Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Blog) Nanotechnology Panel Shared Insights with EPA on Proposed Nanomaterial Rule
Jun 23, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
Recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a new rule that would require companies to submit data on manufactured nanomaterials. http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/06/nanotechnology-panel-shared-insights-with-epa-on-proposed-nanomaterial-rule/ -
(ACC Mentioned) House to Vote on Overhaul of Outdated Toxic Chemical Regulation Bill
Jun 23, 2015 | Newsweek
By Zoe Schlanger
After an industrial chemical spill in West Virginia last year left 300,000 residents temporarily without water and health officials scrambling to understand what, if any, risks the leaked coal-processing chemical posed to the public, the federal government is inching closer to revising the nation’s toxic chemical regulations for the first time in 39 years. -
(ACC Mentioned) Over Objections, EPA Advisors Finishing Reports For EtO, TMBs, Ammonia
Jun 23, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA science advisors have advanced three reviews of draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessments to the agency, pending some changes to the reports, despite concerns from industry sources and an SAB member that the reviews of the ethylene oxide (EtO) assessment and trimethylbenzenes (TMBs) assessment should be more critical. -
US EPA Consults on Endocrine Disruptor Screening Plans
Jun 23, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA is proposing using automated screening methods to test for endocrine activity in tier 1 of its Endocrine Disruptor Screening Programme (EDSP), saying they should speed up progress and reduce costs. -
Another Controversial Chemical Gets Cancer Designation
Jun 23, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Tiffany Stecker
The World Health Organization's cancer research agency announced yesterday it had placed the herbicide 2,4-D on its list of "possible" carcinogens, just months after the body gave another weedkiller -- glyphosate -- a similar designation. -
General Mills Cuts Artificial Colors, Flavors
Jun 23, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
General Mills Inc. is planning to remove all artificial flavors and colors from its cereals by 2017, the company said yesterday. -
Oil Lobby Launches 2016 Election Effort
Jun 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The oil lobby is bringing back its election advocacy effort in an attempt to convince voters to choose 2016 political candidate who supports the priorities of the oil and natural gas industry. -
EPA Report Cites Benefits of Limiting Emissions, Climate Change
Jun 23, 2015 | LA Times
By William Yardley
Reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change could prevent tens of thousands of deaths and hundreds of billions in economic losses in the United States, according to a new study by the Environmental Protection Agency. -
White House Launches Climate Change Health Initiative
Jun 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Obama administration launched a host of initiatives on Tuesday meant to minimize the impact of climate change on public health. -
Our Health Depends on Climate Change Action and a Cleaner Economy
Jun 23, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Mary Kay Henry
There’s a little boy in my hometown of Detroit who may not know about the pope’s encyclical on climate change, or today’s White House summit on climate and public health, but he is all too familiar with the issues. He feels them in his lungs. -
EPA Plans To Issue Proposed GHG Threshold 'Rate' For Permits Next June
Jun 23, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA says it expects to complete a proposed rule setting a greenhouse gas (GHG) de minimis threshold for air permits in June 2016, a measure that once finalized would put the agency's GHG permit program on a stronger legal footing after the Supreme Court recommended the agency take such a step.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
(ACC Blog) Nanotechnology Panel Shared Insights with EPA on Proposed Nanomaterial Rule
Jun 23, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
Recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a new rule that would require companies to submit data on manufactured nanomaterials. Among its many requirements, the proposed rule would call for companies to report production volume, the potential for public exposure and what manufacturing and processing methods are used.
Jay West, manager of the Nanotechnology Panel, said the ACC Nanotechnology Panel will review the proposed rule and provide comments to EPA. Panel members are particularly interested in how the EPA defines the materials to be covered by the proposed rule and whether EPA strikes the right balance between regulation and the ability of companies to produce innovative nanotechnology products. The Panel will also focus on EPA’s plan to leverage existing information and for consistency with the work already done under the Nanotechnology Plan of the Canada-U.S. Regulatory Cooperation Council.
The American Chemistry Council’s Nanotechnology Panel promotes the responsible development of nanotechnology by advancing knowledge of good product stewardship practices among nanomaterial producers and users. The Panel regularly supports and participates in partnerships with universities, regulatory agencies and other organizations to identify and communicate best practices concerning the responsible development and use of nanotechnology.
To learn more about ACC’s Nanotechnology Panel and its mission visit its website at http://nanotechnology.americanchemistry.com/ or contact Jay West at Jay_West@americanchemistry.com.
-
(ACC Mentioned) House to Vote on Overhaul of Outdated Toxic Chemical Regulation Bill
Jun 23, 2015 | Newsweek
By Zoe Schlanger
After an industrial chemical spill in West Virginia last year left 300,000 residents temporarily without water and health officials scrambling to understand what, if any, risks the leaked coal-processing chemical posed to the public, the federal government is inching closer to revising the nation’s toxic chemical regulations for the first time in 39 years.
On Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote on a bill to update the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA). The Senate is expected to vote on a similar bill next month. Both houses’ versions of the bill unanimously passed their respective subcommittees, and have been heralded as examples of the efficacy of bipartisan legislative work. But critics say the bill won’t do nearly enough to fill in gaps existing in the old law, and that the bill's potency may be undermines as a result of the legislatures having worked too closely with American Chemistry Council, the powerful lobbying arm of the chemical industry.
“Something is better than nothing, but this isn’t much,” Maya Nye, the director of the West Virginia–based group People Concerned About Chemical Safety, told The New York Times ahead of Tuesday’s vote.
Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week
The Senate’s version of the bill, for example, appears to have at least been touched by the American Chemistry Council. Hearst Newspapers obtained the draft in the form of a Microsoft Word Document before it went to subcommittee, according to Reuters. A quick look at “advanced properties” in Word showed the “company” of origin of the document to be the American Chemistry Council.
“Maybe I’m old-fashioned, but I do not believe that a regulated industry should be so intimately involved in writing a bill that regulates them,” Senator Barbara Boxer, D-California, said shortly before the bill went to the Senate subcommittee vote. She sharply criticized the bill as a disgrace compared to the regulation the late Senator Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, spent years advocating for but never saw passed before his death in 2013.
“I loved Frank Lautenberg very much and it is with very deep respect and a heavy heart that I make these statements about the bill that has been named after him,” Boxer saidshortly after it was introduced. “But I remember when Frank said this, ‘It’s time to take action on TSCA reform and put an end to the chemical companies’ political games.’”
Lautenberg’s original bill called for the EPA to directly address asbestos, a carcinogen currently exempt from EPA regulation, and to begin reviewing the toxicity of the tens of thousands of other unregulated chemicals currently in use.
“Their bill doesn’t even mention the word asbestos,” Boxer said, according to the Hill.
The Senate’s bill, named for Lautenberg, would require the EPA to begin reviewing unregulated chemicals at a pace of about 10 chemicals per year, rather than the hundreds per year intended by Lautenberg’s original version.
“Today there’s no requirement. So the number of chemicals ultimately reviewed by EPA will be increased,” said Michael Walls, a vice president at the American Chemistry Council, in response to criticism about the review rate in the new bill,The New York Times reports.
According to a California Senate review from 2010, the EPA has only tested and published data on approximately 200 of the 83,000 chemicals in its inventory. Crude-MCHM, the coal processing chemical that spilled in West Virginia, for example, was not one of the few that have been tested.
The 1976 TSCA currently in use stipulates that when a company creates a new chemical, the EPA has 90 days to review it and decide how to regulate it. If the EPA does not set regulations within that time—as often is the case—companies are free to use and distribute that chemical as they see fit. That rule did not apply to the approximately 64,000 chemicals already in use in the U.S. when the TSCA came into effect.
“American families should not have to wait more decades for a regulatory system that aggressively protects their health from toxic chemicals. We need expeditious, rigorous safety evaluations of at least 1,000 toxic chemicals that the Environmental Protection Agency says deserve priority attention. And we need assurance that the most dangerous chemicals will be regulated or banned,” Ken Cook, the president of the national group Environmental Working Group said in a statement after the House’s version of the bill, H.R. 2576, passed its subcommittee. “While we commend the committee for its focus on the need to overhaul chemical policy, the legislation it is sending to the House floor will not do the job. It still tips much too far in favor of an industry in serious need of regulation.”
The American Chemistry Council, however, contends that the bill strikes a fair balance of addressing health concerns and protecting business interests.
“The inclusive, bipartisan process…has resulted in an approach to TSCA reform that will build confidence in the U.S. chemical regulatory system, protect human health and the environment from significant risks, and meet the commercial and competitive interests of the U.S. chemical industry and the national economy,” ACC president Cal Dooley said in a statement last month.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Over Objections, EPA Advisors Finishing Reports For EtO, TMBs, Ammonia
Jun 23, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA science advisors have advanced three reviews of draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessments to the agency, pending some changes to the reports, despite concerns from industry sources and an SAB member that the reviews of the ethylene oxide (EtO) assessment and trimethylbenzenes (TMBs) assessment should be more critical.
The reviews of the three IRIS assessments are the first to be conducted by the Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee (CAAC), a subpanel of EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB). The CAAC was one of the process improvements announced in the wake of the National Academy of Sciences' critical peer review of EPA's draft IRIS assessment of formaldehyde in 2011, which recommended changes to IRIS assessments generally.
The chartered SAB reviewed the CAAC panels' final reports for EtO, TMBs and ammonia during a conference call June 8, and voted to send each of the reviews to EPA for action pending some minor changes made to each report by the SAB chairman and the chairmen of the individual CAAC reviewing panels.
But during the review of the reports, one SAB member's concerns about the draft EtO assessment led SAB to an unexpected, extended discussion of Robert's Rules of Order.
The draft assessment of EtO is an unusual document, in that it represents the second time that the IRIS program has sought peer review of this particular assessment. As a result, EPA sought peer review on just a portion of the analysis -- inhalation carcinogenicity -- that was re-drafted following recommendations from an earlier SAB panel in 2007. Industry stakeholders have long argued that the assessment is too strict, including risk estimates they said would make it impossible to use EtO, a critically important sterilizer of medical instruments, among other applications.
SAB member Michael Dourson, president of the non-profit consulting group Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA), questioned why the report did not, in his view, address issues relating to previous peer review and the stringency of the cancer risk estimate.
Commenting on the CAAC's review of the draft EtO assessment, Dourson said the report does not address his concerns about establishing dose-response concordance and mode of action, key issues to resolving concerns from the 2007 peer review and how to model EtO cancer risk. EPA in its draft concludes that the chemical is mutagenic, resulting in a strict linear modeling of cancer risk, which assumes that there is no safe level of exposure to the chemical.
But Dourson said there appears to be evidence to suggest oxidative stress as a mechanism to cancer, and he cited EPA's 2005 cancer risk assessment guidelines to suggest that EPA might need to perform both linear and non-linear modeling. Non-linear modeling is generally used for non-cancer assessments, as it assumes that there is some threshold level of exposure which does not present harm.
Dourson also questioned whether the CAAC sufficiently addressed the endogenous nature of EtO. Endogenous chemicals -- those that are produced by the body as well as used industrially, such as formaldehyde -- have proven to be a challenge for IRIS assessments. "We have some cancer potency values that are extraordinarily steep," Dourson said. "It begs the question of what do people ordinarily off-gas? We need to ground truth."
ACC's Concerns
Dourson's remarks echoed concerns from speakers from the chemical industry association American Chemistry Council (ACC). Nancy Beck, a toxicologist who is ACC's senior director of regulatory science policy, also questioned EPA's decision to present only linear cancer potency modeling and CAAC's acceptance of that decision.
"There is no scientific rationale to talk about why the linear rationale is the only choice," Beck said during the June 8 call. "There is great stakeholder concern. There will be a lack of public confidence if this is not addressed."
Beck also urged CAAC to better explain why it supports EPA's decision to continue to base its cancer risk estimate on an epidemiology study of workers published by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, rather than including or using instead an epidemiology study industry prefers, called the Union Carbide study.
Another SAB member, Gina Solomon, agreed with Beck's concern about the Union Carbide study. Solomon, deputy secretary for science and health at the California Environmental Protection Agency, said that she assumed that CAAC's hesitation in using the study is that it does not sufficiently address the healthy worker effect -- a classic issue with workplace epidemiology studies because they do not include representatives from the general population, such as children, the elderly, and those that are handicapped or too ill to work.
Solomon said that CAAC needs to better explain its concern in the report, although she agreed with its discussion of mutagenic mode of action and approving EPA's use of linear cancer potency modeling.
But Dourson, in an unusual request, urged the charted SAB to add one or two other experts to work with SAB vice-chairman, Nancy Kim, and the chairman of the EtO CAAC panel, Peter Thorne, to finalize the report before sending it to EPA, and volunteered to be one of these individuals. No members seconded Dourson's motion, however, and he then suggested amending the proposal from another SAB member, Elaine Faustman, that the chairmen alone work together to finalize the report for EPA. Solomon seconded Faustman's proposal, and the two questioned the necessity of Dourson's amendment.
"I have a lot of confidence in Dr. Thorne," Solomon said, before asking Dourson what further expertise he thought necessary to finalize the report.
"I think it's understanding of EPA's cancer risk assessment guidelines, because I don't see dose-response concordance" in the draft assessment or CAAC report, Dourson replied.
Thorne said he thought two of the CAAC panel members had the necessary expertise to address the concern -- Gary Ginsberg, a toxicologist with the Connecticut Department of Public Health, and Kenneth Ramos, director of the University of Arizona's Center for Genetics and Genomic Medicine -- and asked Dourson if he agreed. "They've spent countless hours with this document, and I feel better to ask them rather than add another" individual who did not serve on the CAAC panel, Thorne said.
The chartered SAB voted to approve the report, pending discussed changes, and send it to EPA. Dourson abstained from the vote.
Beck, the ACC toxicologist, also raised concerns about the CAAC's assessment of three TMBs, contaminants often found at clean up sites. But ACC has urged EPA and peer reviewers throughout the process to adopt the approach of EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) in its review of the TMBs, and base the assessment on a larger group of TMBs. ACC points to a Federal Register notice in which OPP outlines its decision to use the full C9 aromatic hydrocarbon group of chemicals in its assessment underlying an OPP regulatory decision. OPP's resulting risk estimate was less stringent than the draft IRIS estimate.
TMBs Assessment
Beck argued that the CAAC panel reviewing the draft TMBs assessment fell "short of achieving its most important area -- achieving consensus." Beck said that the CAAC panel failed to achieve consensus -- an unusual situation for SAB committees -- in its recommendations to EPA on three uncertainty factors used to calculate the non-cancer risk estimates.
"The lack of consensus in these important areas has a critical impact on recommendations regarding the quantitative RfC and RfD values," Beck writes in written comments dated June 2, referring to the agency's reference concentration and reference dose calculations. "Due to the importance of the quantitative values, the report should not be approved in its current state. To help facilitate consensus, we recommend adding two new co-chairs to the CAAC panel. These co-chairs should have expertise in neurotoxicity and general risk assessment.”
One SAB member, Lois Lehman-McKeeman, a toxicologist with Bristol-Myers Squibb, agreed with Beck that the CAAC panel's advice on whether and how to use toxicity data from the larger C9 fraction to be "circular." But other reviewers were more focused on the CAAC's comments regarding a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model used in the assessment, and whether modifications EPA made to it need further peer review.
Dourson questioned why OPP and IRIS have performed two different assessments of TMBs.
An OPP representative sought to explain. "The OPP risk assessment was done in support of a tolerance exemption for various C9 [hydrocarbons]. The [reference doses] were specific to those mixtures, not for any individual TMB," he said. He added that the OPP assessment was completed before the IRIS assessment, using available data.
The IRIS program chemical manager for the TMBs assessment, Allen Davis, told SAB that the key point is that the two assessments rely on different data. He noted that different studies used in the two assessments present different opinions about the contaminants' toxicity. "No one's in dispute [the assessments reach] different findings. But they considered very different databases, so I don't think there should be any [surprise] that they reach different conclusions," Davis said.
Davis added that "EPA has gotten some fairly clear advice from SAB to consider the C9 fraction studies in some fashion" in revisions to the draft assessment.
The charted SAB approved the TMBs and ammonia reviews for formal transmission to the agency with suggested changes from the SAB members, to be made by the panel chairmen and Thorne, who is also chairman of the chartered SAB.
-
US EPA Consults on Endocrine Disruptor Screening Plans
Jun 23, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA is proposing using automated screening methods to test for endocrine activity in tier 1 of its Endocrine Disruptor Screening Programme (EDSP), saying they should speed up progress and reduce costs.Under these plans, the technology will simultaneously perform tests on thousands of chemicals and feed results into computational models to predict hormone-related endocrine activity, the agency says.
Some of these automated chemical screenings have already been used as part of the Tox21 project – a collaboration between the EPA, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The new technology is faster and cheaper than conventional methods.
The EPA was seeking extra funding for its chemicals programmes earlier this year, but it also expects the changes to the programme will save $3.3m (CW 3 February 2015).
The programme has already obtained partial screening results for 1,800 chemicals using high throughput assays and computational models for the oestrogen receptor. Its methods provide an alternative to three of the eleven currently used screening tests, most of which require animals. The Tox21 consortium is developing additional models to predict androgen and thyroid activity that will replace the other eight animal tests.
“This is the beginning of a new day for testing chemicals for safety,” says Jim Jones, assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “These new technologies allow us to screen more chemicals in less time, use fewer animals and reduce costs for everyone.”
The agency expects to have results for almost 3,000 chemicals by 2016.
A consultation on the proposed approach, published in the Federal Register, requires responses by 17 August.
-
Another Controversial Chemical Gets Cancer Designation
Jun 23, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Tiffany Stecker
The World Health Organization's cancer research agency announced yesterday it had placed the herbicide 2,4-D on its list of "possible" carcinogens, just months after the body gave another weedkiller -- glyphosate -- a similar designation.
According to a press release from the International Agency on the Research of Cancer, there is "strong evidence" that 2,4-D induces oxidative stress, a mechanism that can cause damage to human cells, and moderate evidence that 2,4-D suppresses the immune system, based on animal studies. On a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 indicating a strong cancer link, 2,4-D is in Group 2B, making it a "possible" carcinogen.
However, IARC's review of epidemiological studies did not find strong or consistent increases in risk of non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a type of cancer of the lymph nodes, or other cancers in relation to 2,4-D exposure.
The findings are in line with the conclusions of U.S. EPA and other Canadian and European agencies, which have approved 2,4-D for use, and does not mean that 2,4-D will lead to cancer, said Julie Goodman, a consultant to the 2,4-D Task Force, which funds industry studies to support the registration of the chemical in the United States and Canada.
"It's very important to put this in perspective," she said on a press call.
IARC also announced classifications for two other pesticides. There is "sufficient evidence" that the insecticide lindane causes cancer, they found. The well-known mosquito-killer, DDT, is also a "probable" carcinogen. But the designation for 2,4-D struck an especially strong chord, given that the chemical is an active ingredient in the controversial herbicide Enlist Duo that spurred a lawsuit from environmental groups earlier this year (Greenwire, April 21).
Advertisement
Enlist Duo, developed by Dow AgroSciences, has been approved by EPA for use in 15 states. It combines a choline salt of 2,4-D with glyphosate, better known by its commercial name Roundup, and has been commercialized to use with genetically modified corn and soybeans that can withstand applications of the herbicide. The herbicide was developed to provide farmers with an alternative to glyphosate alone, which has steadily become less effective as weeds evolve to resist applications. Environmental groups say the combination will lead to more pesticide use. The IARC classifications provide strong evidence that both glyphosate and 2,4-D are hazardous, they said.
"This warning from IARC comes at a critical crossroads for farming worldwide," Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, senior scientist with the Pesticide Action Network, said in a statement. "If we keep running on this pesticide treadmill, farmers, their families and rural residents will continue to be in harm's way. It's time to look to ecology-based solutions for weed management."
IARC classifies the strength of evidence that a product causes cancer on a scale of 1 to 4, where substances in Group 1 have "sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans" and substances in Group 4 are "probably not carcinogenic to humans." For agents in Group 2B, where 2,4-D sits, there is "limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals." Glyphosate was placed in Group 2A, where there is "is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals" (Greenwire, April 2).
-
General Mills Cuts Artificial Colors, Flavors
Jun 23, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
General Mills Inc. is planning to remove all artificial flavors and colors from its cereals by 2017, the company said yesterday.
The maker of Trix, Reese's Puffs and Lucky Charms cereals, among others, is responding to changing U.S. tastes that prefer fresher and more natural food. Taco Bell, McDonald's and Kraft have made similar moves over the last year.
The company will use ingredients such as turmeric and juice concentrates of blueberries, radishes and strawberries to color Trix cereal, for example, while real vanilla will replace the artificial flavoring in Reese's Puffs.
"People eat with their eyes, and so ... the trick is, how can we maintain an appealing look, just not using the artificial colors?" said Jim Murphy, president of General Mills's cereal division. "People don't want colors with numbers in their food anymore."
Food experts stress that this move won't actually make the cereals any healthier.
"These kid-oriented cereals are still extremely processed, have virtually no nutritional value and are fortified with vitamins because the real nutrients have been stripped in processing," said Michele Simon, president of Eat Drink Politics. "If they really wanted to be healthier, they should stop bombarding children with messages to eat candy in a box" (Drew Harwell, Washington Post, June 22). -- BTP
-
Oil Lobby Launches 2016 Election Effort
Jun 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The oil lobby is bringing back its election advocacy effort in an attempt to convince voters to choose 2016 political candidate who supports the priorities of the oil and natural gas industry.
The American Petroleum Institute’s (API) Vote4Energy campaign started in 2012, and challenges voters to commit their votes to candidates who support causes like oil exports, ending the ethanol mandate and expanding offshore drilling.
Since API calls the effort a vote education campaign, it is not subject to election campaign rules. But it also cannot endorse any candidates, nor donate to them.
“We will work to advance a productive, fact-based national energy policy discussion through the 2016 election and beyond,” API President Jack Gerard said at a Tuesday re-launch event. “Vote4Energy is focused on a bright energy future benefiting all Americans and will guide the energy policy discussion away from partisanship and political ideology and demagoguery that argues for less.”
Gerard said the campaign won’t focus only on the president race, and instead spread to Congress, state races and more.
“Vote4Energy will stay above partisanship,” he said. “It won’t target a particular person, nor be limited to a specific region. Our campaign captures the fundamental energy policy question we face; the heart of America’s energy policy discussion and decision: whether to pursue an American future of energy abundance, self-sufficiency and global leadership or take a step back to the era of American energy scarcity, dependence and economic uncertainty.”
To coincide with the relaunch, API unveiled a study it commissioned that concluded that if the United States adopts the industry-favored energy policies, it would add 2.3 million jobs and $443 billion per year to the economy by 2035.
Those policies including increased offshore drilling, easier permitting for onshore drilling, stopping the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ozone pollution rule and ending the ethanol mandate, among others.
-
EPA Report Cites Benefits of Limiting Emissions, Climate Change
Jun 23, 2015 | LA Times
By William Yardley
Reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change could prevent tens of thousands of deaths and hundreds of billions in economic losses in the United States, according to a new study by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The report, “Climate Change in the U.S. – Benefits of Global Action,” looks at what could happen by 2050 and by the end of the century if action is taken – and, by implication, if nothing is done - to limit the rise of the average global temperature to about 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. That is the point past which scientists say an irreversible cycle of damage from climate change will take hold.
A wide range of physical and economic consequences could be avoided if greenhouse gas emissions were reduced, the report says. The benefits include:As many as 13,000 fewer deaths from poor air quality in the U.S. by 2050, and 57,000 fewer by 2100. As many as 12,000 fewer deaths from extreme temperatures in big cities by 2100.Agricultural losses could be reduced by as much as $3.8 billion in 2050 and $11 billion by 2100.As much as $18 billion in lost hours of labor could be avoided by 2050, and $110 billion by 2100. Those losses are projected to result in part from extreme heat and weather that affects outside work, particularly construction jobs.
“We’ll have more and more times in which labor is just not possible,” said Jeremy Martinich, an environmental scientist with the EPA's climate change division who helped oversee the report. “That results in productivity losses.”
Action to stop greenhouse gases could greatly reduce the number of bridges and roads damaged or destroyed because of extreme weather, the report says. Action also could reduce the amount of electricity used, the required adjustments to rising seas, and the measures needed to ensure clean water.
Other potential benefits include saving cold-water trout streams in the Northeast, reducing by millions the number of acres lost to wildfire in the West, greatly reducing flooding in various parts of the country and preserving coral reefs in Hawaii that otherwise might be almost completely lost to global warming.
The report, written with scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, federal energy research laboratories and private consultants, is the Obama administration’s latest effort to build a case for a series of measures it has implemented or proposed to limit emissions. Those measures include restrictions on vehicle emissions and regulations limiting power-plant emissions, to be finalized later this summer.
The administration hopes to help push through a global agreement to reduce emissions at a climate conference to be held in Paris at the end of the year.
The report says it differs from other studies because it makes specific estimates of lives and dollars lost, but Martinich noted that it has limits. The consequences it describes do not, for example, forecast non-fatal diseases from declining air quality, losses in crops like fruit trees or in livestock or dairy. Nor does it estimate private property losses or damage to air quality from wildfires.
The goal was to create a relatively straightforward method for illustrating the difference between what the report called “business as usual,” which could push average temperature increases in some parts of country well beyond 10 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, as opposed to what would happen if the world stays below the 3.6-degree Fahrenheit threshold.
“Our question was if we reduced emissions of the global community, and met that target, what would the benefits to the U.S. be?” Martinich said.
-
White House Launches Climate Change Health Initiative
Jun 23, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Obama administration launched a host of initiatives on Tuesday meant to minimize the impact of climate change on public health.
The plan wraps in a handful of federal departments that deal with health, the environment, or both, from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The White House is holding a summit on climate change and health on Tuesday. The new push comes after the EPA rolled out a study on the economic benefits of its climate change agenda, including public health spending, and as The Lancet, a medical journal, published a major report on climate change’s health effects.
“Climate change is a medical emergency,” Hugh Montgomery, the co-chair of the commission that wrote the report, said in a Tuesday statement. “It thus demands an emergency response, using the technologies available right now.”
Under the White House’s plan, HHS will create a tool to support residential areas where people rely on electricity to power medical equipment, and NOAA and the CDC will launch an excessive heat warning system. The EPA will host a web series for local health and environmental officials on climate change and public health.
An HHS office and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences will partner with a software company to promote new ways to track information on climate change and health. The Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice will form a new committee to look at the issue, as well.
The plan also includes commitments from medical schools and public health organizations to continue focusing on the health impacts of climate change.
-
Our Health Depends on Climate Change Action and a Cleaner Economy
Jun 23, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Mary Kay Henry
There’s a little boy in my hometown of Detroit who may not know about the pope’s encyclical on climate change, or today’s White House summit on climate and public health, but he is all too familiar with the issues. He feels them in his lungs.
Jawuan Landrum’s son Marcell, who just turned 10, loves to be outside, playing basketball and baseball. But he was born with respiratory problems, and the air pollution from oil refineries, steel mills and power plants near his home makes those problems tougher to cope with.
Marcell’s asthma is bad enough that sometimes he can only breathe through his mouth. He has tubes in his ears because of an upper respiratory disorder. He’s been undergoing surgeries since he was three years old. And every time Marcell comes home, the very air around him when he tries to recover attacks him.
The uptick in attention to climate change and public health is encouraging and urgently needed. This is especially true because the effects of pollution and global warming disproportionately impact working people, the poor and people of color, both in the United States and around the world.
“Hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor,” Pope Francis writes in his encyclicalLaudato Si as he explains that environmental degradation puts the least resourced communities at the greatest present and future risk.
“Exposure to atmospheric pollutants produces a broad spectrum of health hazards, especially for the poor,” the pope adds.
Marcell’s story is one of millions.
Maribel Castillón knows many more of those stories. As a public health nurse with Los Angeles County’s Children’s Health and Disabilities Prevention Program, she has a case load full of clients with asthma and bronchitis aged 0 to 21.
Zero to 21. Infants draw their first breaths from the pollution we created.
Castillón says the asthma rate is not falling in L.A., but at least it’s not rising, in part because state and local governments have taken action. They have implemented strict laws requiring registration of smog-emitting vehicles. And California offers tax credits for “low or no”-emission vehicles. Also, through her union, SEIU Local 721, Castillón and her colleagues were able to secure an agreement allowing public employers in the State of California to give incentives to workers for using alternative transportation.
She says it’s time to go bigger, and I agree.
In advance of the summit it will host today, the White House released a report that shows acting on climate change—including reducing coal and natural gas power plant emissions—will savethousands of lives and billions of dollars. President Obama and the Environmental Protection Agency are finalizing a Clean Power Plan that the United States will submit to the United Nations prior to international climate change negotiations, slated for December in Paris. These two developments—the president’s plan and the Paris talks—represent the best opportunity in the foreseeable future to reduce carbon emissions and curb the warming of the atmosphere.
At today’s event, administration officials will hear from healthcare professionals, scientists and a host others—including SEIU leaders—with a stake in solving climate change.
And really, that’s all of us, including the 2 million members of the Service Employees International Union. The same people struggling for economic justice also need climate justice. We’re all looking to the president and leaders worldwide to take action. Today’s dialogue is a part of that, and we’ll beasking questions and following along on Twitter via #ActOnClimate.
The hour is late, but hope is not lost. “Human beings, while capable of the worst, are also capable of rising above themselves, choosing again what is good, and making a new start," Pope Francis writes in his groundbreaking encyclical.
Let us take up this challenge. That’s what nurse Maribel Castillón means when she says it’s time to go bigger. And the health of millions—like a 10-year-old boy in Detroit who just wants to shoot some hoops and breathe in the summer air—depends on it.
Henry is international president of the Service Employees International Union.
-
EPA Plans To Issue Proposed GHG Threshold 'Rate' For Permits Next June
Jun 23, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA says it expects to complete a proposed rule setting a greenhouse gas (GHG) de minimis threshold for air permits in June 2016, a measure that once finalized would put the agency's GHG permit program on a stronger legal footing after the Supreme Court recommended the agency take such a step.
According to the agency's Action Initiation List for April, (AIL) which was published June 15, EPA has launched a rulemaking “to propose a [GHG] Significant Emission Rate (SER) under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) air permitting program.” The rulemaking was formally launched April 22 and EPA expects it to take “more than 12 months.”
EPA's online Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker includes a firmer target date, projecting a proposed rule in June 2016.
The rulemaking, which EPA officials had previously announced, is expected to set a GHG de minimis threshold above which PSD air permit requirements for new and modified sources would be triggered. Agency officials said when announcing the rule that the threshold will be expressed in similar terms as permit triggers for conventional pollutants.
The rulemaking will modify the agency's GHG tailoring rule, which generally sought to increase statutory permit thresholds that are intended for conventional pollutants, though the agency says the figures are inappropriate for GHG emissions that are released in significantly higher volumes.
EPA set a threshold of 100,000 ton per year (tpy) of GHGs to permit such sources under “step 2” of its tailoring rule, which had sought to facilitate regulating sources based solely on their GHG emissions.
But the high court ruled in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA that the agency could not regulate sources based solely on their GHG emissions. However, the court held that the agency could subject new or modified sources to a GHG best available control technology (BACT) review if their emissions of conventional pollutants exceeded statutory thresholds.
The court also allowed EPA to keep in place PSD permitting under “step 1” of the tailoring rule for so-called “anyway” sources, which emit 75,000 tpy of GHGs and are already regulated for their conventional pollutants under PSD because they emit other pollutants at levels above the statutory threshold.
The court said, “EPA may require an ‘anyway’ source to comply with the greenhouse-gas BACT only if the source emits more than a de minimis amount of greenhouse gases,” and found that the 75,000 tpy threshold does not necessarily qualify as de minimis.
When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia considered the issue on remand, industry and state groups argued that EPA is barred from permitting GHGs at all until the agency issues a new rule setting GHG emission thresholds. The court, however, rejected the argument, though more than a dozen industry groups are asking the appellate court to reconsider its decision.
In the face of such challenges, EPA is formally proceeding with the GHG SER rulemaking.
Since ruling on the industry argument, the appellate court May 25 also rejected similar claims in another case,State of Texas, et al. v. EPA, in which state petitioners were asking the court to rehear their arguments that EPA's imposition of the federal permit program in Texas and Wyoming was unlawful. The states may seek to appeal that ruling as well.
Other Rules
In addition to the permit threshold, the agency is also crafting several other regulations in response to the high court's UARG ruling.
According to the agency's May AIL, which was also published June 15, officials are developing a rule to remove “sections and paragraphs” of the permit regulations that the D.C. Circuit vacated in its judgment on remand following the high court's ruling.
The agency has already launched a rulemaking to remove “step 2” from the tailoring rule.
And the agency is also crafting a rule that would create a process for regulators to rescind permits for sources regulated solely for their GHG emissions. The rule is needed because the agency's current PSD implementing rules bar rescisions for permits that were issued before 1978.
EPA officials April 20 issued a direct final rule for rescinding permits but received no adverse comments by a June 8 deadline, meaning the rule will take effect July 6.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested