Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 8/18/2016
-
Law Firm Flags Up Issues in EPA Snur Proposal
Aug 18, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA’s proposed amendments to rules governing significant new use rules (Snurs) raises “significant and complex” issues, according to Bergeson & Campbell. -
International Agencies to Step Up Efforts for Sound Chemicals Management
Aug 18, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Chynoweth
International agencies have stated they will step up joint efforts to promote the sound management of chemicals. They say such activities are a critical component of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development and its goals (SDGs), which were adopted... -
Is Your Lipstick Bad for You?
Aug 17, 2016 | New York Times
By Editorial Board
You can’t legally buy a drug in the United States that hasn’t undergone rigorous testing, mandated by Congress, to prove that it’s safe and effective. By contrast, that lipstick, shampoo, or deodorant you use every day may have undergone no such testing. -
US Air Force to Change Fre Foam Due to Water Contamination
Aug 18, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Jennifer McDermott
The U.S. Air Force is changing the foam it uses to fight fires because of concerns that it has contaminated groundwater and spread to drinking water at some military sites. -
Industry Slams Titanium Dioxide Classification Proposal
Aug 18, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa’s public consultation on France’s proposal to classify titanium dioxide as a category 1B carcinogen has received over 500 comments from industry, trade bodies and individuals. -
How Sunscreen Makers Spoof the SPF System
Aug 18, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By David Andrews
I keep a bottle of Banana Boat Sport SPF 100 on my desk. But I am not convinced it deserves more than a SPF rating of 15, or maybe 30. As a chemist specializing in sunscreen chemicals, I run a sunscreen model that estimates based on the active ingredients in the bottle... -
(ACC Mentioned) Louisiana Floods Set Stage for Insurance Fight
Aug 18, 2016 | Politico - Morning Energy
By Annie Snider
...Sixteen business groups and companies, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Chemistry Council, wrote Wednesday to conferees tasked with merging the House and Senate energy bills to remind the lawmakers of favored provisions... -
DOE LegalVictory Reinforces Carbon Rule — EPA
Aug 18, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A recent federal court decision upholding the Department of Energy's use of a social cost of carbon metric to craft energy efficiency standards is further support for U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, government lawyers said yesterday. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chlorine Emergency at Plant Sparks ‘Shelter in Place' Order
Aug 18, 2016 | Water World
By Sara Jerome
A chlorine emergency at a water treatment plant resulted in a “shelter in place” order for the immediate area last week. -
DOE, DARPA Open Tap for Cybersecurity Funding
Aug 18, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The U.S. government has pledged over $60 million in the past three weeks to jump-start the "next generation" of cybersecurity protection for the North American power grid. -
CSB Touts Facility Inspections, Bolstering Push for New EPA Audit Rules
Aug 18, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) in a new report is touting the benefits of preventive inspections at petroleum refineries to prevent accidents and worker injuries, a finding that bolsters pending efforts by EPA and OSHA to strengthen their facility... -
Enviros Sue over Southeast Gas Pipeline
Aug 18, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A coalition of environmental groups yesterday sued the Obama administration over a natural gas pipeline that would travel more than 500 miles across the Southeast. -
A Peek Inside Bob Inglis' GOP Climate Conversion Strategy
Aug 18, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Bob Inglis, a former member of Congress from South Carolina, is an atypical Republican who spends his days arguing not just for climate action, but for a carbon tax, a dirty phrase in most conservative circles.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Law Firm Flags Up Issues in EPA Snur Proposal
Aug 18, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA’s proposed amendments to rules governing significant new use rules (Snurs) raises “significant and complex” issues, according to Bergeson & Campbell.
In a blog post, the law firm says that the agency’s notice of the proposal “downplays” the changes.
“The minimal discussion provided in the notice, and the lack of adequate public debate having occurred prior to its issuance, raise troubling questions about the legal basis for, scope of, and complexity of the proposed changes, some of which may apply retroactively,” it adds.
The EPA issued the proposed rule last month, under a Federal Register notice entitled "Significant new uses of chemical substances; updates to the hazard communication programme and regulatory framework; minor amendments to reporting requirements for pre-manufacture notices."
In its summary, the agency said that the proposals were intended to align regulations governing significant new uses of substances under TSCA with revisions to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (Osha) hazard communications standard (HCS). It also sought alignment with changes to the Osha respiratory protection standard and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Niosh) respirator certification requirements, relating to respiratory protection of workers from exposure to chemicals.
It said in the notice that it would further address issues raised by public commenters on Snurs, and that it was “proposing a minor change to reporting requirements for pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) and other TSCA section 5 notices”.
But according to the law firm’s analysis, the rule is more complicated than the EPA suggests.
Issues of potential confusion, pointed out by Bergeson & Campbell, include:
· the “legal and regulatory ambiguities” of applying HCS/GHS requirements to different regulations, as has been demonstrated with similar efforts to align pesticide labelling under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (Fifra);
· the inclusion of a hierarchy of controls (HOC) approach, which was absent from the TSCA reform passed earlier this year;
· citations to the pre-amended TSCA, which it says raises uncertainty over whether the EPA reviewed ways in which the new TSCA may “materially impact” its proposal; and
· “interesting anomalies” with regard to disclosure of confidential business information (CBI).
The firm notes that there “may well be a good reason for several of the proposed changes”. But it says that the anticipated confusion could have been avoided by adequate discussion, prior to publication.
“At the least, EPA could have raised these issues in the proposed rule’s preamble to focus stakeholders’ attention appropriately,” it added.
The deadline for comments on the proposal is 26 September.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49182/law-firm-flags-up-issues-in-epa-snur-proposal
-
International Agencies to Step Up Efforts for Sound Chemicals Management
Aug 18, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Chynoweth
International agencies have stated they will step up joint efforts to promote the sound management of chemicals. They say such activities are a critical component of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development and its goals (SDGs), which were adopted in September last year.
The statement, from UN and other multinational bodies, says they will:
· continue to promote and raise the profile of sound chemicals management within the UN system;
· promote the integration of chemicals management issues across sectors and in the broader context of economic and social development planning; and
· ensure additional synergies, between UN, and with related, organisations, in supporting countries in activities to achieve sound chemicals management by 2020.
It is issued in a report, entitled United Nations and Sound Chemicals Management: coordinating delivery for member states and sustainable development, which:
· signals the importance of sound chemicals management to the broader sustainable development agenda;
· showcases what has already been accomplished; and
· indicates how the UN can help its member countries to manage chemicals in the context of sustainable development.
It includes seven conclusions and seven recommendations.
An ad hoc UN Issue Management Group (IMG) on the sound management of chemicals compiled the report. The group was set up in 2014 by the organisation’s coordinating Environment Management Group (EMG), to map UN and other international activities in the field.
All 48 members of the UN EMG, along with the OECD, are behind the statement.
Compilation of the report has already prompted the Inter-Organisation Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) to host a meeting in May, to exchange information and further identify possible collaborative activities, with a range of agencies working on chemical safety.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49187/international-agencies-to-step-up-efforts-for-sound-chemicals-management
-
Aug 17, 2016 | New York Times
By Editorial Board
You can’t legally buy a drug in the United States that hasn’t undergone rigorous testing, mandated by Congress, to prove that it’s safe and effective. By contrast, that lipstick, shampoo, or deodorant you use every day may have undergone no such testing.
And there’s cause to wonder if those products are safe. More than21,000 complaints of itching, rashes and hair loss, for instance, have been sent to the manufacturer and distributor of Wen Hair Care products. And hair-straightening products that contain formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, have caused allergic reactions, hair loss, rashes, blisters and other problems in salon workers and their customers.
A bill introduced by two senators — Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Susan Collins, Republican of Maine — would change that by requiring the Food and Drug Administration to evaluate a minimum of five chemicals used in cosmetics every year and to collect fees from the industry to pay for those reviews. The agency would also get the power to order companies to recall dangerous products and to force companies to provide it with safety data and reports of adverse health effects from consumers.
The bill has the backing of public interest groups like the Environmental Working Group and the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, as well as much of the cosmetics industry, including big companies like Johnson & Johnson and Procter & Gamble. But some manufacturers, like Mary Kay, oppose the billbecause they argue that its provisions would be too onerous. They are pushing a much weaker measure introduced by Representative Pete Sessions, Republican of Texas, that would not require the F.D.A. to review risky ingredients and wouldn’t give the agency authority to order recalls.
Scientists and consumers have raised numerous concerns about personal care products. Experts are particularly concerned about the use of chemicals that may not cause immediate problems, but could over time increase the risk of cancer, reproductive disorders and other ailments.
One of the first five chemicals the F.D.A. would be required to review is lead acetate, a color additive used in hair dyes, which the European Union has banned because it is linked to reproductive problems. The other four ingredients are used in shampoos, lotions and other products. The E.U. has set limits on the concentrations in which those compounds can be used.
All told, European officials have restricted or banned more than 1,300 chemicals and groups of chemicals, experts say; the F.D.A. hasprohibited 11 ingredients. That shocking discrepancy makes clear how far behind the United States is in this area. It also shows that sensible regulations will not cripple companies that make cosmetics, since many of their products are already covered by European law.
The bill could be stronger. Since it would require the F.D.A. to review a minimum of only five chemicals at a time, it would take years to review many chemicals that scientists and consumers are worried about. In later years, the F.D.A. would choose the chemicals in consultation with the industry and consumer groups. The legislation, a compromise between the wishes of industry and consumer groups, would also pre-empt state regulations of cosmetics. It is, however, a vast improvement over the status quo and deserves prompt attention in a congressional session that has only a few weeks left, between Labor Day and the November election.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/opinion/is-your-lipstick-bad-for-you.html?_r=1
-
US Air Force to Change Fre Foam Due to Water Contamination
Aug 18, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Jennifer McDermott
The U.S. Air Force is changing the foam it uses to fight fires because of concerns that it has contaminated groundwater and spread to drinking water at some military sites.
The Air Force says it awarded a $6.2 million contract on Monday to replace the firefighting foam with an “environmentally responsible foam” to reduce the risk of possible contamination of soil and groundwater.
The current foam contains PFOS and PFOA, chemicals that have been linked to cancer and other illnesses. The new formulation doesn’t have PFOS and contains little or no PFOA.
The chemicals have been detected in water at some current and former bases where the military has conducted fire or crash training.
The Defense Department is examining sites for potential contamination.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/energy-environment/us-air-force-to-change-fire-foam-due-to-water-contamination/2016/08/18/64e6ce44-655e-11e6-b4d8-33e931b5a26d_story.html
-
Industry Slams Titanium Dioxide Classification Proposal
Aug 18, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa’s public consultation on France’s proposal to classify titanium dioxide as a category 1B carcinogen has received over 500 comments from industry, trade bodies and individuals.
Titanium dioxide producers said it should not be classified in any of its forms and for any endpoints, and they have raised concerns over the impact 1B classification would have if adopted.
According to Echa, one to ten million tonnes of titanium dioxide are manufactured and/or imported in the European Economic Area each year. It is used in a range of industries and products, including:
· plastics;
· paint, plaster, coatings and printing inks;
· ceramics, clay and glass;
· food additives and supplements;
· cosmetics;
· electrical products;
· household detergents and cleansers;
· adhesives and sealants; and
· toys and textiles.'Inaccurate' picture
The Titanium Dioxide Manufacturers Association (TDMA) said the current harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) report reflects an “inaccurate and misleading picture” of the alleged inhalation carcinogen hazard, presented by the substance.
European Plastics Converters (EuPC) said studies of 20,000 workers in 15 titanium dioxide manufacturing plants, over decades, showed no adverse health effects from occupational exposure.
And PlasticsEurope said the “most thorough possible processes” are applied to the substance's assessment.
Cosmetics Europe commented that over 20,000 cosmetics products, launched over the last five years, contained titanium oxide. “A classification as a 1B carcinogen would mean that titanium dioxide is banned for use in cosmetics products,” it said, adding that the submission of the CLH proposal by France had not been “triggered by new data or new concern”.
The European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients concluded that “no human evidence for increased lung cancer risk exists”.
CEPE, which represents the paint and printing ink industry in Europe, said the substance is a constituent of over 85% of its members’ products.
“In paint, titanium dioxide is embedded in a liquid matrix and is not able to cause inhalation toxicity (should the alleged toxicological effects be confirmed). It has been used successfully for nearly a century and there is no alternative available that matches the performance in our products,” CEPE said.
Large-scale manufacturers including Albemarle Europe, AkzoNobel, BASF Coatings, Bayer, and Henkel also provided individual comments.
Member states have also questioned the categorisation and the role of physico-chemical properties.Outside of Europe
Dozens of reponses came from associations representing markets outside of Europe, with many from North America expressing disapproval.
Of these, notable organisations that opposed the proposal include: the Canadian Paint and Coatings Association, the American Coatings Association, the International Paint and Printing Ink Council, the American Cleaning Institute, the Plastics Industry Trade Association and Aerospace Industries Association.
Bodies representing Japanese interests were the most prevalent voice from Asia. Japan's Titanium Dioxide Industry Association, Cosmetic Industry Association, Chemical Industry Association and Tobacco International have opposed the proposal.
The national paint manufacturers associations of Australia and New Zealand provided confidential comments, while the Mexican association said the consequences of the proposed classification would "clearly be disproportionate" to any speculative risks posed to human health, and said it should be rejected.Next steps
The French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (Anses), which proposed the classification, is preparing its response.
The initial proposal, comments and their responses will be sent to Echa's Committee for Risk Assessment (Rac) for discussions expected in June 2017 with an opinion for the Commission expected within 18 months.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49183/industry-slams-titanium-dioxide-classification-proposal
-
How Sunscreen Makers Spoof the SPF System
Aug 18, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By David Andrews
I keep a bottle of Banana Boat Sport SPF 100 on my desk.
But I am not convinced it deserves more than a SPF rating of 15, or maybe 30. As a chemist specializing in sunscreen chemicals, I run a sunscreen model that estimates, based on the active ingredients in the bottle, what a sunscreen product’s Sunburn Protection Factor ought to show.
So how can this stuff rate SPF 100. Is that possible?
The answer is, yes and no.
Yes, the lotion in the bottle could, in controlled laboratory conditions, prevent what we think of as sunburn – red, painful skin. To claim SPF 100, the maker must put the product through tests approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration. These test must show it prevents skin redness to an extraordinary degree.
But no, it’s highly doubtful that this stuff could offer you as much protection as implied by the SPF 100 rating. SPF is an outdated, subjective concept, based on when a person’s skin starts to turn red. The tests can be gamed, and it’s safe to say that normal people do not use sunscreen in test conditions – applying sunscreen before blasting themselves with high-intensity, indoor UV lights.
Still, we need some kind of metric to determine the effectiveness of these products. Until the FDA updates testing requirements, manufacturers must use SPF numbers to convey, very roughly, how protective the product is, compared to its competitors.
But the truth is, preventing redness shouldn’t be the only measure of success. Sun damage, not redness, is the real enemy. While sunburn is not your friend, skin warmth and redness serve as your body’s early warning signs of sun damage. Redness is the body’s way of warning us that the sun’s rays are causing subtle, lasting changes in the skin’s cellular structure. These changes hasten wrinkling, sagging and other signs of aging, and may lead to cancer.
What if you couldn’t feel or see a fire burning your hand? You might stick your whole hand into the flames and get badly injured and scarred before you realized what was happening. Well, the sun literally burns skin too, but damage can occur at a slower pace.
Besides, the sun’s short ultraviolet B rays burn the skin’s surface, but longer ultraviolet A rays usually don’t. Little was known about UVA rays when the SPF system was created; now we know that UVA rays penetrate deeper into the body and may inflict similar or even more profound damage than UVB rays.
If you want protection from UVA rays – and believe me, you do – look for a sunscreen lotion whose label shows that it contains zinc oxide or 3 percent avobenzone. A 25 percent concentration of zinc oxide and a 3 percent concentration of avobenzone are the legal limits for these chemicals, and they are often used at, or near, those upper limits in SPF 30 products.
Sunscreen makers have a powerful incentive to jack up the SPF because people are conditioned to look for SPF numbers that relate to redness. To the sunscreen industry, high SPF means more sales and bigger profits. If you’ve bought sunscreen recently, you will have noticed that manufacturers are in an arms race to advertise astronomical SPF ratings.
Here’s the dirty little secret: Some sunscreen makers, and the companies that sell them ingredients, have developed numerous, well-documented ways to game the SPF tests to get a higher number on the tests without providing evidence that a product protects users from any other UV-related damages.
One method is to add anti-inflammatory and antioxidant chemicals into the mix. The SPF 100 sunscreen on my desk contains several chemicals in these categories: butyloctyl salicylate, aloe, vitamin C and vitamin E. Other anti-inflammmatories and antioxidants often found in sunscreen include bisabolol, retinyl palmitate and argan oil. While antioxidants and anti-inflammatories may serve other functions, they also likely reduce skin redness, thereby enabling the manufacturer to achieve a coveted high SPF rating.
Scientists don’t know exactly how anti-inflammatories and antioxidants work within a sunscreen applied to the body. Nor do they fully understand the biological events that lead to long-term skin damage and cancer.
But we’re sure about two things:
· Those anti-inflammatories and antioxidants don’t reduce the amount of sunlight that hits the user’s skin; and
· The FDA urgently needs to investigate these and all other chemicals that manufacturers are adding to sunscreens. Are they tamping down redness and spoofing the body’s early warning system? If so, Americans have a right to know, fast.
That’s why EWG has written the FDA, urging a new, high-priority study of anti-inflammatories and antioxidants, and requesting that, in the meantime, the FDA bar SPF values greater than 50.
Most importantly, we want the FDA to change the way it allows manufacturers to test for SPF values so that the numbers mean what they say they mean – protection from the sun’s harmful rays.
People need to know that sunscreen products – whether they say SPF 15 or 1,500 – won’t completely protect them and may, in fact, mislead them into staying in the sun so long they hurt themselves.
I don’t have all the answers, but I know this: That bottle of SPF 100 is staying on my desk. When my wife and I take our kids to the beach, it’s not coming with us. We want real broad-spectrum skin protection, not just huge numbers.
And, by the way, we don't expect any sunscreen to shield our kids’ skin from all, or even the most harmful, rays. We glop on the sunscreen and reapply after swimming and every two hours, but we know that there’s no such thing as “sun block.” The FDA doesn’t let sunscreen makers use the term “block” anymore.
Until the FDA takes further action, the most important things in our beach bags will be umbrellas, hats, shirts and long beach shorts.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/08/how-sunscreen-makers-spoof-spf-system
-
(ACC Mentioned) Louisiana Floods Set Stage for Insurance Fight
Aug 18, 2016 | Politico - Morning Energy
By Annie Snider
LOUISIANA DELUGE ABOUT TO SWAMP FEDERAL COFFERS: Residents of Baton Rouge, La., are just beginning to assess the massive damage wrought by record floodwaters that claimed at least 11 lives and damaged about 40,000 homes. But one thing is clear: The National Flood Insurance program will be making plenty of payouts. Hurricane Katrina taught Louisianans the value of flood insurance, and the lesson stuck.
According to FEMA, 42 percent of people living in Bayou State high-risk zones hold policies — compared with just 18 percent of people in such zones in Alaska and 14 percent in Arkansas. As Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson heads to the region today to survey the damage, more than 17,000 flood insurance claims have already been filed. And President Barack Obama issued a disaster declaration for the region, making hard-hit residents eligible for up to $33,000 in aid beyond the flood insurance program.
The Louisiana payouts will help set the stage as Congress prepares to take up reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program, which is still more than $20 billion in the red after massive payouts for Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. Lawmakers approved significant reforms to deal with that debt in 2012, but then backtracked in 2014 after a major outcry from constituents facing higher premiums and experiencing trouble selling waterfront homes.
With fiscal conservatives, environmentalists and taxpayer advocacy groups all seeking big changes to the program — especially as climate change stands to increase flood events — look for a debate about ways of incentivizing resiliency efforts, like elevating buildings, and accounting for changing risks. House Republicans have already gotten a head start on putting together a reauthorization bill to pass before the program expires Sept. 30, 2017.
HAPPY THURSDAY! I'm your Round 2 fill-in host, Annie Snider, while Eric Wolff is frolicking in the New England wilds. Alas, no beach vacation for me this year, as we pour all our pennies into the hunt for a toy our Border Collie/Beagle pup can't destroy. Rope toys? Shredded in minutes. Bones made of tire treads? Torn apart and digested in an instant. Pricey treat puzzles? A particularly painful failure. Got suggestions? Send them, along with your energy-related tips, quips, and comments, to asnider@politico.com and ewhieldon@politico.com and follow us on Twitter @annelizabeth18, @esthernow, @Morning_Energy and @POLITICOPro.
A DÉTENTE IN THE BITTER UTILITY SOLAR BATTLE? A pair of settlements in Colorado and Tennessee indicate utilities and the rooftop solar industry are finding room to compromise in the fight over net-metering incentives, Pro’s Esther Whieldon reports.
An agreement between Xcel Energy's subsidiary Public Service Company of Colorado and rooftop solar advocates that's awaiting approval from state regulators would drop the utility’s proposed grid use charge for solar owners, replacing it with time-of-use rates starting next year. Meanwhile, Tennessee utility regulators last week approved a deal between American Electric Power's Kingsport Power Company and solar and consumer advocates that will leave the current net metering regime in place and forego new demand charges on solar customers.
Let’s all get together now: Rate experts and environmentalists say the two deals are a sign that the warring factions are becoming more willing to compromise on the fixed fees that utilities say are needed to cover grid costs associated with distributed power supplies, but that critics argue are aimed at undercutting the growth of rooftop solar systems that cut into utilities’ profits.
FRIDGE BENEFITS: EPA lawyers are pointing to a ruling from a panel of GOP-appointed judges as support for the Clean Power Plan ahead of arguments next month, Pro’s Alex Guillén reports. In a letter filed with the D.C. Circuit Wednesday, Obama administration lawyers point to a ruling last week by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld an Energy Department efficiency regulation for commercial refrigerators that relied on the administration’s “social cost of carbon” calculation.
Republicans and other critics of the approach, which assigns a dollar value to damage caused by climate change, argue it is flawed since the costs are borne domestically but the benefits are global. But the 7th Circuit ruled that DOE acted “reasonably” in comparing worldwide benefits and national costs in the refrigerator rule.
LAW PROFESSORS GET BLM’s BACK: In its fight to save landmark fracking regulations after a federal judge ruled against them in June, the Bureau of Land Management got an assist Wednesday from more than three dozen law professors. In a brief filed with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, the professors slammed the June ruling — which stated that the 2005 energy law “expressly removed” the Interior Department’s ability to regulate fracking on federal lands — as having “no basis in legal precedent or relevant statutes." The ruling, the professors say, "reads a sweeping government-wide exclusion into a surgical amendment explicitly tied to one statute.”
REMEMBER THE ENERGY BILL CONFERENCE? INDUSTRY DOES: Sixteen business groups and companies, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Chemistry Council, wrote Wednesday to conferees tasked with merging the House and Senate energy bills to remind the lawmakers of favored provisions that remain in the mix. The missive focused on efficiency provisions, but also championed an end to the ban on fossil-fuel use in federal buildings, which was included in both chambers’ energy measures — much to the consternation of some environmentalists.
With help from Elana Schor, Alex Guillén and Esther Whieldon
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-energy/2016/08/louisiana-floods-set-stage-for-insurance-fight-215948
-
DOE LegalVictory Reinforces Carbon Rule — EPA
Aug 18, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A recent federal court decision upholding the Department of Energy's use of a social cost of carbon metric to craft energy efficiency standards is further support for U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, government lawyers said yesterday.
In a letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, lawyers defending the Clean Power Plan pointed to the recent case, Zero Zone Inc. v. DOE, as evidence that EPA's consideration of global benefits while crafting the climate plan is on solid legal ground.
The EPA carbon-cutting rule, which is facing challenges on numerous administrative and constitutional grounds, has been criticized for assessing "domestic costs against global benefits" and using a social cost of carbon calculation, which measures long-term economic impacts from carbon emissions.
The social cost of carbon analysis used for the Clean Power Plan is a slightly updated version of the one at issue in the DOE case.
But in Zero Zone, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the use of that standard, ruling that DOE's analysis was reasonable and therefore entitled to deference. The court noted that the agency's engineering analysis was neither arbitrary nor capricious (Greenwire, Aug. 9).
Department of Justice attorney Brian Lynk flagged the case for the D.C. Circuit as supplemental authority backing the government's position on the Clean Power Plan.
Though opponents of the rule didn't properly challenge EPA's cost analysis, Lynk said, the court's logic in Zero Zone nonetheless applies to their argument that the Clean Air Act encompasses only domestic air quality issues.
"EPA (like Energy) reasonably explained why its monetized benefit-cost analysis accounted for global benefits," he wrote.
The letter comes as both sides are tallying fresh case law to support their respective positions in advance of oral arguments in September.
Late last month, opponents of the Clean Power Plan cited a recent appeals court decision freezing an EPA regional haze plan, along with a D.C. Circuit judge's dissenting opinion that questioned the agency's cost analysis on a water permit for a mining project, to support their side — drawing a rebuttal from EPA (Greenwire, Aug. 3).
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/08/18/stories/1060041769
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chlorine Emergency at Plant Sparks ‘Shelter in Place' Order
Aug 18, 2016 | Water World
By Sara Jerome
A chlorine emergency at a water treatment plant resulted in a “shelter in place” order for the immediate area last week.
Firefighters responded “to a chlorine leak inside the water treatment plant in Scottsburg, IN, on Friday afternoon,” WDRB reported.
“The leak happened when workers at the plant were switching chlorine tanks and an unknown amount spilled, Scott County 911 Director Greg Ramoni said. The plant shut the system off,” WHAS11 reported.
“The leak came from a 2,000-gallon tank of chlorine. The plant closed when the leak was first reported, but re-opened late Friday evening,” WDRB reported.
One worker was sent to the hospital, WHAS11 reported. The “shelter in place” order was lifted around 6:45 p.m. The leak did not affect the local water supply, according to WDRB.
“Officials say chlorine began leaking into the plant and into the air outside just after 3 p.m. Friday. Officials tell WDRB that workers were ‘switching’ tanks in the plant when they found the leak,” the report said.
According to an article published by Occupational Health & Safety, a trade publication, “Accidental exposure to chlorine gas need not be deadly when the proper safety procedures and equipment are in place. Both U.S. EPA and [the Occupational Safety and Health Administration] have strict regulations for the use of chlorine. Many accidents are preventable with the proper training and toxic gas monitoring safety equipment.”
Federal guidelines on chlorine safety are available here.
Chlorine is sometimes criticized for posing safety hazards, but many water industry professionals defend its use.
The Water Quality and Health Council, sponsored by the American Chemistry Council, points out that disinfection revolutionized drinking water treatment. The group notes that chlorine is a potent germicide and treats taste, odor, biological growth, and chemicals.
The group pointed to the decline in the death rate “due to typhoid fever following the introduction of chlorine to U.S. municipal drinking water systems in 1908. As more cities adopted water chlorination, U.S. death rates due to cholera and hepatitis A also declined dramatically.”
“Worldwide, significant strides in public health and the quality of life are directly linked to the adoption of drinking water chlorination. Recognizing this success, Life magazine (1997) declared, ‘The filtration of drinking water plus the use of chlorine is probably the most significant public health advancement of the millennium,’” it continued.
To read more about chlorine visit Water Online’s Drinking Water Disinfection Solutions Center.
http://www.wateronline.com/doc/chlorine-emergency-at-plant-sparks-shelter-in-place-order-0001
-
DOE, DARPA Open Tap for Cybersecurity Funding
Aug 18, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The U.S. government has pledged over $60 million in the past three weeks to jump-start the "next generation" of cybersecurity protection for the North American power grid.
The separate funding announcements from the Energy and Defense departments focus on innovations for detecting and responding to cyberattacks that have already breached key energy systems. Both cases demonstrate the Obama administration's interest in settling a thorny cybersecurity challenge: Once hackers break into a control system network, how can operators boot them out and bounce back to normal within just a few days?
"The electric power grid is something that's so pivotal in our ability to operate as a nation [that] it's a prime target for adversaries to potentially try to cause harm," said Tim Yardley, a senior researcher at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, who was recently awarded $18.7 million from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. "I like to see as many people helping to move that ball forward as possible."
Yardley, associate director for technology at UIUC's Information Trust Institute, said the money will go toward improving his team's "test bed," a realistic mock-up of the U.S. power grid that can be subjected to all sorts of attacks without breaking real infrastructure.
In addition to backing Yardley's research, DARPA has awarded the SRI International research institute $7.3 million through 2020 for its Threat Intelligence for Grid Recovery program.
Meanwhile, the Department of Energy on Monday unveiled plans to allocate up to $34 million toward a dozen energy cybersecurity projects spanning nine states (Greenwire, Aug. 16).
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said at a Seattle field hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that his department's latest effort would build upon $210 million of total investments in cybersecurity development dating back to 2010.
"We are seeing threats continually increase in numbers and sophistication," he said in prepared testimony, pointing to an increase in deployment of Internet-connected grid technologies that could be subjected to online attacks. "This evolution has profound impacts on the security and resilience of the energy sector, which is why we have made cybersecurity one of our highest priorities at DOE."
Unlike the DARPA funds, which were budgeted for last year, the $34 million from DOE still hinges on a green light from congressional appropriators. If approved, part of the money would go to industrial vendor General Electric Co. for technology to automatically detect and scrub malicious activity in power plant networks without harming operations.
The other labs, universities and companies in DOE's announcement were said to have been selected for offering "a clear path" for commercial adoption among oil, gas and grid operators.
There was stiff competition for both funding opportunities, with DARPA fielding 70 proposals under its "Rapid Attack Detection, Isolation and Characterization Systems" (RADICS) program (EnergyWire, Dec. 23, 2015).
Yardley said the funding over the next four years will allow for designing a simpler test bed — one useful to more than just electric-sector experts. The goal is to "make it a little bit more point-and-click," he said, "lower[ing] the barrier of entry for researchers to be able to work on their research" and explore different disaster scenarios, from cyberattacks to combined hacking and physical assaults on the grid.
"I think the DARPA program has a great vision — it's going to fill a big need in the research community and help develop tools that hopefully will never be called to action," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/08/18/stories/1060041768
-
CSB Touts Facility Inspections, Bolstering Push for New EPA Audit Rules
Aug 18, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) in a new report is touting the benefits of preventive inspections at petroleum refineries to prevent accidents and worker injuries, a finding that bolsters pending efforts by EPA and OSHA to strengthen their facility safety rules with new requirements for independent audits.
CSB’s Aug. 2 report focuses on a pair of 2014 releases that burned workers at Tesoro’s refinery in Martinez, CA. The report “Process Safety Culture Case Study Martinez, California,” finds that the facility’s inadequate safety culture allowed accidents to recur, and argues facility inspections are critical to preventing accidents.
“An effective, proactive regulator can play a positive role in preventing process safety incidents in addition to a company’s prioritization and implementation of safe practices and procedures,” CSB says. “Robust, preventive inspections by the regulator are necessary to identify opportunities to implement good practices, use the hierarchy of controls, and reduce risk to as low as reasonably practicable.”
CSB’s case study focuses on a pair of 2014 sulfuric acid releases at Tesoro’s Martinez refinery. A February 2014 release of an estimated 84,000 pounds of sulfuric acid burned two workers, while a release the next month burned two more workers after they were sprayed with the substance while removing piping.
The board finds that the second incident resulted from similar causes as a 1999 incident at the same refinery that killed four workers. The report argues that the recurrence of the March incident shows that the Tesoro refinery failed to effectively implement and communicate to workers the safety lessons of the fatal 1999 disaster.
The CSB report comes as OSHA and EPA are each weighing new auditing requirements as part of overhauls to their worker safety and facility accident prevention rules. The agencies are updating their rules as part of a broad federal effort to implement President Obama’s Executive Order (EO) 13650 on improving the safety of industrial plants, issued in response to the 2013 explosion at a fertilizer facility in West, TX, that killed 15 people.
New requirements for independent audits are among the possible changes OSHA floated this spring in a background document supporting a June Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) of possible revisions to its Process Safety Management (PSM) rule.
PSM currently requires facilities that use highly hazardous chemicals to provide safe workplaces. While OSHA officials have often said they lack resources for inspections, the agency has prioritized inspections on industrial facilities in recent years as part of national emphasis programs focusing on petroleum refineries and chemical facilities.
OSHA took comment through Aug. 12 on the background document that also floated other possible PSM revisions including expanding the program to cover additional chemicals and facilities, or requiring new hazard analysis and coordination with emergency responders, among others.
In the SBAR’s Aug. 1 report the federal review panel that includes officials from OSHA, the U.S. Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy, and the White House Office of Management and Budget balked at the possibility of strict new requirements for independent audits.
Should OSHA require third-party audits, the panel said, the agency should allow facilities to determine what types of audits are appropriate for their processes, and consider whether auditors must be “fully ‘independent,’” the report said.
Root Cause Analysis
Meanwhile, EPA is pressing to issue by year-end a final rule overhauling its Risk Management Plan (RMP) rule. EPA took comment through May 13 on proposed revisions that would mandate that certain facilities hire third-party auditors to investigate reportable releases or “near misses” to reduce risk of future accidents, among other requirements.
EPA waste chief Mathy Stanislaus has strongly backed independent audits and root cause analysis of incidents as central to the agency’s prevention goals, explaining why such reviews should occur even after so-called “near misses,” which do not cause a catastrophic release but could have.
In the report, CSB urges all California refineries to evaluate their safety culture and process safety management systems, but argues that its case study also highlights that regulators should conduct preventive inspections, and collect an analyze facilities’ process safety indicators, which includes data on near misses, among other things.
Echoing Stanislaus’ comments this spring, CSB report describes “near misses” as among the indicators that should trigger and inform audits. In addition to spills, fires and releases that could have led to catastrophic incidents, other indicators may include maintenance schedules for critical safety equipment, the report says.
CSB also reiterates a call from prior reports for the state of California to require refineries to report process safety indicators to the state so regulators can better identify hazards and overall safety trends.
Additionally, CSB says regulators “should have the flexibility to work with facilities to ensure the implementation of recommendations and lessons learned from significant petroleum refinery incidents without requiring extensive rulemaking or legislation, as regulators have done post-incident in countries such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Australia.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/csb-touts-facility-inspections-bolstering-push-new-epa-audit-rules
-
Enviros Sue over Southeast Gas Pipeline
Aug 18, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A coalition of environmental groups yesterday sued the Obama administration over a natural gas pipeline that would travel more than 500 miles across the Southeast.
The Sierra Club, the Gulf Restoration Network and Flint Riverkeeper filed suit at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the Army Corps of Engineers illegally greenlighted the Southeast Market Pipelines Project, which includes the Sabal Trail Pipeline.
The Sabal Trail, a joint venture of Spectra Energy Corp., NextEra Energy Inc. and Duke Energy Corp., would transport gas to Florida, where Duke Energy Florida and NextEra's Florida Power & Light Co. would be the primary customers (EnergyWire, June 14).
But the environmental groups say the pipeline would cross nearly 700 bodies of water, harm nearly 2,000 acres of wetlands and threaten drinking water for 10 million people. They're also worried that the pipeline will facilitate continued reliance on hydraulically fractured natural gas over renewable energy sources.
"Communities in Florida and Georgia have clearly stated that they do not want this dangerous fracked-gas pipeline polluting their water or their neighborhoods," the Gulf Restoration Network's Johanna deGraffenreid said in a statement. "We have collected 25,000 signatures in opposition to the pipeline, but the Army Corps is just not listening. The public has continually been left out of the decision making process for this project and that is unacceptable. Our water and communities are too important to risk for an unnecessary pipeline."
According to the lawsuit, the Army Corps failed to provide adequate notice and public participation and failed to mitigate adverse impacts when it issued three Clean Water Act permits for the project — instead deferring to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to handle environmental concerns.
"Essentially what happened is the Corps stated FERC addressed mitigation while FERC stated the Corps would do it," Sierra Club attorney Eric Huber said in a statement. "As a result, neither agency analyzed the issue and the public had no chance to review and comment on it."
The Army Corps did not respond to a request for comment.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/08/18/stories/1060041765
-
A Peek Inside Bob Inglis' GOP Climate Conversion Strategy
Aug 18, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Bob Inglis, a former member of Congress from South Carolina, is an atypical Republican who spends his days arguing not just for climate action, but for a carbon tax, a dirty phrase in most conservative circles.
Inglis was elected to the House of Representatives in 2004 and lost his seat in a Republican runoff in 2010 after speaking out against climate change denial and backing a revenue-neutral carbon tax.
Lately, Inglis is making the rounds on conservative talk radio and meeting one-on-one with GOP legislators (Greenwire, Aug. 5). In light of the unpopularity of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, he says he sees a new opening to "bust up" the orthodoxy of conservatives opposing climate action.
nglis, who is working with a group called republicEn, sat down with ClimateWire while he was in Washington, D.C., yesterday, to meet with the free-market focused R Street Institute, talk with local Republican lawmakers and appear on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal." The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Do Republicans need political cover to talk about climate change?
They need to be able to articulate a solution that clearly fits with conservative values, and that's what we're trying to do at republicEn, is give them the confidence that there is a very free-enterprise solution to this that happens to be acceptable to some on the left, too ...
We think the best way to do that is through an upstream application of a revenue-neutral, border adjustable carbon tax. That last thing, carbon tax, that's sort of a discordant note in the Republican repertoire at this point, but what's the alternative? The alternative is a regulatory, Clean Power Plan, sector-by-sector, prone-to-litigation, domestic-only solution. And wouldn't it be better if conservatives stepped forward with an economywide, worldwide, through-the-border-adjustment solution that fits with what we believe?
If it's so hard for Republicans to support a "tax," have you thought about changing the phrasing?
Some people want to talk more about clean energy and sort of coming through the back door. ... We think it's important to go straight at it. We're not trying to fool anybody. We're after transparent, accountable marketplaces. And in selling that idea, we want to be transparent.
How do you combat attacks from the far right and from business groups opposed to your efforts? The American Energy Alliance, for example, recently issued a key-vote alert urging House members to vote for a resolution opposing a carbon tax (E&E Daily, June 7).
If I was still in Congress, I think I might have voted for it, too, because it seemed not to be describing what we're talking about. It must have been describing a revenue-positive, not border-adjustable carbon tax. If you asked me if I was still in Congress, if you didn't give me those two things ... even though I want to take action on climate change, I couldn't vote for it because I represent a wonderful manufacturing district.
How do you explain that difference to voters — a regular carbon tax vs. a revenue-neutral, border-adjustable one?
That is hard because you don't get 10 minutes to talk to an average voter. You get a second. So what it means is we are willing to take the arrows. You know, go on talk radio and begin explaining.
For example, in Texas recently, I was on a Houston station. The guy also broadcasts in Dallas. The tease was very dismissive. The guy said, "Next up we have a conservative who says he wants a carbon tax." And he laughs out loud and goes to the commercial break. I did that segment with him in Houston. The next day, they called us and asked, "Can you be on in Dallas?" It was a totally different feel because the guy had heard the explanation. Of course it helped that I was selling, "Well, here in Houston I'm hanging out with an engineer from Exxon Mobil and you realize that Exxon Mobil's for this, right?"' It's very helpful validation that Exxon Mobil's for what we're talking about.
How much do you need people to agree on the premise that climate change is happening and humans are contributing to get agreement on action?
It's better people have all of the above. ... If you have awareness of the problem, believe there's a problem and you're looking for a solution. If you don't have that first condition of aware and looking for a solution, it's a less powerful argument, but you can still make it, and it can still be accepted.
The best condition is a conservative who wants a solution, and these are typically millennial conservatives. They want a solution, they hear the free-enterprise solution and they like it, and they're aware that it avoids a regulatory solution. But that's probably the weakest argument — that this is going to happen anyway.
When you pitch a carbon tax, do you highlight what you see as the downsides of the Clean Power Plan?
Somewhat. We don't lead with that, but we do go into that when it comes up because we do think the Clean Power Plan is the worst possible way to deal with climate change. It's things you wouldn't want if you want fast action. The thing we really need is innovation to happen in energy as fast as it happened in telecommunications. We need the price of renewables to come down as fast as the price of cellphones has. I think you would find broad agreement among economists ... that [a carbon tax] is the most efficient way to get rapid innovation.
Whom do you target when you talk to voters? Mainly people who already think climate change is a problem?
We get our most positive reaction from millennial conservatives because they want the conservative movement to be relevant to their future, and they want it to have an answer to a very pressing problem that they believe exists. Their parents and grandparents are harder markets to crack, but there's a method to our madness in reaching them because millennials, we think they can help us reach their parents and grandparents.
Do you worry it's a wasted effort to take your campaign to people who think climate change is a hoax?
I want to have conversations with even those people. Probably it's not where we should spend most of our effort. Most of our work should be on the lower-hanging fruit. But I really want to talk to [Republican Oklahoma Sen.] Jim Inhofe because I believe as he does that God is sovereign. I think we could have a very fruitful discussion. I've reached out to him. He hasn't responded yet. We overlapped a little bit in the House, but his scheduler hasn't let me in yet.
I don't give up on anybody, in other words. I really want to talk to the Koch brothers, for example. I've never met them, but I really want to talk to them because this could be their legacy in saying, "We're libertarians, we believe in accountable marketplaces, and we're ready to man up. Put all the costs in all our products and let's see how the market treats them."
How much does it help that companies like Exxon Mobil Corp. support a carbon tax? Does it help that many utilities are saying we need to plan for a carbon-constrained world?
Validation by key, trusted companies is vital for us to build support on the right. Exxon Mobil is a trusted source for many people on the right. They're the people who've gotten us the fuel to power our lives. The power companies, same thing, they've got 40-year time horizons. They've got to plan. They need certainty.
How much is the presidential election affecting how you talk about this at the local level?
You're about to hear lemonade being made. I've got a great big box of lemons. ... I think in a strange sort of way this may help us. Donald Trump is iconoclastic. He's breaking up every orthodoxy. Who knows whether Republicans now are free-traders or protectionists, isolationists or interventionists, pro-life or pro-choice. It's anybody's guess. So in a strange sort of way, that flux busts up also the orthodoxy that sadly developed, which is, "We don't believe in climate change, you shouldn't either." It may be that he actually causes a re-examination ...
Once he loses, big time, then it's sort of a "Now, OK, what do we do? What do we do now that the Grumpy Old Party is in ash and ruins? Can you gather the 'Grand Opportunity Party' out of the ashes and say that this is what energy looks like if you're conservative?" It happens that some of the progressives can also embrace that solution, so I think it would bring America together on a price on carbon dioxide.
You've said you could never vote for Donald Trump. Could you vote for Hillary Clinton?
It's hard. I don't know what I'm going to do. I just know I can't vote for Trump.
Do you see a possibility that the Clean Power Plan could be replaced with something like a carbon tax?
There's good work being done by [Rhode Island Sen.] Sheldon Whitehouse and [Maryland Rep.] John Delaney — these are Democrats that have offered Republicans an olive limb, not just an olive branch, by saying we'll cut corporate income taxes.
But would that only happen if the rule survives court battles and looks likely to proceed?
It's a live and venomous snake, and therefore they're looking for an alternative. That's a better way to get there, even though I don't like the Clean Power Plan, than some catalyzing event like another superstorm or hurricane or local flooding or Zika getting into the Magic Kingdom. If you're in Florida, just imagine how horrifying that would be if Zika got into Orlando.
In your view, is there any catalyzing event big enough to push bipartisan action on climate change?
Experience is an effective ... and very harsh teacher. Sometimes it takes harder whacks to get the message through, but we're going to be whacked.
If you do nothing, we're going to have all kinds of claims for disaster assistance, and all kinds of appropriations for adaptation and removal of people from islands ... if you want a really big government, do nothing about climate change. If you want a smaller government, try to mitigate the problem, head it off. Surely it's consistent with what conservatives believe. This is a heart rejection. It's not a head issue.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/08/18/stories/1060041770
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested