Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 8/25/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Registration Opens for 2016 Polyurethanes Technical Conference
Aug 25, 2016 | Rubber and Plastics News
By Rubber and Plastics News Report
Registration has opened for the 2016 Polyurethanes Technical Conference, scheduled for Sept. 25-28 at the Hilton Baltimore. -
(ACC Mentioned) Reviewers Approve EPA Assessment of Cleaning Chemical
Aug 25, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Colby Bermel
A peer review committee has approved U.S. EPA's draft risk assessment of a possible human carcinogen used in cleaners and degreasers. -
EDF Files Comments on Three TSCA Rules EPA is Developing
Aug 25, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Yesterday was the deadline for stakeholders to file written comments on three rules EPA is now developing, as required under the new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA as amended by the Lautenberg Act). -
New Orleans Group Sues EPA for Delaying New Lead Standards
Aug 25, 2016 | Nola
By Jed Lipinski
A New Orleans nonprofit and seven other community organizations around the United States sued the Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday (Aug. 24) for failing to update its 15-year-old standards about what constitutes safe levels of lead-based paint and lead dust. -
(ACC Mentioned) New EPA Advisory Panel Praises Solvent Review But Urges Biomarker Use
Aug 25, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
A new EPA advisory panel dedicated to peer reviewing risk assessments from the agency's toxics office has issued its first review, generally praising EPA's draft analysis of a common solvent but urging consideration of biomarker data that suggests widespread exposure to the chemical and could increase estimates of bystander exposures. -
Hybrid Fortune 500 Partner PPG-Comex Launches Green Polyurethane™ Based Coating Product
Aug 25, 2016 | Econo Times
By Steve Luna
Hybrid Coating Technologies Inc. (OTCBB:HCTI) is pleased to announce that after several years of development, Comex a division of PPG Industries Inc. (see About PPG below) has created a new coatings product utilizing Hybrid’s zero isocyanate Polyurethane technology. -
Fracking Linked to Migraines, Nasal, Sinus Symptoms — Study
Aug 25, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
Unconventional natural gas development in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale could be causing migraine headaches, fatigue and sinus symptoms in nearby residents, a group of Maryland researchers has found. -
Activist Researchers’ Own Data Contradict Claim of Link between Fracking and Sinus Conditions, Migraines and Fatigue
Aug 25, 2016 | Energy in Depth
By Seth Whitehead
The same researchers responsible for a study claiming premature birth rates are high near shale gas wells in Pennsylvania — even though they were actually below the national average — and a study claiming fracking is associated with increased asthma flare-ups — even though statedata shows heavily-drilled counties had far lower asthma hospitalization rates than counties with no shale gas production at all — have put out a new study today that has just about as much merit. -
Enviros Wage War with Interior Over Leasing's Climate Impact
Aug 25, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmental groups launched a broad assault today on federal oil and gas leasing, accusing the Obama administration of ignoring the climate impacts from leasing on hundreds of thousands of acres since early 2015. -
Coast Guard Publishes TWIC Final Rule
Aug 25, 2016 | Occupational Health and Safety
The U.S. Coast Guard has published its final rule on Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) reader requirements. It requires owners and operators of certain vessels and facilities regulated by the Coast Guard to conduct electronic inspections of TWICs as an access control measure, and the rule implements recordkeeping requirements and security plan amendments. -
California Approves Ambitious Plan to Cut Greenhouse Gases
Aug 25, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Reid Wilson
California legislators passed perhaps the most ambitious effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions in the nation on Wednesday, handing a significant victory to Gov. Jerry Brown ahead of a looming fight over the state’s cap and trade program next year. -
EPA Plan To End 'Affirmative' Air Rules Defense Spurs Competing Attacks
Aug 25, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA's plan to strike from its rules an "affirmative defense" for companies against liability for violating Clean Air Act standards is spurring competing attacks, with environmentalists saying it would still allow use of the defense in some cases while the liquid commodities terminal sector says the proposal ignores the need for the defense.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Registration Opens for 2016 Polyurethanes Technical Conference
Aug 25, 2016 | Rubber and Plastics News
By Rubber and Plastics News Report
Registration has opened for the 2016 Polyurethanes Technical Conference, scheduled for Sept. 25-28 at the Hilton Baltimore.
Sponsored by the Center for the Polyurethanes Industry at the American Chemistry Council, the 59th annual Polyurethanes Technical Conference offers a unique convergence of industry expertise, professional networking and regulatory insight to polyurethane industry executives, according to conference publicity.
The conference begins on the afternoon of Sept. 25 with a workshop on environmental, safety and health issues related to diisocyanates, the ACC said.
Following on Sept. 26-28 will be sessions on various polyurethane-related topics including flexible foam, automotive applications, blowing agents and volatile organic compounds. A table-top exhibition and poster session will be open during the Sept. 26-28 sessions, the ACC said.
A networking event on the evening of Sept. 26 and a closing luncheon Sept. 28 are also part of the program.
To register for the conference or to obtain more information, contact online@americanchemistry.com or call 202-249-6121.
http://www.rubbernews.com/article/20160824/NEWS/160829972/registration-opens-for-2016-polyurethanes-technical-conference
-
(ACC Mentioned) Reviewers Approve EPA Assessment of Cleaning Chemical
Aug 25, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Colby Bermel
A peer review committee has approved U.S. EPA's draft risk assessment of a possible human carcinogen used in cleaners and degreasers.
The 10-member, EPA-established Chemical Safety Advisory Committee on Tuesday released its final report after a public meeting on the chemical was held in May, giving a green light to the agency's evaluation of 1-Bromopropane (1-BP).
This was the committee's first approval of an EPA draft risk assessment since President Obama two months ago signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, the first overhaul of the nation's chemicals laws in 40 years (Greenwire, June 22).
The colorless liquid with a sweet odor is used in products including cleaners, degreasers and spot removers. Dry cleaners often make use of 1-BP-containing substances, and 1-BP can also be found in drinking water and other environments.
The chemical presents "high risks" of lung cancer, a variety of toxicities, and adverse developmental and reproductive effects, according to EPA and the Chemical Safety Advisory Committee (CSAC).
In 2012, EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics put 1-BP on its list of chemicals that the office wants to study further for possible risks. It took three years for the office to review 1-BP and write a draft risk assessment.
The assessment is not complete, however, because the pollution office needs to finalize the draft and implement CSAC's recommendations for improvement.
For instance, the main way to be exposed to 1-BP is through inhalation, but several committee members want skin contact to be studied despite a lack of data on the subject. Additionally, the draft risk assessment only used one-time exposures, whereas CSAC wants multiple uses over multiple time periods to be incorporated.
The committee also wants exposure in family-owned dry cleaners to be further examined. It cited the wide range of exposures depending on work shifts, along with children of employees spending time around, or even operating, equipment that uses 1-BP — especially facilities that may not be able to afford to replace older, less safe technology.
The report acknowledged the effectiveness of the European Union's chemicals regulation program — a system that U.S. environmentalists argue is more holistic than the recently reformed Toxic Substances Control Act. CSAC expressed its desire to develop consumer exposure models that mirror the E.U.'s Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals program.
Although CSAC is still carrying out its TSCA-mandated duties, the Lautenberg Act calls for the creation of a Scientific Advisory Committee on Chemicals.
"It's clear that the congressionally mandated committee is broader in scope than those members of the CSAC," Mike Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs for the American Chemistry Council, told Greenwire last month. "I think that EPA's got to make some fundamental decisions, maybe even start over from scratch, to form this Science Advisory Committee rather than carrying two committees."
EPA said it will post a Federal Register notice on plans for the new committee in September, with a public comment period to end in early November (Greenwire, July 1).
The nonprofit Environmental Working Group named 1-BP as the No. 8 chemical it wants EPA to review first under new provisions of the Lautenberg Act (Greenwire, July 21).
By December, the agency must identify 10 chemicals that will be subject to risk evaluations.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/08/25/stories/1060042057
-
EDF Files Comments on Three TSCA Rules EPA is Developing
Aug 25, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Yesterday was the deadline for stakeholders to file written comments on three rules EPA is now developing, as required under the new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA as amended by the Lautenberg Act). EPA is moving quickly to get input on these rules, which it intends to propose in December in order to stay on track to finalize the rules by June of next year, as mandated under the new law.
The solicitation of written comments follows public meetings EPA held on August 9, 10 and 11 to get input from stakeholders on these rules, at which dozens of stakeholders provided oral comments. Those meetings were the first EPA public meetings since the Lautenberg Act was signed into law on June 22.
The three rules (and associated docket numbers) on which EPA solicited comments are:
Risk-Based Prioritization Procedural Rule, which will set forth the process and criteria EPA will use to prioritize chemicals in commerce. Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0399
Risk Evaluation Procedural Rule, which will set forth the process EPA will use to conduct risk evaluations of high-priority and industry-requested chemicals. Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0400
Rule Establishing Fees for the Administration of TSCA, which will detail how EPA will collect fees from companies to defray the costs of administering core activities under the new law. Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0401
EDF filed comments yesterday on all three rules, available here, here and here.
Several of the key recommendations from each of our comments follow.
Prioritization
The prioritization rule should be procedural in nature, and the specifics of science policy issues should be left to guidance documents and policy statements.
The process established by the prioritization rule should include concrete steps to collect and develop information on chemicals that lack sufficient data on which to base prioritization decisions.
Close coordination between the prioritization and risk evaluation processes is needed to ensure deadlines are consistently met.
EPA prioritization decisions must apply to chemicals, not to particular uses or conditions of use.
A wide range of types of data should be able to be used to identify high-priority chemicals.
More robust and complete data are needed for low-priority designations than for high-priority designations.
Risk Evaluation
The risk evaluation rule should be procedural in nature, and the specifics of science policy issues should be left to guidance documents and policy statements.
The risk evaluation rule should further delineate the definitions of “intended, known, or reasonably foreseen” conditions of use and “potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations.”
In establishing the scope of a risk evaluation, EPA should
provide a public comment opportunity; and
consider all uses of a chemical and all potentially relevant subpopulations, but have authority to choose a scope that is narrower where fully justified.
For uses and conditions of use included in the scope of a risk evaluation, EPA should generally assess exposure on an aggregate basis.
Any draft risk evaluations submitted by interested persons need to be subject to public comment, and should not determine or limit the scope of EPA’s risk evaluation.
The scope of industry-requested risk evaluations should be established by EPA, not the manufacturer requesting the risk evaluation.
Peer reviews of EPA risk evaluations need to use procedures to ensure reviewers do not have conflicts of interest.
Fees
EPA should assess fees in direct proportion to the level of effort the Agency will expend on the particular activity to which a fee applies. EPA should not exempt from fees certain EPA reviews or other activities that will require resources to conduct and that fall under areas of the law that are squarely within its fee authority.
All of the costs to EPA associated with its reviews and other activities need to be included in the baseline budget on the basis of which the overall level of fees is to be determined.
The level of fees required of a manufacturer requesting a risk evaluation must reflect EPA’s costs for the fullrisk evaluation EPA conducts.
EPA should not initiate industry-requested risk evaluations until it has received the applicable fees mandated to defray its costs.
Companies should not be allowed to pay a higher fee in order to expedite EPA’s review of its new or existing chemical.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2016/08/25/edf-files-comments-on-three-tsca-rules-epa-is-developing/
-
New Orleans Group Sues EPA for Delaying New Lead Standards
Aug 25, 2016 | Nola
By Jed Lipinski
A New Orleans nonprofit and seven other community organizations around the United States sued the Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday (Aug. 24) for failing to update its 15-year-old standards about what constitutes safe levels of lead-based paint and lead dust. The suit contends that the EPA has yet to institute new lead hazard standards despite a growing body of scientific research suggesting its current standards are outdated.
The environmental law group EarthJustice filed the suit on behalf of the New Orleans-based A Community Voice as well as California Communities Against Toxics, Healthy Homes Collaborative, New Jersey Citizen Action, New York City Coalition to End Lead Poisoning, the Sierra Club, WE ACT for Environmental Justice and United Parents Against Lead National. They asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to insist on an updated rule within 90 days and a final rule within six months. The EPA said it will review the suit and respond.
The suit comes seven years after a number of groups petitioned the EPA to update the definitions of "dust-lead hazard" and "lead-based paint" under the terms of the Toxic Substances Control Act. They asked the agency to lower its lead hazard standards, now 40 micrograms of lead per square foot of surface area, to 10 micrograms. They also requested that the definition of "lead-based paint" be reduced from 5,000 parts per million to 600 parts.
The new suit was filed partly in response to research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which showed that lead levels higher than 5 micrograms per deciliter of blood in children can cause lead poisoning. Previous studies had suggested 10 micrograms per deciliter were acceptable.
The suit says the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee has already determined that the agency's current lead contamination standards are "insufficiently protective of children's health." The effects of lead poisoning are irreversible and include cognitive impairment and behavioral disorders, the Mayo Clinic says.
"The lead hazard standards set by the EPA in 2001 were intended to lead to a 1-5 percent probability of children developing elevated blood-lead levels," Hannah Chang, a staff attorney for Earthjustice, said in a phone interview. "In fact, data showed that 50 percent of kids will get elevated blood-lead levels at those standards."
"In other words, health inspectors using EPA guidelines could say: 'You're safe,' when half the children exposed to those levels were getting lead poisoning," Chang added.
According to Earthjustice, the EPA agreed to update its standards and said it would initiate rulemaking. Seven years later, however, no evident progress has been made, the group said.
The disastrous effects of lead poisoning gained national attention in 2015 after the discovery that tap water in Flint, Mich., was contaminated with high concentration of the toxic chemical. The EPA has labeled lead poisoning the No. 1 environmental health threat to children younger than 6. Moreover, lead poisoning has been found to have a disproportionate effect on low-income and non-white people, who are more likely to live in older and un-remediated homes that contain high levels of lead paint and dust.
"Experts say there is no safe level of lead exposure, and yet the EPA continues to operate using outdated measurements," said Beth Butler, director of A Community Voice. The New Orleans nonprofit works with low- and middle-income neighborhoods.
Butler said her organization is engaged in a similar dispute with the Orleans Parish School Board. A Community Voice is in the process of recruiting researchers from Virginia Tech University to test the water in drinking fountains at schools across the city, she said.
"The School Boards says, 'We're doing what the EPA standards are'," Butler said. "But the evidence suggests those standards aren't safe for our kids."
http://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2016/08/epa_lawsuit_lead_orleans.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) New EPA Advisory Panel Praises Solvent Review But Urges Biomarker Use
Aug 25, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
A new EPA advisory panel dedicated to peer reviewing risk assessments from the agency's toxics office has issued its first review, generally praising EPA's draft analysis of a common solvent but urging consideration of biomarker data that suggests widespread exposure to the chemical and could increase estimates of bystander exposures.
Official minutes dated Aug. 22 from the Chemical Safety Advisory Committee's (CSAC) review meeting of EPA's draft assessment of the solvent 1-bromopropane (1-BP) found overall that EPA “had developed a good risk assessment document.” The panel also expressed the view that “the Agency should not delay completing the risk assessment because the occupational and consumer use scenarios already evaluated indicate high risks of adverse effects and some Committee members’ comments indicate that these risks might have been under- rather than over-estimated.”
The CSAC met for the first time May 24-25 in Arlington, VA, to peer review the draft assessment of 1-BP, also known as n-propyl bromide. EPA's draft assessment finds that 1-BP poses risks to workers and pregnant women. It is part of the work plan risk assessment program EPA crafted in 2012 as an effort to more strictly address existing chemicals under its original 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authorities.
The work plan program has been written into Congress' recent overhaul of TSCA, with language allowing EPA to use finalized work plan assessments instead of re-doing assessments as described in the new statute. The TSCA reform law also directs the agency to select some of the first chemicals it chooses to assess per the law's new authorities to come from the list of 90 chemicals that EPA prioritized for the work plan program in 2014.
The agency's work plan review of 1-BP is one of several ongoing federal reviews regarding the solvent. 1-BP has seen increased use in recent years, in large part as a replacement for other solvents, for example, as a replacement for certain halogenated solvents used in drycleaning.
While CSAC largely praised the draft review and urged EPA act to quickly on regulating the chemical, panelists also raised concerns that the assessment may under-represent some exposures. Therefore, the assessment could underestimate the chemical's risk, particularly to general population bystanders. Some CSAC members urged greater consideration of data from biomarkers, which are substances whose presence in an organism's urine or blood can indicate exposure.
Biomarker Studies
Panelists urged EPA to consider two biomarker studies published after EPA released the draft assessment last March, which may indicate widespread general exposure to 1-BP.
One study, using data from the now-defunct National Children's Study, reported a detection frequency in 99 percent of pregnant women. The other study found 61 percent frequency in children aged 6-11 in National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data of a urinary biomarker, or a metabolite, of 1-BP.
“Although the Committee realizes these reports came out after the draft was written, some consideration of these data would benefit the revised report,” the minutes state. “In particular, it would be helpful to understand what other compounds may be metabolized to N-acetyl-S-(n-propyl)-l-cysteine in order to help understand whether these biomonitoring data are indicative of widespread general population exposure to 1-BP or a combination of 1-BP and other small chain organohalogens.”
The panel noted concerns that EPA may have under-estimated general population exposures by focusing on exposure scenarios only to workers and consumers. It recommends that EPA expand the problem formulation and scope of the assessment.
The panel, however, is concerned that doing so would delay finalization of the assessment and resulting regulation, and so urges the agency to consider a modeling approach used in California if data is not available to support additional exposure scenarios.
“The Committee noted that the problem formulation and scope should be expanded to include chronic exposures and risk to the general population, including infants and children, from operations that use 1-BP for degreasing or dry-cleaning, or other emissive sources,” the report states. “However, the Committee also did not want the Agency to delay completing the assessment because the occupational and consumer use scenarios already evaluated indicate high risk of adverse non-cancer health effects and cancer risk in workers and non-cancer risks for consumer uses.”
The report acknowledges that EPA's draft “indicates . . . that data were not available for emissions from facilities using 1-BP,” and so instead encourages EPA to consider modeling exposure.
CSAC points to the example of a drycleaning business in a community, where modeling using generic parameters of a typical drycleaner was conducted by the California Air Resources Board.
Potential Uses
A few of the committee members also suggested EPA research a handful of uses of 1-BP not included in the assessment, since these unaccounted uses might explain some widespread exposure. Examples include 1-BP use as spray adhesive in the foam manufacturing industry, for furniture, as well as uses as a chemical intermediate in the process of making certain pesticides, drugs, flavors and fragrances.
“[I]t is not clear whether use as an intermediate in synthesis of other chemicals could still pose an exposure risk. The document should include information on whether 1-BP is still used in synthesizing these compounds or is present in these products and indicate that inability to estimate exposure from these sources (if they exist) is a limitation of the assessment,” the panelists' report states.
Further, the panel recommended that in future, EPA undertake a more systematic and formal approach to scoping risk assessments, through an approach known as systematic review. The agency's research office has been adapting the approach for use in its Integrated Risk Information System risk analyses of chemicals. Using systematic review, scientists gather data and evaluate it based on pre-determined scientific questions and related criteria, while transparently documenting their decisions.
One of the panelists, echoed by others at the peer review meetings, said the 1-BP assessment “(and more to the point other TSCA chemical assessments to be presented in the future) would benefit by adoption of systematic review practices. The assessment could have a methods section which describes the problem formulation work, strategies used to identify key literature (exposure or health outcome), study inclusion/exclusion criteria, etc.”
Stakeholders split in their opinions of the draft 1-BP assessment, with environmentalists and some states sharing the peer review panel's report calls for EPA to bolster the review by considering exposures, while also urging the agency to quickly move toward a final review and action to limit exposures.
Industry comments, however, argued that EPA mischaracterizes exposures to 1-BP and that the assessment is a screening level review using worst-case exposure information, rendering the assessment useless as the basis of regulations.
Further, the chemical industry group American Chemistry Council unsuccessfully lobbied EPA last April to delay the peer review, arguing the individuals selected to serve on the peer review panel were unqualified and raising concerns about the process the agency used to create a larger committee overseeing the peer review panel.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/new-epa-advisory-panel-praises-solvent-review-urges-biomarker-use
-
Hybrid Fortune 500 Partner PPG-Comex Launches Green Polyurethane™ Based Coating Product
Aug 25, 2016 | Econo Times
By Steve Luna
Hybrid Coating Technologies Inc. (OTCBB:HCTI) is pleased to announce that after several years of development, Comex a division of PPG Industries Inc. (see About PPG below) has created a new coatings product utilizing Hybrid’s zero isocyanate Polyurethane technology. The product was recently launched in the Mexican market and is now sold in PPG-Comex stores in Mexico. PPG-Comex developed and launched the product in an effort to bring more environmentally friendly green products to customers without compromising on performance. The coating product has been reported to work exceptionally well and was found to perform better than competitor’s products on both durability and coating properties. “We are very excited to be working in partnership with PPG-Comex the world’s largest industrial coatings company,” said Joseph Kristul President and CEO, “this is yet another example of the commercial value of Hybrid’s unique technology.”
Later this year, PPG-Comex will also be launching a second coating product based on Hybrid’s zero isocyanate Polyurethane technology.
This product launch demonstrates the strong desire and ability for companies to develop their own products using Hybrid’s zero isocyanate Green Polyurethane™ Hardener as a raw material. It also demonstrates a strong market demand for Green Polyurethane™ by some of the largest coatings companies in the world. Hybrid’s end goal is for numerous companies to develop multiple products based on Hybrid’s zero isocyanate Green Polyurethane™ Hardener as legislation for isocyanates eventually becomes more restrictive, thereby allowing Hybrid to deeply and broadly penetrate the coatings market not only as a finished goods supplier, but also as a raw materials supplier. Hybrid is and continues to be the only supplier in the world of zero isocyanate polyurethane hardener and zero isocyanate polyurethane based finished goods.
This press release was first issued on May 5, 2016
Hybrid’s patented technology is the only formulation in the world today that produces polyurethane without the use of any isocyanates in the entire production process.
CAUTIONARY DISCLOSURE ABOUT FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This release contains "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and such forward-looking statements are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Statements in this news release other than statements of historical fact are "forward-looking statements" that are based on current expectations and assumptions. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by the statements, including, but not limited to, the following: the ability of Hybrid Coating Technologies Inc. to provide for its obligations, to provide working capital needs from operating revenues, to obtain additional financing needed for any future acquisitions, to meet competitive challenges and technological changes, and other risks. Hybrid Coating Technologies Inc undertakes no duty to update any forward-looking statement(s) and/or to confirm the statement(s) to actual results or changes in Hybrid Coating Technologies Inc. expectations.
About PPG
PPG is an American Fortune 500 company and global supplier of paints, coatings, specialty materials, chemicals, glass, and fiberglass. With headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, PPG operates in more than 70 countries around the globe. By revenue it is the largest coatings company in the world with $15B for 2015. PPG has 47,000 employees worldwide and trades under the symbol PPG on the NYSE with a $27B market cap. PPG acquired Comex in 2014 for $2.3B. Comex has 4,000 retail locations, 5,000 employees and $1B in revenues.About Hybrid Coating Technologies
Hybrid Coating Technologies (HCT) is a San Francisco-based innovator focused on improving the quality and safety of foams, coatings, and adhesives for industrial and commercial customers around the world. We are the exclusive licensee of Green Polyurethane™ foam, coatings, and adhesives – the world’s first-ever patent protected polyurethane-based foam, coatings, and adhesive products that eliminate toxic isocyanates from the entire production process (licensed by Nanotech Industries, Inc.) and the 2015 recipient of the Presidential Green Chemistry Award.The Problem of Conventional Foams/Coatings/Paint and Isocyanates
Conventional polyurethane (PU) paint and coatings have many disadvantages: they are porous, permeable and maintain poor hydrolytic stability. This makes the material highly vulnerable to environmental degradation and ultimately leads to their chemical decomposition, especially when in contact with water. Conventional PU foams such as spray foam insulation are applied via a spraying mechanism that sends toxic isocyanates in the air – exposing workers to the dangers of toxic isocyanates. Strict and costly health & safety measures have to be implemented in the manufacture and application of conventional polyurethane due to the toxicity of isocyanates. This is why regulatory bodies around the world are now looking toward phasing out the use of isocyanates.Since conventional polyurethanes contain isocyanates, very strict health and safety measures related to their use must be taken. In addition, special measures for the preparation of fillers for paints and coatings must be taken since isocyanates are very sensitive to moisture. Both of these issues lead to a highly regulated and costly working environment. On the other hand, it is not necessary to address any of these issues with Green PolyurethaneTM since no isocyanates are used at any stage of the production or application process – making it hundreds of times less toxic than conventional PU.
Current global trends toward more environmentally sound products and new legislative restrictions on the use of hazardous materials and their chemical by-products pose formidable obstacles to conventional polyurethane manufacturers. Governmental health agencies and workers unions are beginning to actively speak out and regulate against the dangers of isocyanates in the workplace.
The Green Polyurethane™ Solution
Green Polyurethane™ (also referred to as “HNIPU” - hybrid non-isocyanate polyurethane) is a “hybrid” material that combines the high chemical resistance properties of epoxy and advanced durability and wear resistance properties of polyurethane, making it the perfect coating application for sanitary, high traffic and corrosive surface areas. As a hybrid material with superior properties, Green Polyurethane ™ can be applied in one or two coatings, providing a welcome cost-saving substitute to currently used multi-layered coating applications. Its safety features allow it to be applied without the interruption of business due to public exposure, creating an additional 30-60% savings on application costs for customers. As a foam, Green Polyurethane™ provides high R values up to 6.0, energy savings up to 30% and improved tensile strength over conventional foam without using dangerous isocyanates.Recent Anti-Isocyanate Regulatory Pressure
US EPA MDI Action Plan: The US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) is taking progressive action to regulate and potentially ban isocyanates and has mentioned Hybrid’s technology as an alternative to toxic polyurethane in its MDI Action Plan against isocyanates (see page 4 Figovsky and Shapovalov) http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/tdi.pdf.OSHA National Emphasis Program: On June 25, 2013 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), a division of the US Department of Labor, initiated a National Emphasis Program to protect workers from the serious health effects from occupational exposure to isocyanates. Isocyanates are found in polyurethane based products. According to OSHA, "Workers exposed to isocyanates can suffer debilitating health problems for months or even years after exposure which could result in death."
California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) on March 13, 2014 selected isocyanates and two others substances from a list of 1,100 toxic components that it will focus on with the goal of potentially banning them altogether within the next two years. The announcement is part of a bigger effort to educate consumers and manufacturers about product safety under the Green-Chemistry Law, which went into effect in California last year. Under the law, the agency has jurisdiction to ban these products altogether after following proper protocol. That process includes workshops, a public comment period and requiring manufacturers that want to sell these products in California to determine whether it would be feasible to use safer ingredients
The US EPA on January 8, 2015 announced that it was taking action to protect consumers from new uses and imports of harmful isocyanates in polyurethane. The EPA’s proposed action, a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), would require manufacturers (including importers) to notify the EPA at least 90 days before starting or resuming new uses of isocyanates in polyurethane based consumer products. The EPA would then have the opportunity to evaluate the intended use of and if necessary, to take action to prohibit or limit all products containing over one tenth of one percent of the chemical including imported products that make their way into the United States.
http://www.econotimes.com/Hybrid-Fortune-500-Partner-PPG-Comex-Launches-Green-Polyurethane%E2%84%A2-Based-Coating-Product-268462
-
Fracking Linked to Migraines, Nasal, Sinus Symptoms — Study
Aug 25, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
Unconventional natural gas development in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale could be causing migraine headaches, fatigue and sinus symptoms in nearby residents, a group of Maryland researchers has found.
The study, published today in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, found that Pennsylvania residents with the highest exposure to hydraulic fracturing were nearly twice as likely to experience illness. The study did not determine a causal link, said lead author Aaron Tustin, a resident physician in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
"Having said that, we think it's a possibility," he said.
Tustin and his colleagues looked at four levels of exposure. The lowest three quartiles of natural gas industry activity were associated with a low likelihood of symptoms, but participants in the fourth quartile were more likely to report an illness.
The findings suggest a threshold in the relationship between unconventional development and health outcomes, Tustin said. He likened it to getting a sunburn: It doesn't happen after five minutes of sun exposure, but each person has a threshold after which a burn will occur.
Tustin's study is based on survey responses collected between April 13 and Oct. 13, 2014. He and his colleagues mailed the questionnaire — along with a cover letter that made no mention of interest in environmental causes, fracking, energy or pollution — to 23,700 adult patients of the Geisinger Health System in north and central Pennsylvania. The Bloomberg School team had a 33 percent response rate.
Of 7,785 participants, 1,850 (24 percent) had symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis, 1,765 (23 percent) had migraine headaches and 1,930 (25 percent) had higher levels of fatigue.
The researchers used their models to determine whether other factors, such as smoking habits, sex, race, ethnicity and age, were contributing to the occurrence of illness.
"Even when we included these factors in our models, we still found these associations," Tustin said.
The Marcellus Shale Coalition, a group focused on the activities of industry in Pennsylvania's oil and gas fields, questioned the absence of baseline data to track potential health changes over time.
"While we absolutely support legitimate, fact-based research, a clear pattern has emerged from this group's ongoing efforts which continue to misleadingly present data absent any factual or scientific evidence," Marcellus Shale Coalition spokeswoman Erica Clayton Wright wrote in an emailed statement. "Specifically, yet once again, these researchers establish no baseline — perhaps the most basic factor in sound, rigorous and objective research methodology — to effectively determine if patient symptoms increased, stayed the same, or decreased in periods prior, during or following shale development."
The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Degenstein Foundation, and the National Science Foundation's Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship.
Tustin's co-author, Brian Schwartz, a professor in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at the Bloomberg School, is a fellow of the Post Carbon Institute, which has referredto fracking as a "virus." Schwartz is an informal, unpaid adviser on climate, energy and health issues for the institute.
Prior studies by researchers at the Bloomberg School have linked gas extraction to pre-term birth and the presence of high radon levels in homes (EnergyWire, Oct. 9, 2015; EnergyWire, April 10, 2015).
Taken together, Tustin said, these studies and others like them could help inform a decision to potentially extend Maryland's moratorium on fracking, which is set to expire next fall (EnergyWire, June 1, 2015).
"The moratorium was put in place before we even knew that there were health effects associated with these wells," Schwartz said. "Now that we do, regulators need to carefully consider their next steps."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/08/25/stories/1060042032
-
Aug 25, 2016 | Energy in Depth
By Seth Whitehead
The same researchers responsible for a study claiming premature birth rates are high near shale gas wells in Pennsylvania — even though they were actually below the national average — and a study claiming fracking is associated with increased asthma flare-ups — even though statedata shows heavily-drilled counties had far lower asthma hospitalization rates than counties with no shale gas production at all — have put out a new study today that has just about as much merit.
Based off a survey of Geisinger Clinic patients who suffer from at least one of the three conditions, the study claims, “New research suggests that Pennsylvania residents with the highest exposure to active natural gas wells operated by the hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) industry are nearly twice as likely to suffer from a combination of migraine headaches, chronic nasal and sinus symptoms and severe fatigue.” In other words they’re blaming increased incidences of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), migraine headaches and fatigue (the most common symptoms people have across the board!) on fracking.
But making that stretch isn’t surprising considering that one of the researchers is Brian Schwartz, a fellow at the Post Carbon Institute, an anti-fossil fuel organization that has called fracking a “virus.”
With this research team’s track record of biased studies and activism considered — along with the sheer absurdity of blaming such common ailments on fracking — it comes to no surprise that their conclusions are (yet again) highly suspect. Here are four facts to know:
Fact #1: Vast majority of the study participants and reported symptoms were from areas nowhere near shale wells — and non-shale counties have higher participation/symptoms reported ratios than top five shale counties
The authors divided the study area into four “quartiles,” noting that a higher percentage of participants in the fourth quartile — shown in the graphic below, taken from the study — showed clear associations with increased instances of CRS, migraine and fatigue symptoms and proximity to natural gas wells. The researchers concluded that this is due to “quartile four” being located in the northeast region of Pennsylvania, where a vast majority of Marcellus Shale natural gas wells (indicated with yellow dots) are located.
But a close look at the graphic reveals a vast majority of actual cases of these conditions (indicated with blue dots; black dots are controls) reported in “quartile four” in the survey are not actually located in counties with a vast majority of the shale gas wells. Consider the following data on the top five shale gas counties in the study area, which EID has identified on the study graphic:Tioga County, which has 661 shale gas wells — sixth most in the state — had just four participants, two of which reported symptoms.Bradford County, which has 1,097 shale gas wells — second most in the state — had just 12 participants, 10 of which reported symptoms.Sullivan County, a small county geographically that includes dozens of shale wells, had just 20 participants, 11 of which had symptoms.Susquehana, a major shale county, had 69 participants, 45 which reported symptoms.Lycoming County is the only major shale county with significant representation, as it had 233 participants, 128 which reported symptoms.
Bottom line: graphic “A” clearly shows that most of the reported cases of these conditions in “quartile four” were from areas with little to no shale development.
All told, a total of just 336 of the study’s 7,785 participants (only 4 percent) live in the five counties that happen to have the most shale development in the study area, as the following map from the study illustrates. “T” represents the total number of participants from each county, and if not for the 233 participants from Lycoming County, major shale counties in the study area would barely be represented.
So though the authors say study participants were more likely than non-respondents to live in highest natural gas quartile — which includes the most shale gas production and supports the researchers’ narrative — their own graphic shows most of the participants and cases reported are not near production.
Luzerne County, for instance, had more than 1,500 participants, but just two shale gas wells, according to the report. Basically the sample size was far too small in actual shale counties to produce any meaningful results. If anything, their data show greater reported symptoms farther away from shale development, but of course that doesn’t fit in with their predetermined narrative.
It’s also worth having a quick look at the CRS data by quartile in the bottom left corner of the below graph:
Note that they report 182 instances of CRS in quartile four, which is supposed to be closest to shale wells, yet quartile one has 181 cases and quartiles two and three have 187 and 188 respectively. So even though the researchers claim air pollution from fracking causes CRS, the quartiles with no development actually reported more cases. The only way the researchers could get higher numbers in quartile four was to add two of the most common symptoms ever – headaches and fatigue – into the mix, as can be seen in the bottom row of data.
Similar to the CRS data above, EID identified 21 counties in the study area that have no shale production at all. Interestingly, the ratio of total participation to total symptoms reported in these counties (1 : 0.58) is slightly higher than the total participation to total symptoms reported ratio in the top five shale counties discussed earlier (1 : 0.57). You can view the raw data EID compiled to calculate these ratios here. And if you were to add Luzerne County, which has just two shale wells, to the non-shale county data, the ratio would jump to 1 : 0.62. In other words, rates of reported symptoms are actually a bit higher in non-shale counties within the study area — and there is certainly no indication that even remote proximity to shale gas development results in an uptick of symptoms.
Fact #2: Researchers fail to gather baseline data for migraines and fatigue; baseline data for CRS contradict link to fracking
If you want to determine if fracking had an effect on someone’s symptoms, wouldn’t you want to know if the patient had these symptoms before fracking occurred in their county? In other words, it might have made sense to have baseline data to compare pre- and post-shale development data in Pennsylvania. It would have been so easy to ask that question in the questionnaire that was sent out, but the researchers failed to obtain such data for migraines and fatigue:
“We reasoned that UNGD might be associated with current CRS only for onset of symptoms after 2006, when UNGD commenced in Pennsylvania. To test the associated hypothesis we stratified the CRS group by date of symptom onset (before/after January 1, 2006) and re-ran models within each stratum. While associations of UNGD activity with our other outcomes could also differ by onset date, our questionnaire did not ascertain the onset date of migraine and fatigue symptoms.” (emphasis added)
The researchers did apparently look at some baseline data for CRS noting, rightly, that if you had it earlier than 2006 it probably wasn’t due to fracking:
“When we stratified CRS patients by onset date, the second (OR = 3.27; 95% CI: 1.21,8.82) and fourth (OR = 3.26; 95% CI: 1.14, 9.36) quartiles of UNGD were associated with significantly increased odds of CRS in those whose symptoms began after 2006 (see Supplemental Material, Table S2). There were no associations in participants with earlier symptom onset.”
But for those who had symptoms after 2006: they said there were too few to know if they had to do with fracking:
“UNGD was associated with CRS in individuals whose nasal and sinus symptoms began after the start of UNGD in Pennsylvania, although these estimates had lower precisions due to small number of subjects with recent CRS onset.”
As was the case with the researchers’ premature birth and asthma studies — the former which was highly criticized by a prominent biostatistician for suggesting it had “evidence” of fracking’s harms and also did not analyze baseline data — this latest study finds absolutely no link between fracking and instances of CRS, migraine headaches or fatigue in the study area. Co-author Brian Schwartz conceded in the press release:
“We don’t know specifically why people in close proximity to these larger wells are more likely to be sick,” Schwartz said.
Energywire reported,
The study did not determine a causal link, said lead author Aaron Tustin, a resident physician in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
“Having said that, we think it’s a possibility,” he said.
The press release also states:
“In general, cross-sectional surveys such as ours cannot access temporal relations between exposures and outcomes, and we did not ascertain the onset dates of some symptoms.”
And considering the researchers chose to evaluate conditions that can be triggered by a myriad of factors, the study notes that other causal factors other than fracking have to be considered:
“Participants’ exposure to UNGD activity could have been affected by unmeasured factors such as occupation, travel, and time spent outdoors. Additionally, our UNGD activity metric did not allow identification of specific exposures or exposure pathways.”
On that point the report also admits that the people who did submit questionnaires were considered not to be in good health. From the study:
“There was some evidence of selection bias, as survey participants had poorer health (measured by the Charlson comorbidity index) than non-responders.”
According to the Mayo Clinic, migraines can be triggered by hormonal changes (in women), foods, food additives, alcohol, changes in weather, medication and several other factors. CRS, which 13 percent (30 million people) of the U.S. population suffers with, is most often triggered by allergies, according to the Mayo Clinic, and fatigue, obviously, has countless causes that have nothing remotely do with fracking.
Fact #3: Researchers have clear anti-fracking bias
Though EID has pointed it out three times now, it bears repeating: A key member of this research team, as well as the funding of their recent Pennsylvania studies, can be traced to the anti-fracking movement.
One of the study’s authors, Brian Schwartz, is a fellow at the Post Carbon Institute, a group known for espousing discredited “peak-oil” views and, it just so happens, has called fracking a “virus” and states as its mission to eliminate fossil fuels altogether. After being called out for not disclosing that affiliation in numerous reports, this study, as well as his latest asthma study, notes in the disclosures,
“Competing Financial Interests: Dr. Schwartz is a Fellow of the Post Carbon Institute (PCI), serving as an informal advisor on climate, energy, and health issues. He receives no payment for this role. His research is entirely independent of PCI, and is not motivated, reviewed, or funded by PCI. The other authors declare they have no actual or potential competing financial interests.”
Of course, it was never a question of funding — but a question of bias — that prompted EID to raise these red flags in the first place!
But speaking of funding, the researchers also received financial support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which features at least three board members who are also on the board of World Wildlife Fund, which has made it clear that it is, “against the use of fracking to extract shale gas – or any other ‘unconventional’ fuels – from the ground.”
So it’s no wonder the press release for the study takes an activist stance on Maryland’s fracking moratorium. From the release:
“Maryland’s fracking moratorium is set to expire in October 2017. The moratorium was passed in 2015 out of concern about fracking’s potentially negative environmental effects, before the more recent health studies were completed. Schwartz says Maryland regulators should consider these new scientific findings when they decide whether to allow drilling.
“The moratorium was put in place before we even knew that there were health effects associated with these wells,” Schwartz says. “Now that we do, regulators need to carefully consider their next steps.”
Fact #4: Studies show Pennsylvania’s pollution is plummeting as natural gas production soars
While these researchers desperately try to attribute common illnesses to fracking based on “associations,” real evidence of fracking’s contribution to improved public health continues to come to light.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has just released data from its 2014 air emissions inventory of the natural gas industry, and DEP Acting Secretary Patrick McDonnell explains, the state’s greater use of natural gas has led to dramatic decreases in air pollution:
“Although the reported emissions from the natural gas sector increased in 2014, overall our air quality continues to improve due to emissions reductions from other point sources such as electric generating units,” McDonnell said. “Between 2011 and 2014, NOx and SO2 emissions from electric generating units have decreased by 18 percent (27,246 tons per year) and 17 percent (54,973 tons per year), respectively. We remain committed to developing and implementing the most effective ways to control and reduce emissions from Pennsylvania’s natural gas sites.” (emphasis added)
DEP has previously highlighted that the emission reductions from the state’s increased use of natural gas represent “between $14 billion and $37 billion of annual public health benefits.” Then DEP Secretary Chris Abruzzo pointed out:
“It is important to note that across-the-board emission reductions … can be attributed to the steady rise in the production and development of natural gas, the greater use of natural gas, lower allowable emissions limits, installation of control technology and the deactivation of certain sources.” (emphasis added)
Recent studies that actually measure air emissions at well sites – unlike what this study does – have also shown shale development in the Marcellus is protective of public health.A recent Pennsylvania report commissioned by Fort Cherry School District in southwest Pennsylvania actually examined air emissions at a nearby well site in Washington County — the state’s most active shale county — and “did not show anything remarkable with respect to chemicals detected in the ambient air. When volatile compounds were detected, they were consistent with background levels measured at the school and in other areas in Washington County. Furthermore, a basic yet conservative screening level evaluation shows that the detected volatile compounds were below health-protective levels.”Another recent Marcellus study led by researchers at Drexel University found low levels of air emissions at well sites. As they explained, “we did not observe elevated levels of any of the light aromatic compounds (benzene, toluene, etc.)” and “there are few emissions of nonalkane VOCs (as measured by PTR-MS) from Marcellus Shale development.” Another Pennsylvania study by Professional Service Industries, Inc., commissioned by Union Township in Pennsylvania that found “Airborne gas and TVOC levels appear to have been at or near background levels for the entire monitoring periods in the three locations monitored.”The Pa. DEP conducted air monitoring northeast Pennsylvania and concluded that the state “did not identify concentrations of any compound that would likely trigger air-related health issues associated with Marcellus Shale drilling activities.” A similar report for southwestern Pennsylvania came to the same conclusion.A peer-reviewed study looking at cancer incidence rates in several Pennsylvania counties found “no evidence that childhood leukemia was elevated in any county after [hydraulic fracturing] commenced.”
Conclusion
It is clear from the researchers’ background and their comments on the coming expiration of Maryland’s fracking moratorium that they are desperately attempting to accumulate severely lacking “evidence” of fracking’s harms to public health. In the meantime, the real data — based on actual emission measurements and official state data — completely contradict the “associations” claimed in this and past papers by these researchers, actually showing fracking has been good for public health and the environment.
The researchers have tried to sell the former three times now in the past nine months. But considering their complete lack of evidence and severely flawed modeling, their hopes for a third set of alarmist headlines blaming fracking for the world’s most common ailments may be pushing it.
http://energyindepth.org/national/activist-researchers-own-data-contradict-claim-of-link-between-fracking-and-sinus-conditions-migraines-and-fatigue/
-
Enviros Wage War with Interior Over Leasing's Climate Impact
Aug 25, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmental groups launched a broad assault today on federal oil and gas leasing, accusing the Obama administration of ignoring the climate impacts from leasing on hundreds of thousands of acres since early 2015.
WildEarth Guardians and Physicians for Social Responsibility filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging 397 leases in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. The leases collectively represent almost 380,000 acres.
According to the groups, the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management issued the leases without analyzing the impacts on climate and taxpayers. They say the practice tarnishes President Obama's legacy on climate issues.
"President Obama seems to get climate change, but he has an unexplainable blind spot when it comes to leasing public lands to oil and gas companies," WildEarth Guardians' Tim Ream said in a statement. "The Obama administration leases a million acres of public lands a year to dirty energy companies but hasn't bothered to disclose the inevitable climate pollution? That's not just immoral, it's illegal, and we're going to stop it."
The groups argue in the legal filing that BLM failed to identify direct greenhouse gas emissions and effects from the lease sales; indirect, downstream emissions from the sales; and cumulative emissions from the leases when combined with existing onshore development. They say 10 percent of energy-related emissions contributing to climate change can be traced to development on public lands.
The lawsuit highlights the Obama administration's pledges to cut greenhouse gas emissions generally and, more specifically, to cut methane emissions from oil and gas operations.
"Simple acknowledging a problem is insufficient when climate science demands that the time frame for action is now," said Western Environmental Law Center attorney Kyle Tisdel, who is helping to represent the groups.
The groups are urging the district court to set aside the leases at issue and freeze new oil and gas leasing until Interior performs a broad-scale climate analysis for oil and gas in line with the "keep it in the ground" movement, which is angling for a permanent ban on fossil fuel development on public lands.
BLM officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A spokesman for the Independent Petroleum Association of America said the industry group was reviewing the challenge, which would affect many leases held by small companies.
The environmentalists' lawsuit comes two weeks after oil and gas industry groups lodged their own complaint against the administration's management of leasing. They say Interior has been inconsistent with lease sales, canceling and postponing them without reason, or bowing to environmental pressure — violating the Mineral Leasing Act's directive for quarterly lease sales, the industry suit says.
Kathleen Sgamma, of the industry group Western Energy Alliance, which is involved in the industry leasing suit, called environmentalists' challenge naive and out of touch with federal law.
"Our lawsuit challenges BLM's failure to hold lease sales as required by the Mineral Leasing Act," she said in an email. "On the other hand, WildEarth is trying to force the government to violate the law. It’s much easier to just file a frivolous lawsuit than it is to change the law through Congress."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/08/25/stories/1060042065
-
Coast Guard Publishes TWIC Final Rule
Aug 25, 2016 | Occupational Health and Safety
The U.S. Coast Guard has published its final rule on Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) reader requirements. It requires owners and operators of certain vessels and facilities regulated by the Coast Guard to conduct electronic inspections of TWICs as an access control measure, and the rule implements recordkeeping requirements and security plan amendments.
The rule applies to Risk Group A facilities and vessels:
Vessels certificated to carry more than 1,000 passengers
Vessels that carry certain dangerous cargo (CDC) in bulk
Vessels engaged in towing another Risk Group A vessel
Facilities that handle CDC in bulk
Facilities that receive vessels certificated to carry more than 1,000 passengers
These include waterfront facilities handling dangerous cargoes (as generally defined in 49 CFR parts 170 through 179); waterfront facilities handling liquefied natural gas and liquefied hazardous gas; facilities transferring oil or hazardous materials in bulk; Mobile Offshore Drilling Units; cargo vessels or passenger vessels subject to the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS), chapter XI-1 or Chapter XI-2; foreign cargo vessels larger than 100 gross register tons; self-propelled U.S. cargo vessels larger than 100 gross tons; offshore supply vessels; passenger vessels certificated to carry more than 150 passengers; passenger vessels carrying more than 12 passengers engaged on an international voyage; barges carrying bulk cargoes regulated under the Coast Guard's regulations regarding tank vessels or CDC; barges carrying CDC or cargo and miscellaneous vessels engaged on an international voyage; tank ships; and, generally, towing vessels more than 8 meters in register length engaged in towing barges.
According to USCG, the rule builds on existing regulations designed to ensure that only individuals who hold a valid TWIC are granted unescorted access to secure areas of Coast Guard-regulated vessels and facilities; it implements requirements of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 and the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act).
DHS requires that a security guard examines the security features (hologram and watermark) embedded on the surface of the credential, checks the expiration date listed on the card, and compares the photograph to the person presenting the credential. "While this system of 'visual TWIC inspection' provides some benefits," USCG stated, "it does not address all security concerns, nor does it make full use of the security features contained in the TWIC. For example, if a TWIC is stolen or lost, an unauthorized individual could make use of the credential, and provided that individual resembles the picture on the TWIC, could gain access to a secure area. Additionally, if a TWIC is revoked because the individual has committed a disqualifying offense, such as the theft of explosives, there is no way for security officers on a vessel or at a facility to determine that fact from the face of the TWIC. Finally, a sophisticated adversary could forge a realistic replica of a credential. It is also worth noting that since a TWIC-holder is required to renew his or her credential every 5 years, the TWIC-holder's resemblance to the picture on the TWIC may decrease over time, rendering visual inspection a somewhat less accurate means to confirm identity. Through the process of 'electronic TWIC inspection,' by which TWICs are authenticated, validated, and the individual's identity confirmed biometrically, all of these scenarios would be thwarted or mitigated."
https://ohsonline.com/articles/2016/08/25/coast-guard-publishes-twic-final-rule.aspx
-
California Approves Ambitious Plan to Cut Greenhouse Gases
Aug 25, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Reid Wilson
California legislators passed perhaps the most ambitious effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions in the nation on Wednesday, handing a significant victory to Gov. Jerry Brown ahead of a looming fight over the state’s cap and trade program next year.
In a pair of party-line votes, the state Senate and state Assembly passed two significant bills: One would require California to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to a level 40 percent below their 1990 levels by 2030. The other handed legislators more control over a state board that oversees emissions.
“The effort to decarbonize our economy in California and throughout the world is extremely difficult. It’s a tall hill that we’re climbing, and there is a struggle, and there is opposition,” Brown said at a press conference Wednesday. “This is a big day.”
Brown said the new legislation would strengthen his position in negotiations with lawmakers next year, when the legislature is expected to tackle new cap and trade measures. The state’s current cap and trade program is being challenged in court, and a recent auction for emissions credits appears likely to have raised far less than expected.
The current program requires the state to hit less ambitious carbon reduction goals by 2020. New technology and cleaner industrial sites make achieving those goals likely, which has led to a glut of carbon credits within the market. Some estimates suggest the most recent auction raised as little as $8 million, a fraction of what the state expected to raise.
That makes tightening the market through stronger emission cut targets essential to the program’s success. If the legislature does not make changes to the current cap and trade system, Brown — who maintains a mammoth campaign war chest even though he is barred by term limits from running for re-election in 2018 — has suggested he will use his remaining political capital to put a measure on the 2018 ballot.
The two measures passed Wednesday faced heated opposition from California’s oil and gas industries, which say they stand to lose thousands of jobs under efforts to cut carbon emissions. Republican opponents of the bills said they would cause higher energy prices, which hit low-income and minority communities harder than cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco.
“California Democrats are the only variety of politician today who still believe their state can change the climate of the planet,” said Ron Nehring, a former chairman of the state Republican Party who ran for lieutenant governor in 2014. “Liberals in San Francisco riding [the Bay Area Rapid Transit system] don’t feel the effects of leftist energy policies nearly as much as the Central Valley farmer in his F-150 or the guy commuting from San Bernardino to L.A.”
Even some supporters of the bills acknowledged that the costs of climate change legislation can fall disproportionately on low-income communities in the Central Valley. During the floor debate, Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D) said the Air Resources Board, which oversees emissions, had a “credibility problem.” Others pointed out that the board’s members are entirely white.
The bill to give the legislature more control over the board is a way to increase its racial and geographic diversity. That measure was sponsored by Assemblyman Eduardo Garcia, a Coachella Democrat whose inland district is one of those that stands to lose jobs if the oil and gas market suffers further. The bill requires the board to assess the costs of climate change regulations on energy prices and the agriculture industry.
But Brown said job losses because of climate change legislation are overstated. He compared those job cuts to the buggy whip industry losing positions with the invention of the automobile, and to shopping malls losing out as online shopping makes gains.
“It isn’t only Donald Trump who’s trying to stop the effort to clean up the air and to combat climate change,” Brown told reporters on Wednesday. “There are a lot of Trump-inspired acolytes that even walk the halls of this state capitol. But they have been vanquished.”
It is the second time the two measures have come up for a vote: A combination of business-friendly Democrats and Republicans scuttled a similar push in 2015. Brown said supporters spent the past year tweaking the legislation and negotiating with members to secure enough votes.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/293304-california-approves-ambitious-plan-to-cut-greenhouse-gases
-
EPA Plan To End 'Affirmative' Air Rules Defense Spurs Competing Attacks
Aug 25, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA's plan to strike from its rules an "affirmative defense" for companies against liability for violating Clean Air Act standards is spurring competing attacks, with environmentalists saying it would still allow use of the defense in some cases while the liquid commodities terminal sector says the proposal ignores the need for the defense.
Meanwhile, Idaho's Department of Environmental Quality in recent comments to EPA warns that the agency is not giving states enough time to take the necessary regulatory and legislative steps to strike affirmative defenses from their EPA-approved air law compliance plans. EPA's proposal "is legally impossible for Idaho based on our rulemaking schedule," the state says.
EPA published in the June 14 Federal Register its proposal to remove some types of affirmative defenses from federal air regulations. It follows a related final rule -- currently being litigated -- forcing states to remove from their state implementation plans (SIPs) exemptions for emissions limit violations during a facility startup, shutdown or malfunction. Some states argue EPA lacks authority for that "SIP Call" rule.
Affirmative defense provisions provide a shield against civil liability for polluters for excess emissions resulting from malfunctions, or "upsets," deemed unavoidable by EPA. But a federal appeals court in 2014 found such defenses unlawful, prompting the suite of agency rulemakings to remove the defenses from its policies.
The June 14 proposal seeks to eliminate "emergency" affirmative defense provisions from its regulations governing air law Title V operating permits issued by states or EPA itself. The rules apply to "emergencies," or unavoidable malfunctions. EPA says the rule will in many cases address substantively similar issues to the SIP Call, where states have incorporated language from the federal permit regulations into their own permitting programs.
EPA still envisages that states could retain affirmative defenses in permits, where the defenses are not granted under federally-approved permit programs but issued under state law. EPA in a fact sheet said it "expects it will be necessary for many state permitting authorities to make conforming revisions to their title V programs to remove similar affirmative defense provisions. Alternatively, states may be able to retain affirmative defenses as state-only provisions."
EPA took comment on the latest rulemaking through Aug. 15, and initial comments filed by environmentalists and the International Liquid Terminals Association (ILTA) -- representing the liquid commodities terminal sector -- reflect divided opinion on whether the rule is too limited or goes too far in limiting the defense.
'Illegal Exemptions'
The Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), a group that has long pressed EPA to remove provisions that permit excess pollution during "upset" events, in Aug. 2 comments says that while it generally supports EPA's proposal, it is concerned that it will fail to eliminate some regulatory exemptions.
The group fears the rule "would ultimately reward the worst state offenders, by failing to include state Title V programs that incorporate illegal exemptions or affirmative defenses by reference into Title V programs."
Further, EIP says "EPA's proposed tentative list of affirmative defense provisions within state programs that may eventually need to be removed, which EPA included in the docket for this proposed rulemaking for informational purposes, contains only those states that have emergency provisions within their Title V program rules. But this approach would let states like Texas off the hook," because it lacks such provisions explicitly included in its rules.
"State rules that incorporate upset and affirmative defense provisions by reference, or that list the illegal provisions as 'applicable requirements' of their Title V programs, are often more pernicious than the more obvious rules that EPA is proposing for adjustments. Incorporating an affirmative defense or other illegal provision by reference has the very same effect as spelling out the words within the state's Title V rules," EIP says.
But ILTA in its comments says the proposal "ignores why those provisions were put in place in the first instance: to allow operators of facilities that are facing emergency conditions the ability to exercise affirmative defenses for permit exceedances so they may continue or resume operations. . . . These affirmative defenses are particularly necessary for terminal operators as they are often asked to continue or resume operations during wide-area emergencies, such as hurricanes, when all systems may not be fully operational, in order to maintain the flow of products."
The group says that Clean Air Act Title V does not prohibit affirmative defenses. Nor does the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia's 2014 decision in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA -- which prohibits affirmative defenses in national air rules -- apply to Title V permits, ILTA claims.
"EPA argues that it is appropriate to extend the D.C. Circuit's logic from this ruling to other instances of affirmative defense in its regulations," ILTA says, but argues that decision applied to affirmative defenses under the air law's section 112 air toxics program "which is arguably a different circumstance" than Title V permits.
Additionally, "the court took issue with EPA interfering with authority granted to the courts for private suits, not for administrative actions and penalties that EPA or delegated State programs might apply, which this modification would also impact," the group says.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-plan-end-affirmative-air-rules-defense-spurs-competing-attacks
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested