficient.
But nothing’s stopping OSHA from regulating an entire industrial process, said Adam M. Finkel, who directed the agency’s health standards programs from 1995 to 2000. By setting standards for operations such as welding or dry cleaning, OSHA could reduce exposures for a variety of substitutes an employer might use, he said.
He suggested that idea to OSHA in the 1990s, and the agency included it in a list of possibilities released last year in a request for help to fix its bogged-down standard-setting process. Regulating chemicals by characteristic — for instance, the type of hazard — is also on the list.
Another thought kicked around over the years: Avoiding long fights by getting industry and labor on the same page. Finkel said he asked representatives from both sides in the mid-1990s whether they’d agree to live with the result if they helped set the ground rules. (Answer: Nope. But he thinks it could work if OSHA championed it.) When the American Industrial Hygiene Association got industry and labor groups to the table not long after, participants talked about asking for an OSHA advisory committee — with members drawn from both sides — that would hammer out recommendations for exposure limits in at least some cases.
“You could start with the noncontroversial ones and you’d build confidence in the process,” said Frank White, a senior official at OSHA in the 1980s.
Basing standards on what outside parties can agree on could run afoul of OSHA’s requirement to protect workers from significant risks with the lowest feasible exposure limits. Finkel, now at the University of Pennsylvania, sees a workaround: Make such agreements “enforceable partnerships” instead of standards and hold signers accountable.
There’s also the tack the United Steelworkers and beryllium producer Materion tried for that metal, which can trigger a potentially fatal lung disease. The two sides developed a recommended standard for the substance in hopes of speeding up OSHA’s efforts to enact its own rule. (The agency sent a proposal to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget for vetting last September. It’s still in review.)
Work together
Why wait for a rule? The asphalt industry offers a model for cooperating to protect workers in the absence of specific requirements.
As concern heightened that asphalt fumes might cause cancer, OSHA proposed a standard in 1992. Nothing has come of that. But industry and labor representatives helped fill the gap even though they didn’t see eye-to-eye on the science.
It started with an idea in the 1990s from the National Asphalt Pavement Association: Why not adjust the paving equipment? To introduce a system that could protect workers and be widely adopted, trade group members decided to cooperate with labor and government. Soon, they were meeting regularly to develop paver ventilation systems that would keep fumes away from workers.
“There needed to be a paradigm shift,” said Mike Acott, president of NAPA, which represents asphalt producers, paving contractors and equipment manufacturers. “I would go to meetings, and it just seemed like we all wanted roughly the same thing.”
Dr. Jim Melius, director of research for the Laborers’ Health and Safety Fund of North America, was involved from the start. “The usual approach would be that we would go complain to NIOSH” — the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health — “and OSHA and demand that studies be done, and industry would fight that,” he said. “But we thought we could work together. There were some pretty practical, straightforward solutions that could be applied.”
Manufacturers designed engineering controls that NIOSH tested, and by the mid-2000s, virtually all U.S. pavers had such technology to keep fume exposures below recommended levels.
The partnership opened the door to larger, industry-changing collaborations. Among them: development of lower-temperature asphalt mix that’s safer — and cheaper, too.
Use less-toxic chemicals
Workers wouldn’t need so many protections from chemicals, toxicologists say, if the U.S. had a good system for policing what’s safe for use. OSHA standards are the equivalent of chasing horses around the field after a massive barn escape.
“Chemicals need to be tested and they need to be monitored before they enter the market,” said Julia Quint, a toxicologist who ran California’s Hazard Evaluation System and Information Service before retiring in 2007. “Once they enter the market, it’s very hard to control them. … Consumers, workers, some small employers and others assume that they’re OK, why would they be on the market if they’re not OK … and then all of a sudden, it’s like, ‘Oh, no, it causes cancer.’”
Reforming the system is a big fight, as the battle over the federal Toxic Substances Control Act illustrates. So what can companies do now? OSHA has a guide for firms (and workers) looking for safer alternatives to the chemicals they use, often dubbed “green chemistry.”
Pick up the pace
Even if new methods for setting health standards catch on, OSHA probably will need to address certain substances one by one. Doing so more expediently is critical.
The court decisions that require substantial analyses before OSHA can propose health rules were largely handed down in the 1980s. The last major one that spoke to the issue came out in 1992. And yet the agency managed to enact 11 health standards that decade. In the decade and a half since then? Just four, only one of which involves chemical exposure limits. Some of the delays, say former agency officials, are OSHA’s to control.
Educate workers
People who know what’s unsafe can avoid hazards and advocate for their own health. That’s why New Jersey worker-rights center New Labor recruited a group of day laborers in Newark to become “safety liaisons” in 2009. The workers trained in occupational safety practices and laws, then built up the courage to demand safe working conditions despite their concerns that speaking out might cause trouble for them.
Safety liaison Selvin Trejo joined the program four years ago, shortly after emigrating from Honduras and starting work in construction. “You begin to learn that you have rights in this country like anyone else,” he said. “That we have a right to dignified work and a dignified salary, and a job that’s free of hazards.”
The liaisons teach monthly safety classes and go to day-labor hiring spots in the mornings to help educate workers on their rights. Liaisons tell their employers and co-workers about the protections they need, sometimes reporting job sites to OSHA or refusing to work when a boss won’t fix hazards. They say they’ve seen results.
“We are the eyes and ears of our own circumstances,” said New Labor Executive Director Lou Kimmel. “So we should monitor them, knowing that OSHA can’t always be there for us.”
-
Fire at Texas Plant Burns for Hours
Jul 6, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
A chemical plant caught fire Saturday night in Waller County, Texas, northwest of Houston, prompting authorities to order nearby residents to remain indoors for hours as firefighters battled the blaze.
Twelve fire departments responded to the fire at the Flowchem Technologies LLC facility in Brookshire, Texas, authorities said. No one was injured during the fire, and no workers were at the plant at the time.
The fire at the facility, which makes chemicals to streamline the flow of oil and other liquids through pipelines, was reported at 9:15 p.m. CDT Saturday. Residents were allowed to leave their homes at 2 a.m. CDT yesterday.
Waller County Judge Trey Duhon, who was at the scene, said there were no air quality issues as the fire did not reach an area of the plant that stored flammable alcohol-based chemicals and soybean oil.
Authorities have not determined the cause of the fire (Sebastian Herrera, Houston Chronicle, July 5). -- SP
-
EPA Sends Model Federal Plan for Carbon Rule to OMB
Jul 6, 2015 | Politico (Morning Energy)
In a sign that the administration is inching closer to releasing its Clean Power Plan, EPA on Thursday sent its proposed federal implementation plan for its power plant carbon rules to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review. The FIP will serve as another model for states to consider when building their own plan — but it also offers states that refuse to take action a glimpse of what EPA may impose if they don’t play along. Though EPA would have to tailor individual FIPs for each state that doesn’t comply, the model FIP will give an idea of precisely what actions EPA is willing to take. At stake could be significant amounts of money; observers expect EPA’s model plan won’t be as flexible or expansive as options left up to states that cooperate, such as joining a regional effort. The administration projects it will release the proposed rule next month, around the time it is slated to finalize the carbon rules themselves. A final model FIP would come in August 2016. Each state will have one to three years to submit their implantation plans, though expected legal challenges may put the rule on ice for some time.
-
24 States Late in Addressing Interstate Ozone -- EPA
Jul 6, 2015 | E&E PM
By Amanda Peterka
Twenty-four states have failed to submit required Clean Air Act plans spelling out how they will prevent air pollution from crossing state lines, U.S. EPA has found.
Under the Clean Air Act, the states were required to submit the plans by March 2011 showing how they will address air pollution stemming from within their borders that affects other states' ability to comply with the 2008 national ambient air quality standard for ozone.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy signed the final rule yesterday. It will become effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
The failure to submit plans violates the Clean Air Act's "good neighbor" provisions. EPA's final action triggers a two-year deadline for the states to have approved infrastructure state implementation plans, or SIPs; in the absence of those plans, EPA must write federal plans to address interstate air pollution.
The states failing to submit required plans are: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia and West Virginia.
The final action stems from a lawsuit brought by the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians, in which the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California told EPA to find that the states had not submitted the required plans by June 30.
Advertisement
EPA acknowledged that many of the states would have submitted plans "were it not for the uncertainty" surrounding litigation over the agency's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and reconsideration of the 2008 ozone standard.
"The EPA is committed to working with these states to expedite the development and submission of their good neighbor SIPs in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act," the agency said in a fact sheet.
-
OMB Begins Review Of Proposed ESPS Federal Plan
Jul 6, 2015 | InsideEPA
The White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) has started its formal review of EPA's proposed federal implementation plan (FIP) for states that do not submit a satisfactory compliance plan for the agency's forthcoming final greenhouse gas (GHG) rule for existing power plants.
OMB officially received the proposed FIP on June 2, according to the office's website. The proposed rule will be important because it will signal what requirements EPA believes it can impose on states that refuse to comply with the existing source performance standards (ESPS), though many say states have significantly more flexibility using their own authorities compared to the federal agency.
Still, the agency says it hopes the proposal can also act as a model rule for states seeking guidance on how to craft their own compliance plans.
EPA is aiming for an August release of the proposed FIP, around the same time it finalizes the ESPS and a companion GHG rule for new and modified power plants.
The agency has been hearing several suggestions for how it should write the proposed federal plan, with environmentalists and others urging EPA to include provisions in the proposed FIP that would allow for informal emissions trading arrangements between states that have mass-based GHG targets and a limited set of common elements in their plans.
EPA has also created a formal Small Business Advocacy Review panel to assess the proposal's impacts on small entities, though power sector officials are mixed on whether the proposal will provide adequate flexibilities.
One rural power official earlier said “I could make a pretty good guess” that EPA would not address the small business concerns because it is so focused on the deadlines and requirements in the rule. But a public power source is optimistic, saying “I'm hopeful that there will be something meaningful in it.”
OMB reviews of rules typically take 90 days, though they can be shorter or much longer in some cases. One source said earlier that the fact that the proposed FIP was sent to OMB several weeks after the draft final ESPSdoes not mean the FIP rulemaking is delayed. Because many of the issues in the two rules overlap, some issues in the FIP were likely being discussed in the ongoing interagency review of the ESPS.
-
Supreme Court Mercury Ruling Fuels EPA 'Regulatory Overreach' Claims, Including for Carbon Rules
Jul 6, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
U.S. EPA chief Gina McCarthy heads to Capitol Hill on Thursday to get grilled by Republicans on the House Science Committee about the agency's "regulatory overreach," following a Supreme Court decision last week that EPA's mercury rules for power plants should have considered industry costs.
As E&E Publishing has reported, the court decision will have little effect on coal companies or electric utilities, most of which have already complied with the regulation. EPA air chief Janet McCabe insisted the ruling also won't change plans for the agency's carbon regulations. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the decision vindicates his advice for states to "just say no" to the Clean Power Plan until legal disputes are settled (E&ENews PM, June 29).
The House Science hearing also comes on the heels of a new lawsuit against the Clean Power Plan, filed by Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) in federal court in Tulsa.
Go to E&E's Power Plan Hub to read more and to see the latest national and state news and Clean Power Plan resources.
-
EPA Budget Faces Scrutiny from House Republicans; Tax Break Talk for Renewable Energy Industry
Jul 6, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Steven Overly
The House Committee on Appropriations is expected to revive and complete its debate of the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget this week. Those conversations began before the July 4 holiday and a series of amendments have already been considered. As anticipated, House Republicans plan to use the budget to restrict the agency’s ability to implement regulations championed by the Obama administration.National Journal reports that the House budget would cut $718 million from the EPA’s coffers for next fiscal year and block regulations related to power plant emissions, clean water and endangered species.
Sign up for The Daily 202, The Washington Post’s new political tipsheet
MORE GREEN FOR GREEN ENERGY. Trade groups representing the solar and wind industries are continuing their push to extend tax breaks for renewable energy beyond the 2017 expiration date. The Financial Times writes they may have a new argument: The declining price of natural gas makes it more difficult for eco-conscious energy sources to compete. The cost of harvesting energy from solar and wind has come down considerably in recent years, making it a more viable option for homes, businesses and municipalities. Industry reps contend further tax breaks are needed for the momentum to continue.
RISING TEMPERATURES, RISING PRESSURE. Efforts to curtail global carbon emissions will not do enough to slow the negative effects of climate change, The Hill reports. The International Energy Agency predicts global temperatures will rise 2.6 degrees Celsius by the year 2100. What’s more, Bloomberg New Energy Finance states carbon emissions will actually climb 13 percent by the year 2040. Those statistics could color conversations at a global conference on climate change slated to take place in Paris this December. “What we really need, more than anything else, out of Paris, is that clear, credible, consistent policy signal to the markets that governments around the world are serious,” Earthjustice staff attorney Erika Rosenthal told The Hill.
Read more PowerPostSteven Overly is a national reporter covering federal technology and energy policy with a focus on Capitol Hill. He previously covered the business of technology, biotechnology and venture capital.
-
Moms, Kids to Hold Capitol 'Play-In' On Climate Change
Jul 6, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Tim Devaney
A group of concerned mothers and their children will descend on Capitol Hill on Tuesday to rally for stronger protections from climate change.
Moms Clean Air Force is organizing a “play-in” for climate action near the Capitol building, where they will draw attention to upcoming methane regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency.
The group promises “fun activities for kids” at the rally.
“This family-friendly protest against the air pollution that causes dangerous climate change will showcase exactly what’s at stake as temperatures and sea levels rise: our kids,” the group says.
“Moms know that kids can’t sit still, so we are ditching a traditional sit-in and having our second annual play-in,” it added.
The EPA is preparing to levy new methane regulations once the White House’s Office of Management and Budget signs off on the proposal. The rules could come later this summer.
The mothers are calling for the strongest possible methane regulations to protect against pollution from the oil and gas industry.
The group is concerned about what it says is a rise in methane pollution that can have harmful effects on children’s health, particularly near homes, schools and parks.
In addition to Tuesday's “family-friendly” protest, the group is also sponsoring a new advertising campaign to push for stronger climate protections from methane.
-
Juan Williams: A Rising Tide for Dems on Green Issues
Jul 6, 2015 | The Hill - Opinion
By Juan Williams
If you think the most politically powerful decision out of the Supreme Court in recent weeks was on gay marriage or ObamaCare, think again.
It was the 5-4 win for conservatives when the court rejected Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules limiting pollution from power plants.
An intense fight over the environment is now certain to be a dominant feature of the 2016 presidential race. The fight will be fueled by President Obama’s willingness in his last months in office – during the campaign – to defy the court and risk new EPA restrictions on emission of greenhouse gases to stop global warming.
Big business, backed by small government Republicans, is putting money behind candidates willing to make the case that Obama is putting American companies at a global economic disadvantage while driving up costs for consumers with new pollution restrictions. “The Supreme Court has finally said ‘enough is enough,” said a celebratory Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).
Meanwhile, environmentalists are lining up as major financial supporters for Democrats in 2016. They want a stronger champion in the White House. Obama’s recent approval of oil drilling in the Arctic has led to questions about his commitment to the environment. Some critics feel he dawdled away his first six years while corporations trashed the planet, opening the door to melting icecaps and extreme weather.
During Obama’s two terms, environmentalists have ceased to be a niche political group. A recent Pew poll showed “71 percent of Democrats and independents who lean to the Democratic Party say the earth is warming due to human activity, compared with 27 percent among their Republican counterparts (a difference of 44 percentage points).”
That is a massive difference. It is a Grand Canyon of a political divide, bigger than the split over gay rights, and it is firing up both parties.
Look at the political map: The only moderate-to-conservative Democrats left in the Senate come from states that produce oil, coal and gas from fracking. The very short list includes Montana’s Sen. Jon Tester; North Dakota’s Sen. Heidi Heitkamp and West Virginia’s Sen. Joe Manchin. These Democrats rarely point out the downside of the energy industry because those businesses employ their constituents and are central to economic growth in their states.
Big business punished Democrats in 2014 Senate races even when they kept their mouths shut about the pollution associated with drilling and fracking. Democratic Sens. Mary Landrieu (La.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.) were defeated with advertising that identified them as too close to the liberal crowd in full panic over global warming.
Their defeat has backfired on the energy industry. Strong pro-environment voices among Democrats, such as Sens. Barbara Boxer (Calif.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), now have less opposition inside their caucus. That’s a big deal. Recall that in 2009 the Democrats in control of the House passed major “cap and trade” rules to limit greenhouse gas pollution but opposition from Senate Democrats killed the bill.
The political cost of added regulation also looks minimal after Obama vetoed a Keystone Pipeline bill without any major political backfire.
The Democrats’ base among women, minorities and young people in big cities is gung-ho for new EPA regulations. For example, last year a poll from the University of Texas at Austin found that 68 percent of voters under 35 are more likely to vote for a candidate promising to reduce carbon emissions.
The newly released Pew poll finds: “Seniors (31 percent) are less likely than those under age 30 (60 percent) to say the earth is warming due to human activity, and are less inclined to favor stricter power plant emission limits in order to address climate change. Older adults also express more support for offshore oil drilling, and they are more likely to prioritize fossil fuel development over alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power.”
Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of State who is now the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, is already using the environment to stir voters. In the first big speech of her campaign, she derided Republicans’ refusal to acknowledge climate change: “They’ll say ‘I am not a scientist,’” she said. “Well, then, why don’t they start listening to those who are?”
The Pope will add to this political fire with his visit to Capitol Hill this fall. He issued an encyclical last month asking Catholics, of whom there 69 million in the U.S., not to allow “the excuse of realism and pragmatism” to lessen their concern for the environment.
President Obama embraced the Pope’s words as evidence of the need for the U.S. to acknowledge a “profound responsibility to protect our children, and our children’s children, from the damaging impacts of climate change.”
Republicans running for president rejected the Pope’s view. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said he does not “get economic policy from my bishops or my cardinals or my Pope.” Former Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.) said he prefers “leaving science to the scientists.”
“When we [Catholics] get involved with political and controversial scientific theories, then I think the church is probably not as forceful and credible,” he said.
That’s a winning position in a GOP primary. But with the Pope against you and nearly half the voters saying global warming is a “serious issue,” it is a suicidal stand for a general election candidate.
Good luck with that, GOP.
Juan Williams is an author and political analyst for Fox News Channel.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Shippers Seek Tank Car Rule Exemption
Jul 6, 2015 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
...In an appeal filed by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the industry group says the rule’s tank car requirements should apply only to shipments of flammable liquids that “pose the highest risk,” namely crude oil and ethanol....
Access to full text unavailable -- subscription required.
Story can be found at: http://cen.acs.org/articles/93/i27/Chemical-Shippers-Seek-Tank-Car.html
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested