Preview Newsletter

NI - ACC PM 10/19/2015

Industry and Association News

(ACC Blog) Innovation and Inspiration Take Center Stage at 2015 Polyurethanes Technical Conference
Oct 19, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters

Earlier this month, more than 1,000 polyurethane professionals met in Orlando for the 58th annual Polyurethanes Technical Conference at the Gaylord Palms Hotel.
(ACC Mentioned) Toxic Influence: How a Chemical Industry Trade Group You've Never Heard of Threatens Your Health
Oct 19, 2015 | Huffington Post
By Elliott Negin

Lumber Liquidators, North America's largest hardwood flooring retailer, took a major hit earlier this year when CBS's 60 Minutes reported that the company was selling Chinese-made laminate flooring containing dangerous amounts of the carcinogen formaldehyde.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Guest Column – Dr Sue Marty on EDCs
Oct 19, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Sue Marty

Recent reports have raised questions about the possible effects of some chemicals on the human endocrine system.
(ACC Mentioned) How Important are Dates on Food Labels?
Oct 19, 2015 | BVI News
By Donald DeCastro

Wednesday evening, October 14 on my Radio Show, Straight Talk I spent more than half an hour talking about “Dates on Food Labels” and why they are only a guideline but none of the writers of the two online news sites printed the statistics and other facts that I quoted.
New Toxic Chemical Bills Add Safety--but Dangers Remain
Oct 19, 2015 | Scientific American
By Puneet Kollipara

There are tens of thousands of chemicals in our furniture, our vehicles and our clothes, along with other objects we rely on—many of which are helpful, but some might harm people.
Q&A with SC Johnson
Oct 19, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer

SC Johnson is a major US household cleaning products company.
Nanomaterials - the Current State of Play
Oct 19, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dr Jörg Wagner and Dr Julia Donauer

Some materials develop new physico-chemical properties if the particle size is reduced below a certain value.
Green Chemistry and the Circular Economy
Oct 19, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Jess Clayton

Today’s discussion on the circular economy focuses on recycling, reuse and use of renewable sources. However, another important aspect is to ensure that the cycle gives us material that is safe enough to reuse.
Alternatives Assessment: Embracing the Concept
Oct 19, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Margaret Whittaker

The recent publication of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC) draft Stage 1 Alternatives Assessment Guide marks an important milestone in the growing practice of alternatives assessment (AA)...
Stop Giving Cancer Patients Toxic Cosmetics to ‘Look Good, Feel Better’
Oct 19, 2015 | EcoWatch
By Karuna Jaggar

It’s outrageous that the products that each of us use every day as part of our hygiene, self-care and beauty regimens are full of harmful chemicals, linked to a range of health problems including breast cancer.
More Bad News About Nail Polish
Oct 19, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Megan Boyle

If you wear nail polish, you might be applying more than glossy color to your fingertips.

Chemical Security News

New Ad Campaign Launched for Cyber Bill
Oct 19, 2015 | The Hill - Cybersecurity
By Cory Bennett

The financial sector is launching a new advertising campaign to push cybersecurity legislation though the Senate.

Transportation News

Congress Should Extend Rail Safety Deadline With Safeguards
Oct 19, 2015 | New York Times
By Editorial Board

Most of America’s railroads are threatening to stop running freight and passenger trains as early as next month unless Congress gives them more time to install technology that can prevent deadly collisions and derailments.
Oil Boom Highlights Need for Funding -- Obama Admin
Oct 19, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sean Reilly

Freight transportation projects warrant their own stand-alone source of federal funding, similar to what highways and public transit programs already receive, the Obama administration said in a newly released draft plan...
T&I forges Ahead on Transportation Funding Plan
Oct 19, 2015 | Politico - Morning Transportation
By Jennifer Scholtes

Still set on postponing floor action until the Ways and Means Committee comes through with offsets, House T&I leaders march on this week with a markup of the multiyear highway and transit plan they laid out on Friday.
SEPTA Mixup Gave Passengers Jarring Stop
Oct 19, 2015 | Philadelphia Inquirer
By Jason Laughlin

An abrupt, unexpected stop on a train is likely to cause a passenger's stomach to drop just as fast. One reader said he recently experienced exactly that repeatedly while riding the Norristown Line.

Energy and Environment News

White House Emphasizes Companies’ Commitment to Cutting Emissions
Oct 19, 2015 | New York Times
By Gardiner Harris

The Obama administration announced Monday that 81 major companies have committed to large reductions in carbon emissions, part of a broad push by the White House to show progress ahead of international climate talks in Paris this year.
Greens Decry Ozone Limit as Easier Lift than Bush-Era Reg
Oct 19, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly

Key green allies are delivering a scathing critique about the new ozone standard finalized by the Obama administration earlier this month: President Obama is letting industry off easy compared to the Bush administration.
The EPA’s Clean Power Plan Won’t Save The World, But It Will Cause Human Suffering
Oct 19, 2015 | Daily Caller
By Chuck Devore

Americans are largely ambivalent about global warming.
It's Conference Season for EPA Carbon Rule
Oct 19, 2015 | E&E - Power Plan Hub
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro,

Starting today, Infocast will hold its second annual Clean Power Plan Implementation Summit.
Texas Grid Operator Still Concerned About Rule Even as Numbers Shift
Oct 19, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Edward Klump

U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan could lead to the closure of at least 4,000 megawatts of coal-fired generation in Texas and a rise in retail electricity prices, according to a new report from the state's main grid operator.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Blog) Innovation and Inspiration Take Center Stage at 2015 Polyurethanes Technical Conference

Oct 19, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters

Earlier this month, more than 1,000 polyurethane professionals met in Orlando for the 58th annual Polyurethanes Technical Conference at the Gaylord Palms Hotel. The Conference, which is the longest-running polyurethanes conference in North America, featured 75 technical presentations, 38 poster presentations, industry table top exhibits, a Professional Development Program and premier networking events.
Pre-Conference activities started on Sunday, Oct. 4, with Professional Development Program courses and an Environment, Health and Safety workshop, which was available to all registered conference attendees.
On Monday, keynote speaker André Borschberg, one of the pilots and co-developer of the Solar Impulse solar-powered aircraft, kicked off the Conference by describing his recent record-breaking five-day flight from Japan to Hawaii in the Solar Impulse 2, a solar-powered airplane which relies heavily on strong, lightweight polyurethane components.
Also on Monday, industry professionals participated in technical sessions covering the very latest in blowing agents, elastomers, flexible foams, environment, health and safety. More than 150 Conference attendees took part in Professional Development Program sessions on topics ranging from raw materials to foam physical testing. The day concluded with the much-anticipated Industry Reception – one of the largest networking events of the year in the industry.
Tuesday’s agenda highlighted the industry’s role in the automotive industry. A new addition to the Conference, the two-part Global Automotive volatile organic compound (VOC) Specifications Session featured a panel discussion with an independent group of suppliers and manufacturers from the polyurethane and automotive industries. These representatives are working to understand the myriad of guidelines used to select the products and materials used in automobiles around the globe with the hope of future harmonization.
On Wednesday, Honeywell’s Solstice® Liquid Blowing Agent was selected as the winner of the 2015 Polyurethane Innovation Award. Honeywell’s winning entry is a special liquid blowing agent formulation designed to help lower global warming potential and improve energy efficiency while retaining non-ozone-depleting characteristics. The other finalists were Dow Chemical’s VORASTAR™ 7000 spray elastomer and Novomer’s Converge® Polyol RF-x rigid foams.
The Conference’s Closing Session also featured key findings from the 2014 End-Use Market Survey on the polyurethanes industry in the United States, Canada and Mexico. This biennial survey, produced by independent third-party IAL Consultants, provides a breakdown of raw material consumption for polyurethane markets in North America by type and by major end-use market for each country over a two-year period, as well as historic trends, market drivers and key issues. Electronic copies of the full survey and underlying data tables are now available to order.
Read more and see video of CPI and conference participants at the ICIS interactive publication.
Next year’s Polyurethanes Technical Conference is set to be held September 26 to 28 in Baltimore, Maryland. We hope to see you all at the premier polyurethanes industry event in North America! Be sure to follow CPI on Twitter at @accpolyurethane and on Facebook at facebook.com/IncrediblePolyurethaneACC.

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Toxic Influence: How a Chemical Industry Trade Group You've Never Heard of Threatens Your Health

Oct 19, 2015 | Huffington Post

By Elliott Negin

Elliott Negin is a senior writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists. This article originally ran in the fall issue of Catalyst, UCS's quarterly magazine.
Lumber Liquidators, North America's largest hardwood flooring retailer, took a major hit earlier this year when CBS's 60 Minutes reported that the company was selling Chinese-made laminate flooring containing dangerous amounts of the carcinogen formaldehyde.
A day after the broadcast, the company punched back, insisting that its laminate flooring is "completely safe to use as intended" and that the news program's tests were flawed. "We stand by every plank of wood and laminate we sell all around the country," the company declared.
Despite those assurances, Lumber Liquidators pulled the suspect flooring off the market and provided thousands of customers with home air-quality test kits. But even that wasn't enough to stanch the bleeding. Sales plummeted, its stock tanked, several top company officials resigned, and irate homeowners filed at least 135 lawsuits. Meanwhile, the Consumer Product Safety Commission is investigating the case and the Justice Department is expected to file criminal charges.
Largely lost in the coverage of Lumber Liquidators' debacle, however, is a bigger issue: Why are there no federal restrictions on formaldehyde emissions in the home considering it was first recognized as a health threat some 30 years ago?
According to a recent Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report, "Bad Chemistry," it's the same reason why the endocrine disruptor bisphenol A (BPA) is still in food containers, toxic flame retardants are still in furniture, and tens of thousands of untested, unregulated chemicals are currently in commercial use: the undue influence of the U.S. chemical industry and its premier trade association, the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
Founded more than 140 years ago as the Manufacturing Chemists' Association, the ACC is now an operation with a $100 million annual budget representing the interests of 155 corporate members, including chemical companies Dow, DuPont and Olin; pharmaceutical firms Bayer, Eli Lilly and Merck; and petrochemical conglomerates BP, ExxonMobil and Shell. Over the years, the organization has successfully delayed, weakened and blocked science-based health, environmental and workplace protections at the state, national and even international levels.
For example, the ACC has lobbied against establishing federal rules on silica dust exposure and disclosing the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. It has been instrumental in limiting community access to information about local chemical plants. And it is spearheading an industry campaign to undermine the first-ever federal standards for formaldehyde emissions from furniture, flooring and other common items found in U.S. homes.
"Companies shouldn't be allowed to get away with hiding behind their trade associations to influence the political process without accountability," says Gretchen Goldman, a UCS analyst and lead author of "Bad Chemistry." "This is the same playbook the tobacco industry and oil companies have used to undermine science. People and communities suffer when chemical companies can buy industry-friendly policies."
The Long Road to Federal Protection
Scientists have long been aware of the short-term health effects of formaldehyde, which include nausea, headaches, and irritation of the skin, eyes, nose and throat. It can also exacerbate asthma, especially in children. These kinds of exposure often occur in the home, mainly from the glue in composite wood (which includes particle board, plywood and laminated veneer), cigarette smoke, and unvented kerosene heaters and gas or wood-burning stoves.
Prolonged exposure in the workplace is even more problematic. In 1980, laboratory studies found formaldehyde can cause nasal cancer in rats. Since then, epidemiological studies of U.S. workers routinely exposed to the chemical found they are at greater risk of contracting leukemia, particularly myeloid leukemia, and nasopharyngeal cancer. In 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services' National Toxicology Program listed the chemical as a known human carcinogen, and just this year it was linked to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig's disease.
Formaldehyde was one of more than 62,000 chemicals already in commercial use at the time Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act in 1976 and therefore "grandfathered" from the law's provisions -- meaning the chemical could continue to be used without testing to demonstrate its safety. That doesn't mean it can't be regulated, however, and federal emissions standards for workplace exposure have been on the books for some time. In 1987, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration slashed the federal limit for an eight-hour workday formaldehyde exposure by two-thirds, from 3 parts per million (ppm) to 1 ppm. In 1992, the agency reduced it another 25 percent, to 0.75 ppm.
By contrast, despite mounting scientific evidence of the risks posed by formaldehyde, regulation of home exposure has been stalled for years.
California first declared formaldehyde a toxic air contaminant back in 1992, but the issue didn't get much traction until 2005, when the cheaply constructed emergency trailers housing thousands of Hurricane Katrina refugees were found to have unsafe levels of the chemical, resulting in respiratory problems, burning eyes and other ailments. Front-page stories about these "toxic trailers" prompted public health advocates to ask the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish limits on formaldehyde in building materials and furniture used in homes.
California responded first, placing limits on emissions from composite wood products that went into effect at the beginning of 2009. A year later, Congress passed legislation based on California's standard. Five years have passed since then, however, and the EPA has yet to issue a federal standard.
What's holding it up? The ACC and a handful of other trade groups and companies are furiously lobbying their friends in Congress to weaken the standard.
Distorting the Science
According to "Bad Chemistry," the ACC is central to the industry's effort to undermine the formaldehyde standard, leading a loose coalition that includes furniture makers, the Chinese government, and lawmakers from states with significant furniture manufacturing.
The ACC website emphasizes the chemical's "invaluable role" and overstates the effectiveness of voluntary standards. The trade group also distorts the scientific evidence about formaldehyde by falsely claiming that indoor exposure is too low to be harmful and questioning the science linking the chemical to asthma and cancer.
But the ACC has been doing a lot more than just posting disinformation on the Internet. Along with Koch Industries -- owner of Georgia-Pacific, one of the largest U.S. formaldehyde and plywood manufacturers -- it has been currying favor on Capitol Hill with large sums of lobbying and campaign cash.
From 2010 through 2014, the ACC spent more than $51 million to lobby members of Congress and the Obama administration. Over that same period, it contributed $1.46 million to federal campaigns. And during the 2014 election cycle alone, it spent $1.8 million on more than 6,000 political ads.
Two beneficiaries of the formaldehyde lobby's largesse are Sens. James Inhofe of Oklahoma and David Vitter of Louisiana, who both have played a key role in slowing the EPA's efforts. As far back as 2004, for example, Inhofe pushed the agency to delay an assessment of formaldehyde's health risks. When the agency finally released its findings in 2009, Vitter further delayed action by holding up the appointment of an EPA research and development director and demanding that then-EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson agree to have the National Academy of Sciences review the agency's assessment. Vitter's efforts to hold up progress have resulted in two academy reports, both of which confirmed what was already known: Formaldehyde is a human carcinogen.
Putting Public Safety First
The saga of the formaldehyde standard is not over, and there likely will be more industry-sponsored efforts to weaken it further. But, as noted above, formaldehyde is just one of more than 62,000 chemicals whose use is grandfathered by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and more than a few have been linked to serious health problems. So the overarching question is whether Congress will update the law in a way that will enable the EPA to protect the public from harmful chemicals.
Congress has been deliberating how to reform TSCA since 2008, and there are bills currently in play in both the House and Senate. Whether either bill ultimately strengthens TSCA remains to be seen. The fact that the ACC's annual lobbying budget has jumped 300 percent over the last six years suggests that the trade group sees TSCA as a critical issue and is applying its money and muscle to influence lawmakers.

Outside of the ACC and its allies, most would agree we need chemical policies that protect public health and safety, not industry profits. But how do we get there? An important first step is to hold chemical companies and the ACC accountable for their efforts to influence decision-makers and undermine science. The public has a right to know about potentially harmful chemicals in products as well as who is influencing its elected officials and regulators.
"We have to base public health policy on the best available science and not the priorities of chemical manufacturers," Goldman says. "And that means getting safer chemical alternatives into our products. Our elected officials need to step up and put their constituents first -- not their campaign contributors."

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Guest Column – Dr Sue Marty on EDCs

Oct 19, 2015 | Chemical Watch

By Sue Marty

Recent reports have raised questions about the possible effects of some chemicals on the human endocrine system.
Some natural and man-made chemicals can and do interact with the endocrine system, or are “endocrine-active.” In some cases, this interaction is harmless – the substances lack sufficient potency, or exposures are so low that no effects occur at all; in other cases, the body naturally adjusts, and the exposure causes no health effect.
However, some substances under certain exposure scenarios go beyond a simple interaction and can result in adverse health effects – these substances are referred to as “endocrine disruptors”.
Through governmental, academic and industry efforts, considerable progress has been made to develop methods, tests and data to help answer questions about whether and how certain chemicals may affect the endocrine system. However, some recent studies have failed to incorporate critical information including exposure and weight-of-evidence analysis or have used unreliable methods, reducing their relevance to sound decision making.
More research is needed to better understand whether, how and to what effect specific chemicals interact with the endocrine system.
By improving screening and testing, regulatory agencies can make decisions based on scientific evidence as they develop and implement programmes intended to reduce risks associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) recently released 11 “Principles for Identifying Endocrine-Active and Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals”, a set of recommendations to promote reliability, consistency and scientific integrity in the screening and testing of chemicals for endocrine activity and endocrine disruption.
These principles are industry’s latest contribution to advancing scientific understanding of endocrine-active and endocrine disrupting chemicals. Industry’s Long Range Research Initiative also has developed cutting-edge screens and tests to support these efforts and has made substantial contributions to development of high-throughput tools that can help prioritise and screen chemicals at a much faster pace than traditional methods.
Chemical manufacturers also have participated in the US EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Programme and have submitted data and analysis on test-method development and chemicals, for use by regulators to determine whether they activate the endocrine system and, if so, whether they cause adverse health effects due to that interaction.
Chemistry is fundamental to human life; everything is made of chemicals, including the human body and all of nature. Chemical manufacturers take seriously their responsibility to produce chemistries that enable important product performance benefits and that can be used safely, and they undertake extensive scientific analyses to evaluate potential risk of their chemicals, from development through use and safe disposal.
BOX: Summary of the 11 principles
1. Apply precise and accurate characterisations to chemicals: Chemicals should not be labelled as endocrine disruptors unless there is scientific consensus that they cause adverse health effects through an endocrine mediated pathway. This will prevent confusion and potential unnecessary market disruption.
2. Adhere to credible testing methods and data: Programmes should incorporate objective measures of data quality and follow Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) guidelines for good laboratory practices.
3. Conduct thorough investigation: Screens and tests should examine hormone-related effects, characterise systemic toxicity and consider biological factors such as absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion.
4. Mutual acceptance of data: Data from tests, conducted according to OECD guidelines, should be acceptable for use by multiple organisations so duplicative testing can be minimised.
5. Engage in transparent decision making: Testing programmes should engage in clear, public and consistent decision-making processes.
6. Be effective and efficient: Testing programmes should be designed to maximise efficiency and minimise delays.
7. Apply advanced technology: Programmes should utilise validated, new technologies to increase progress and reduce the need for animal testing.
8. Consider real world exposures: Testing programmes must incorporate relevant exposure information so conclusions are based on actual risk, not solely on hazard.
9. Incorporate weight-of-evidence analysis: All credible evidence should be incorporated to ensure that the most reliable and relevant studies carry the greatest influence on conclusions and outliers do not skew findings.
10. Embrace a proactive approach: Screens and tests should be highly sensitive and as accurate as possible. Screens should err on the side of over-identification, and in cases where results are ambiguous, further testing should be pursued.
11. Accept safe levels of exposure: Thorough examination can identify safe exposure levels. The hypothesis that low levels of exposure can cause harmful effects that are not adequately captured by traditional toxicological studies is often discussed, but rigorous reviews by scientists at regulatory agencies have been unable to validate the hypothesis, so changes to current testing and safety assessment approaches are not warranted.

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) How Important are Dates on Food Labels?

Oct 19, 2015 | BVI News

By Donald DeCastro

Wednesday evening, October 14 on my Radio Show, Straight Talk I spent more than half an hour talking about “Dates on Food Labels” and why they are only a guideline but none of the writers of the two online news sites printed the statistics and other facts that I quoted.
I will now try to condense as much of the information as I can.
One of the problems I face with one of the sites they seldom print what I send in, they would take the article and rewrite it so often it is misleading, while the other site and the Beacon would publish it just as I send it.
Best-By, Sell-by and Use-by dates actually mean three different things when it comes to food safety. None of these dates are literal expiration dates that reflect when a product will become harmful to eat.
They only mark the point at which it’s reached peak quality, consistency or flavor, leading to a lot of confusion and still-good food thrown out before its time according to the Institute of Food Technologists.
Is food fresh until Feb 1st and then you throw it out on Feb 2nd?
Ask Jeanne Goldberg, professor at the Friedman School of Nutrition, Science & Policy at Tuffs University. It is an inexact science. Those dates include a margin of safety; worse most dates can be misleading.
In the U. S. both the Federal Drug Administration and the U.S Department of Agriculture have a laid back attitude when it comes to food shelf-life labeling.
The only items required by federal law to be labeled for expiration dates are BABY FORMULAR and SOME BABY FOODS.
Mark Harrison, Professor of Science at the University of Georgia points out that pasteurized milk usually remains fresh for five days after its sell-by date, as for eggs they can last as long as five weeks after the sell-by date.
Ultimately, most of these labels should be used as a guide, rather than a hard and fast expiration date.
And the confusion might even be a little deliberate on the part of the government. Once the consumer takes it home, not even the government can find out exactly what happened, which is why it’s unlikely you will have a definitive safety label on perishable foods, says Harrison of the University of Georgia.
Because of these dates there is a big problem in the U. S whereby people toss out approximately $640 billion of relatively good food each year; this is according to the American Chemical Council.
An earlier analysis by the Institute of Food Technologists found that consumers throw away approximately 133 billion pounds of food a year.
A 2013 report by the Natural Resources Council and Harvard Food Law and Policy clinic writes.
The report found that up to 90 % of consumers have thrown out food base on expiration dates, assuming that the food is unsafe to eat.
This sort of mentality only leads to food waste. In other words, let common sense and your senses be your guide, says Doctor Kristin Kirkpatrick of the Well Institute.
Remember, dates are just guidelines and are put there voluntary by the manufacturers and not required by any U. S Federal Law.
Here are a few examples of dates on food labels that should interest you: Beer, unopened still good 4 months after date; Brown sugar, indefinitely, if stored in a moisture proof container in a cool dry place; Chocolate, (Hershey bar) one year after production date; Coffee, canned ground, unopened 2 years, opened one month; Diet soda and soft drinks in plastic bottles, unopened, three months from best buy dates, opened, does not spoil but taste may be affected; Dried pasta, twelve months; Frozen dinners,, unopened twelve to eighteen months; frozen vegetables, unopened, eighteen to twenty four months, opened one month; honey indefinite shelf-life; Bottled Apple and Cranberry juice, unopened eight months from production date, opened seven to ten days; Ketchup, unopened, one year, after this time, colour or taste may be affected but still safe to consume; Maple syrup, real or imitation, one year; Mayonnaise, unopened, indefinite shelf-life, opened two to three months; Bleach, three to six months from purchase -by date; Dish detergent, liquid or powder, one year; Laundry detergent, liquid or powder, unopened nine months to one year, opened, six months; Canned fruits and vegetables will last indefinitely, however, that rule goes out the window if they are exposed to freezing temperatures or temperatures above 90% F and be careful of damaged, dented or rusty cans. That does not mean if you drop a can and it gets dented it is automatically no good.
I now hope that information will help you to save you hard earn money and stop throwing it in the garbage, who do think pays for all the waste? We, the consumers.
And who benefits? The manufacturers of course, it helps t to keep their prices high.
Why are you who are incapable of understanding that dates on food labels are just a guide not concern about FLOURIDE, (the main ingredient in rat poison) that Bi_ Water is putting in our water?
Remember “Facts and statistics may change but the truth remains the same”. The truth is dates are just a guideline.
In conclusion, I would like you to tune in to Straight Talk at 8pm on the second Wednesday of each month.

Return to headline | Return to top
New Toxic Chemical Bills Add Safety--but Dangers Remain

Oct 19, 2015 | Scientific American

By Puneet Kollipara

There are tens of thousands of chemicals in our furniture, our vehicles and our clothes, along with other objects we rely on—many of which are helpful, but some might harm people. Yet over the past 40 years the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has banned or curtailed fewer than a dozen chemical families, and reviewed the safety of only a couple of hundred substances.
This fall the U.S. Congress could enact new laws with some controversial provisions, changing the way chemicals are regulated for the first time in a generation. The question is: Should the bills become law and, if so, would they make Americans safer? Experts say the bills would fix some problems but wouldn’t be silver bullets. “While both bills are improvements—and people may argue about that—it doesn’t create a system where we’re going to be able to efficiently get the answers about risks of all the chemicals out there,” says David Konisky, an associate professor of public policy at Indiana University Bloomington’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs.
Many political observers, stakeholders and lawmakers, blame the lack of proper chemical oversight on the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA—a 1976 law that allows the EPA to regulate industrial chemicals. Under the TSCA, the EPA can’t require a company to generate new toxicity data for a chemical unless the agency already has evidence that it may be harmful—a classic catch-22. And to ban a chemical, the EPA must prove that its risks to human health and the environment are “unreasonable” relative to the costs of regulating it.
This law is so weak, critics say, that an EPA effort to ban asbestos—a class of fibrous minerals known to cause the deadly lung cancer mesothelioma—got struck down by a federal court in 1991 because the agency had failed to comply with another TSCA mandate that the agency pick the “least burdensome” way of regulating a substance. Some states like California have taken their own actions on toxic substances, prompting even the chemicals industry to call for “modernizing” TSCA to create a more nationally consistent system of rules.
With TSCA’s 40th birthday on the horizon, however, both chambers of Congress are mulling TSCA reform bills that, for the first time, carry strong bipartisan support. This summer, on a nearly unanimous vote from both parties, the House of Representatives approved the so-called TSCA Modernization Act, sponsored by GOP Representative John Shimkus (Ill.). The Senate may also soon vote on a far more sweeping bill, co-sponsored by Democrat Tom Udall of New Mexico and Louisiana Republican David Vitter.
Despite having different scopes, both would allow the EPA to acquire more toxicity data on chemicals, to place restrictions on harmful chemicals and to release more chemical data publicly. The bills’ detractors, particularly in the environmentalist community, suggest that they range from being too weak to doing more harm than good. But the measures’ endorsers, including in the industry, say that this may be the best opportunity for Congress to fix a broken law and that both bills provide measures that would make genuine fixes to TSCA. Both would bar EPA from considering costs in assessing whether a chemical is an “unreasonable” risk. “It allows them to make what should be a risk-based decision as opposed to one where they’re balancing safety with economic impact,” Konisky says.
The EPA also wouldn’t have to pick the “least burdensome” method of regulating a chemical anymore, says Lynn Bergeson, a lawyer in Washington, D.C., whose firm, Bergeson & Campbell, specializes in environmental and chemical issues.
Experts also lauded provisions in both bills that would require the EPA to go the extra mile with its regulations to protect infants, pregnant women and other people who are especially vulnerable to chemicals. And both bills would also make it more difficult for chemical makers to shield chemical information such as its name and formula from the public. EPA would also enjoy new powers to share certain confidential information with states, tribes and health care professionals, helping them respond to disasters and treat patients. “If you can’t tell the state what it is or where it is, there’s nothing they can do,” says Lynn Goldman, a pediatrician who ran the EPA’s toxic chemicals program under Pres. Bill Clinton.
The Senate bill would go further with boosting public disclosure of chemical data, Goldman suggests. And on the whole, she and Bergeson argue, the Senate bill would improve TSCA more than would the House bill. For instance, the Senate bill also would let the EPA order companies to generate new toxicity data—fixing the current law’s infamous catch-22—in far more cases than the House’s bill would. “It’s hard to prove anything without information,” says Goldman, now dean of The George Washington University’s School of Public Health. And under the Senate’s, but not the House’s, bill the EPA would have to publicly decide whether a chemical could enter the marketplace; right now, a new chemical can enter commerce by default unless EPA steps in to block it.
Not everyone agrees that the Senate version would be the better of the two, however. The Senate language contains controversial provisions, decried by most environmental groups, that would take some powers away from the states. For example, the Senate legislation would bar states from regulating a substance more rigorously than the EPA does. Other environmental laws like the Clean Air Act set the federal level of regulation as a minimum, not a maximum, for the states, says Rena Steinzor, a law professor at the University of Maryland.
The Senate bill also would block states from taking future actions on any application or use of a chemical that the EPA has declared to be a “high priority” for review, even before the agency decides whether to actually regulate it. The House bill would block states from issuing new rules for a chemical only after the EPA could actually finalize a regulation for it. The Senate bill’s framework could create a void where nobody could regulate a known danger until the EPA finished a lengthy, politically fraught review process, Steinzor says. Bergeson suggests, however, that the Senate bill’s preemption of states would have limited impact. Not only have states have banned only a small number of chemicals, but both bills would let states’ existing chemical laws stay on the books.
Taken as wholes, both the House and Senate bills would still serve as steps forward, Steinzor suggests, albeit modest ones. “I’d rather wait for something that really fixed the problem,” says Steinzor, who is concerned that the bills wouldn’t give much more funding to an EPA that has seen its budget stagnate. These tight budgets could make it tough for the EPA to carry out the bills’ requirements. Nor would the bills quickly dent the list of thousands of unreviewed chemicals currently on the market—the House bill would require that the EPA conduct just 10 reviews a year, the Senate bill just 25.
One additional concern some experts raise is that the bills leave some matters vague: For example, neither bill defines what an “unreasonable” risk would actually mean besides barring the EPA from factoring in regulation costs, says Adam Finkel, a professor of environmental health at the University of Michigan School of Public Health. “That’s a pretty weird formulation,” he says, given that right now regulation costs are key to determining whether a chemical’s risk is unreasonable. He suggests that under either bill, EPA would face a delicate decision on how many additional deaths or cases of disease a chemical could cause before its risk became unreasonable.
So although both bills would improve the TSCA, “there shouldn’t be an illusion created by either of the reform efforts that we are going to have a clear sort of safety assessment that is done for the tens of thousands of chemicals in the marketplace,” Konisky says. None of this will matter, of course, if neither bill becomes law: Both chambers would have to negotiate and then approve a new measure that resolves differences between their respective bills. And the partisan politics that have helped gridlock Congress in recent years as well as the ongoing battle over who will become the new House speaker could bring this burgeoning bipartisan effort to a halt. “We’ve come a long way, but there’s still a good part of the way to go to get to a law,” Konisky adds.

Return to headline | Return to top
Q&A with SC Johnson

Oct 19, 2015 | Chemical Watch

By Leigh Stringer

SC Johnson is a major US household cleaning products company.
Chemical Watch: In the US, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is on the verge of being updated – where does SC Johnson stand on TSCA reform?
Kelly Semrau: In the US, we’ve been a strong proponent of legislative efforts to modernise and strengthen TSCA. That is why in 2011, I testified before the Senate Environment Committee in support of revising this outdated statute. Increasingly, people have become more aware of the chemicals that are used in their everyday household products. We believe that effective federal management of chemicals is what helps build consumer trust and confidence, which is absolutely vital to our industry.
CW: How does SC Johnson manage and work with its supply chain to manage chemicals and comply with regulation?
KS: When working with our suppliers, we educate them on our Greenlist process – an internal chemical management system that classifies the ingredients considered for use in our products by their impact on the environment and human health. We make sure they fully understand the scoring of our ingredients.
Part of the reason the SC Johnson Greenlist process was designed was to align our suppliers on our standards for the selection and evaluation of raw materials. We also wanted to give preference to suppliers that practice responsible business.
Using the agreed-to ingredient scoring criteria and data from suppliers, our global safety assessment and regulatory affairs team assigns ‘material scores’ using a four-step process. That process includes classifying the raw material type, looking at supplier-provided data to identify any 0-rated or restricted-use ingredients, generating criteria scores and calculating the material score. We use the material’s classification to determine the criteria to score it, and each criterion has specific data ranges to classify it as “Best,” “Better” or “Good.”
CW: Are there any chemicals/chemical groups that SC Johnson currently uses that it plans on substituting?
KS: We screen for about 4,600 ingredients as part of our regular ingredient evaluation process. About 2,500 of those have potential negative impacts according to regulatory and government bodies. So, we specify that many of those ingredients cannot be used at all, and that some can only be used at a highly restricted level. The other 2,100 are ingredients we generally avoid because there isn’t enough clear science one way or the other, or they’re ingredients that the public views negatively, even if that perception isn’t supported by the science.
Our 0-rated ingredients list was published for the first time in our 2014 Sustainability Report, and captures the short list of ingredients that can’t be intentionally added to new products - or can only be used at restricted levels. This list gives our product developers direction about ingredients they may be considering.
Most of the ingredients on the 0-rated list meet legal and regulatory requirements and are considered acceptable by authorities, but they still don’t meet our standards. 0-rated ingredients are restricted for new uses except in unique circumstances, approved by senior leadership. Even these exceptions require a defined exit plan for the ingredient. We are also working to eliminate 0-rated ingredients from our existing products by reformulating them.
There are also thousands of other ingredients that we wouldn’t even consider using. This list simply focuses on ingredients that a formulator might logically think about including in a product for our current lineup.
CW: Is SC Johnson actively assessing alternatives to certain chemicals? Is it carrying out any research into green chemistry?
KS: We start the SC Johnson Greenlist process once regulatory health and safety assessments are complete. Each potential ingredient receives a rating from 3 to 0. An ingredient with a 3 rating is considered “Best,” 2 is “Better,” 1 is “Good” and 0-rated ingredients are used only on a limited, approved basis when there’s no viable alternative.
We use the SC Johnson Greenlist process to continually make our products better, by increasing the number of safe and more environmentally-responsible ingredients. When we reformulate existing products, they must contain ingredients with equal or better ratings than the original formula.
While no system is perfect, we continue to revisit and refine our process. For example, since the SC Johnson Greenlist process depends on rigorous scoring and principles, we review the ingredient scorings at our annual material review meeting with our chairman and CEO, vice president of global safety assessment and regulatory affairs and me. We look at existing ingredients – since scores may need to be updated because of new scientific findings or other factors. We also look at new ingredients that are being added to SC Johnson’s Approved Materials Library. We consider factors like external influences, (new scientific data on ingredients, public perception and industry best practices) as well as internal ones (updates to existing scores).
CW: What is driving SC Johnson’s work on ingredients disclosure?
KS: Right now there is a trust issue among consumers around the safety of chemicals in household products. With so many conflicting studies, media frenzy and a lack of trustworthy information, consumers are understandably fearful about many of the chemicals they may encounter in their daily lives.
Our ingredient disclosure programme has been around since 2009, when we made information for ingredients available on our US and Canada ingredient disclosure website. We also made this information available through our consumer hotline and on our product labels. In 2012, we took another step towards ingredient disclosure by publishing the SC Johnson fragrance palette, a list of ingredients that suppliers can use when creating fragrances for our products. But we really wanted to do more with this. So, this June, we took the next step in our journey to transform industry efforts on transparency and gave consumers product-specific fragrance information for Glade products online and via our consumer hotline (CW 16 June 2015).
CW: Are there CBI concerns associated with the company’s level of disclosure? How does it manage this and keep a competitive advantage?
KS: Fragrance recipes have been considered proprietary information. Since we don’t manufacture the fragrances in our products, we couldn’t have done this alone and we greatly appreciate their partnership with this initiative. SC Johnson’s .09% product-specific disclosure allows us to share the vast majority of a product’s fragrance ingredients with some held back to protect confidentiality (CW 21 October 2014).
As an industry, we have to make ingredient choices that make our products safe. So why not share that information with consumers? An informed consumer can make good decisions for their families and ultimately, transparency builds trust and credibility for the industry as a whole.
CW: What is the business case for transparency and ingredient disclosure?
KS: Families need to trust our products in order for our industry to succeed. Ingredient safety is a complicated science and can be easily misunderstood. It’s important for companies to continue to openly address health and safety questions and concerns so people feel comfortable with, and believe in, their products.
CW: Does the company plan to expand its ingredient disclosure? How does it plan to further communicate its work on ingredient transparency?
KS: Yes, we plan to move this process forward and share more information. We led, and will continue to lead the way to full disclosure.
Most recently, we announced the newest expansion of our ingredient disclosure programme – the addition of product-specific fragrance disclosure. We are now the first major consumer packaged goods company to offer this, beginning with Glade.
We have shared our entire list of fragrance ingredients – what we call our SC Johnson fragrance palette – since 2012. These are the ingredients that are approved for our suppliers to use when creating fragrances for SC Johnson products. We publish the list on our ingredient site. What’s new is that now we are going a step further by correlating specific fragrance ingredients to specific products.
Our goal is to list all fragrance ingredients down to .09 percent of the total product formula. For many products, this will give a very significant list of ingredients and cover the majority of them. But in some cases, because the amount of fragrance in a total product is so small, even disclosing 99.91% of the total product formula doesn’t provide that much information. In that case, we’ve committed to list the top ten fragrance ingredients, provided there are at least 20 present.
The next step for us is providing consumers with product-specific fragrance information for other SC Johnson brands.

Return to headline | Return to top
Nanomaterials - the Current State of Play

Oct 19, 2015 | Chemical Watch

By Dr Jörg Wagner and Dr Julia Donauer

Some materials develop new physico-chemical properties if the particle size is reduced below a certain value. What potentially delights scientists in research and development causes serious worries for those evaluating safety issues of such materials, since not only useful properties but also hazardous ones might result.
Because the size range in question lies in the range of nanometers (nm), such materials are nowadays called nanomaterials. To address the possibility of a material developing new or enhanced risks, if used in the nanoform, producers demand additional safety data on the primary nanomaterials, industries which are processing them, consumers of the final product, as well as the respective authorities supervising them. But how do we define a nanomaterial?
Nanomaterial definitions
The most detailed basis for regulatory “nano” definitions has been developed, and is constantly revised, by the International Organisation for Standards (ISO). The ISO TS 80004 (part two of 13) defines a “nano-object” as a material with one, two or three external dimensions in the nanoscale and also distinguishes different types, like nanotubes or nanoparticles. For the European Union, a recommendation for a definition has been given by the European Commission (EC). It was updated in 2011 and is relatively broad, and while it is not legally binding in itself will be adapted for relevant product or sector specific legislation.
The main criterion is the size of the particles that a material is composed of. To be considered a nanomaterial, this has to be 1-100 nm in at least one external dimension, and this should apply to at least 50% (based on number) of all the particles constituting the material. If adequate, the threshold may even be lowered to 1%, in case of special environmental or health safety considerations, for example. Due to their large volume specific surface area (VSSA), most nanomaterials tend to form (loose) agglomerates or (inseparable) aggregates. Nevertheless, those are also considered nanomaterials if the constituent particles fall into the scope of the definition.
In addition, the VSSA is given as a criterion, but one which is only applicable for a positive decision (if greater than or equal to 60 m2/cm3) if the particle size distribution does not lie in the defined range. Furthermore, fullerenes, carbon nanotubes and graphene flakes are explicitly included though not covered by the size range given (all, two or one dimension(s) below 1 nm, the other(s) above 100 nm). This definition applies to intentionally or unintentionally manufactured materials as well as naturally occurring ones.
Though easy to understand, this definition has become subject to many discussions. On the one hand, it only refers to particulate materials, thus embedded nanomaterials, most nanostructured materials or colloids are not covered. On the other hand, the definition applies for a very wide range of materials, including many powders which unintentionally contain a relevant number of nanosized particles due to the production process. Also materials, which have been on the market for decades, may now be considered nanomaterials. An amendment of the recommended definition was planned by December 2014, but the process is still ongoing.
Some specific EU legislations have implemented their own (legally binding) nano definition, namely the biocidal product Regulation, the cosmetics Regulation and the Regulation on food information for consumers (FIC), adapting parts of the recommendation and/or adding new criteria, respectively. Important additional criteria, not mentioned in the recommendation, are the occurrence of new physico-chemical properties, which are not present for the bulk form (FIC), as well as the restriction of intentionally manufactured materials (FIC, cosmetics Regulation). The cosmetics Regulation, furthermore, restricts the materials of interest to biopersistent, insoluble particles, but includes nanostructured materials.
For some legislations, there are proposed amendments not yet implemented, such as fo the novel food Regulation: to adapt the definition given in the FIC Regulation, or for the medical devices Directive: to adapt the recommendation, but leaving the possibility of setting the particle-size distribution threshold below 50%. Without giving an explicit nano definition, the Regulation on plastic materials demands a case-by-case decision on nanomaterials, and only those listed in Annex 1 are allowed for the exact use specified (for example, titanium nitride nanoparticles for the use in PET bottles).
There are other relevant sectors, where nanomaterials are not (yet) mentioned explicitly, such as the Regulation on food contact materials or the chemicals regulations REACH and CLP. According to CLP, hazardous substances should be notified with Echa specifying the exact form they are put on the market (such as a nanomaterial), regardless of their production volume. Echa published guidance on nanomaterials for REACH registrants in 2013. It does not provide an overall definition, but proposes rather a case-by-case assessment, based on the registrants’ expert judgement on “the most appropriate metric” to be considered. According to the Second Regulatory Review on Nanomaterials, amendments of the REACH Annexes are planned.
National registers
As a consequence of the inconsistency of definition and lack of information on nanomaterials (and because no joint European approach is available), several countries have developed, or plan, their own registers, including France, Belgium, Denmark and Sweden (CW 27 June 2014, CW 28 May 2015). France’s register, launched in 2012, only covers the substances, not consumer products containing them. Required information includes the identity of the declarant, information about the properties of the nanomaterial, uses of the substance and the identity of the professional users (confidential information).
In Belgium, data collection will start on 1 January next year. Danish registration opened on 20 June 2014 and is compulsory for producers and importers of mixtures and products containing nanomaterials. The first registration period ended on 30 August with few registrations. The Belgium and Danish nano registers contain a long list of exemptions for registration among other substances that are exempt from REACH registration. It seems that an EU-wide decision on how to handle nanomaterials would be helpful to prevent (well-intentioned) national initiatives, resulting in additional work for registrants, as well as for authorities.
Consequences on workload and labelling
Furthermore, due to the differences in nanomaterial definitions according to specific legislation, a material may be considered a nanomaterial in one kind of product, but not in another. This may result in a higher workload for manufacturers and downstream users of possible nanomaterials, because depending on their application, different kinds of data may have to be collected and evaluated.
What are the consequences, if a material falls under the definition of a nanomaterial? Cosmetic products containing nanomaterials shall be notified to the European Commission (EC) by the responsible person, six months prior to being placed on the market, including toxicological information, for example. If considered necessary, additional data may be requested and the Scientific Committee for Consumer Safety (SCCS) will publish an opinion on behalf of the EC. Nanomaterials considered as hazardous may be prohibited or restricted (Annexes II and III). For biocides, the simplified authorisation procedure is not possible if the product contains nanomaterials, irrespective of whether the active substance itself or some other constituent is considered as nano. If a bulk material has been authorised as a biocide, this does not automatically apply to the nanoform if not explicitly mentioned. Nanoscale ingredients are to be indicated as “nano” in brackets on the ingredient list ( titanium dioxide (nano) for example) for food, biocides and cosmetics.
Nanomaterials worldwide
But nanomaterials are, of course, not only a European phenomenon. How are they handled overseas? The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently proposed a reporting rule for nano-scale materials under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). An important difference to European definitions is the weight-based instead of number-based percentage threshold. Due to the small size and, thus, low weight of nanoparticles, 50% number-based, may be much less than 10% weight-based. The proposed rule would require processors and manufacturers (including importers) of nano-scale materials to report information about the nanomaterial, including properties, composition, uses and production volumes together with existing exposure and health and safety information.
It was also stated that there is no intention to publish a nano register, although non-confidential information will be published online. Until finalisation of the proposed rule, the EPA continues to regulate numerous nano-scale materials under its existing TSCA section 5 authority to require notification for significant new uses of chemical substances, for which new chemical notifications have been received. Producers of plant protection products have to notify the agency if using nanomaterials.
The EPA will then determine on a case-by-case basis whether a nanoscale active or inert ingredient is a “new” one for the purposes of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (Fifra) and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) distributed guidance documents on what to consider if a FDA-regulated product (for example food, drug, medical devices and cosmetics) involves the application of nanomaterials giving a non-official definition. And like in the EU, US states have begun to take unilateral actions regarding nanomaterials. These range from gathering informal data to formal regulations.
Asian countries also have definitions for nanomaterials but no specific regulations yet. They seem to wait for EU-wide decisions and regulations and make them the basis for their own. In further countries in South America or Africa initiatives regarding EHS issues dealing amongst others with nanomaterials are founded and may push the development of regulatory frameworks. In conclusion, a comprehensive EU-wide regulation for nanomaterials seems to be preferable for EU-member states and may be a benchmark/trigger for non-EU states.

Return to headline | Return to top
Green Chemistry and the Circular Economy

Oct 19, 2015 | Chemical Watch

By Jess Clayton

Today’s discussion on the circular economy focuses on recycling, reuse and use of renewable sources. However, another important aspect is to ensure that the cycle gives us material that is safe enough to reuse.
To achieve a circular economy, the market needs safe recycled materials of known and high quality, so that it can become an attractive alternative to virgin materials. Substances of concern ending up in recycled materials are an obstacle to this, which is why green chemistry and the innovation of new and safer substances is a key issue for non-toxic material cycles and the circular economy.
There is a great need for regulatory frameworks to address substances of high concern, through the whole material cycle. When products in use today become waste, we need to treat that waste so that hazardous substances are not re-circulated into new products. Materials that contain substances of very high concern (SVHCs) are not at all suitable for recycling. If we allow material containing them in the recycling processes, we will both continue to expose ourselves and the environment to these substances and undermine the reputation of recycled material as something good for the environment.
Parts of the chemicals industry are preparing for the necessary shift – in the resource base for chemical production – from fossil feed stocks to renewable raw materials. Such a transition provides opportunities to change the entire concept of synthesising and producing true green chemistry that promotes the development of non-toxic, resource lean and climate neutral solutions. When aiming to reduce the climate impacts of a material, the hazardous properties need to be fully considered by the industry and regulators as hazardous substances can also be made from bio-based sources.
Improved information on the contents of hazardous chemicals in products is essential for a greener economy. Due to global trade, this is certainly an international issue and the Unep-led programme on Chemicals in Products (CiP) is a good starting point. This global programme focuses on increasing the availability and access to the information needed – throughout the life-cycle of products – so that informed decisions can be made on design, the way products are produced and handled and also the material in them.
At the fourth International Conference on Chemicals Management in late September and early October, it was agreed that all stakeholders of the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm) should implement a CiP programme proposal (CW 5 October 2015). In the implementation of this programme, both industry and the authorities will need to take into account the link between the circular economy, green chemistry and sustainable development.
Efforts aimed at developing chemicals with less hazardous properties, such as low toxicity, good degradability, combined with good functionality, are regarded as a key aspect of “green chemistry”. From a regulatory point of view, safer chemicals and safe use is primarily a responsibility for the industry, with a framework of legal requirements aiming to ensure that this responsibility is met.
Regulation’s role in promoting green chemistry
A regulatory framework for chemicals management, where roles and responsibilities are defined, is an asset for doing business in a country. Companies that meet product and food safety standards, develop an improved potential for business expansion and international trade. Regulatory frameworks thereby provide support and incentives for the chain of research, innovation and market introduction of safer chemicals. Well-functioning legislation that encourages substitution is, therefore, a central tool to support the development and use of substances with safer properties.
The European chemicals regulation REACH, the CLP Regulation, regulations for plant protection and biocides and other chemicals legislation all promote substitution of hazardous substances with less hazardous or methods without chemicals involved. One purpose of REACH is to phase out SVHCs by progressively substituting them with safer chemicals or technologies. In 2012, the European Commission published a study that examined the impact of the REACH Regulation on the capacity to innovate in the European chemical industry. One finding was that the registration process has had an impact on innovation and that the candidate list of SVHCs is driving most activity.
To further promote less hazardous substances on the market, it is necessary to develop additional supportive policies and measures as a stable framework for the development of green chemistry.

Return to headline | Return to top
Alternatives Assessment: Embracing the Concept

Oct 19, 2015 | Chemical Watch

By Margaret Whittaker

The recent publication of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC) draft Stage 1 Alternatives Assessment Guide marks an important milestone in the growing practice of alternatives assessment (AA), as there are now about twenty AA frameworks that promote informed substitution.
Although the concept of “alternatives assessment” is enshrined in the Environmental Impact Assessment requirements of the US National Environmental Policy Act, the practice of AA, or Chemical Alternatives Assessment (CAA), is just now being embraced on a worldwide scale by businesses and governments as a vehicle for moving away from chemicals of concern in products to safer alternatives.
Historically, risk assessment methods were used to ensure safety by providing businesses with a means to assess the likelihood of harm following exposure to chemicals in products. But risk assessment did little to compel continual improvement of products or materials, containing hazardous substances, toward greener and inherently safer chemicals.
Alternatives assessment
CAA can be defined as a form of alternatives assessment that focuses on finding alternative chemicals, materials or product designs to replace hazardous substances in products. Figure 1 illustrates some of the leading AA paradigms in use around the world, most of which can be accessed through the OECD Substitution and Alternatives Assessment Toolbox.
AAs all use standardised procedures to assess whether alternatives have improved health and environmental hazard profiles compared to a chemical of concern. In addition, most AAs assess them for levels and types of exposure (defined as contact with a chemical or physical agent and a target), cost, performance and commercial availability.
Some AA frameworks, such as the Interstate Chemicals Clearinghouse (IC2) AA Guide, also provide guidance for additional assessment modules such as life cycle thinking, stakeholder engagement and materials management. Exposure is considered in an AA, but is treated differently than in risk assessment. An AA treats exposure as one of several variables, in addition to inherent hazards to consider in a decision framework, while promoting the use of inherently safer alternatives.
In risk assessment, levels of exposure are used to define acceptable limits for the use of hazardous chemicals. Although existing in name and concept 30 years ago, AA was not ready for prime time in its application to chemicals until recently because many tools that support its practical application were not yet in existence, such as the principles of Green Chemistry (published in 1998), the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) (adopted by the United Nations in 2002), and software and databases to support hazard classification (such as Qsar Toolbox and Echa’s toxicity database for REACH registered substances).
Risk assessment
This is defined as the practice of estimating the severity and likelihood of harm to human health or the environment occurring from exposure to a chemical substance, biological organism, radioactive material, or other potentially hazardous substance or activity.
Risk assessment came into its prime in the 1980s with the publication of the NRC publication Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process (“the Redbook”) and the Royal Society’s report titled Risk Assessment: A Study Group Report. When applied correctly, risk assessment methods can estimate how likely exposure to a substance will harm a target population such as a child, adult, and/or organism in the environment.
For example, risk assessment methods can estimate the likelihood that a worker will develop cancer, following exposure to a chemical such as benzene under certain occupational exposure scenarios, estimate a predicted no-effect concentration (Pnec) for an aquatically toxic chemical such as a benzidine-based dye, or whether a body lotion with high levels of the UV absorber benzophenone poses an unreasonable cancer risk to consumers.
The plethora of lists of chemicals of concern, such as California DTSC’s candidate chemicals list (totalling approximately 2,300 chemicals) and Echa’s Community Rolling Action Plan (Corap) list (currently totaling 267 chemicals) reflect a reconsideration of the use of these highly hazardous chemicals in products.
While risk assessment has been effective in many ways as a working framework, it has failed to drive movement away from the use of highly hazardous chemicals and to ensure safety across the lifecycle of a product.
Reasons for the failure of risk-based methods to reach the intended goal are debatable and include flaws in the approach with respect to a focus on single chemicals rather than mixtures and related effects, variability in how it is applied by different practitioners, data gaps and perhaps even the evolution of higher expectations to consider risks across a product lifecycle and throughout the supply chain, rather than to focus primarily on the safety of the product user.
Differences
Risk assessments are designed to answer the question: “Is this chemical or product safe enough for the intended use?” It can be used to set regulatory limits and to help prioritise chemicals for reduction or phase-out. In contrast, alternatives assessments are intended to answer the question: “Which chemical or product is inherently safer?” AAs can also help to prioritise chemicals for reduction or phase-out.
However, unlike risk assessment, AA also supports decisions in the product design and development phase that result in the selection of increasingly benign chemicals or technologies, eliminating the concept of acceptable risk from the design process altogether (see figure 2). The use of AA in product design and development can help to minimise risk. And risk assessment can be used subsequently to ensure safe use, even of inherently low hazard chemicals.
A growing community practicing AA has fostered its continued evolution in different industry sectors including textiles, aerospace and electronics, particularly in the US and EU. Organisations such as the OECD, the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production and Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute at UMASS Lowell, IC2, Northwest Green Chemistry and BizNGO provide resources for governments and businesses of all sizes interested in undertaking AA and adopting safer chemicals.
A commitment to accelerating the use of AA, while a new form of an old approach, provides a useful new tool in the toolbox for safety and sustainability and to help overcome some of the limitations of risk assessment. Its not too late, as the adage goes, “While the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. But the second best time is today.”

Return to headline | Return to top
Stop Giving Cancer Patients Toxic Cosmetics to ‘Look Good, Feel Better’

Oct 19, 2015 | EcoWatch

By Karuna Jaggar

It’s outrageous that the products that each of us use every day as part of our hygiene, self-care and beauty regimens are full of harmful chemicals, linked to a range of health problems including breast cancer. You would hope that when the country’s largest cancer charity gives products to cancer patients as part of a psychosocial support program, it would uphold the highest safety standards.
Unfortunately, that’s not the case. At least that’s not the way the Look Good, Feel Betterprogram works.
Look Good, Feel Better is a nationwide program for cancer patients administered by the American Cancer Society. The free workshops offer tips for cancer patients who are looking for advice on how to handle some of the physical changes that come with treatment. In addition to these tips, the program provides free cosmetic kits, donated by corporations that are members of the largest national trade group for the cosmetics industry, the Personal Care Products Council.It’s time the American Cancer Society and Personal Care Products Council stand together to protect cancer patients and prevent cancer in the first place. They need to ban companies from participating in the Look Good, Feel Better program if the chemicals used in their products are linked to increased breast cancer risk or interfere with breast cancer treatments.
Both the American Cancer Society and the Personal Care Products Council claim to care about women living with breast cancer, but when our members in active treatment for cancer sent us their kits to evaluate, we found out that the program is giving toxic products to women in cancer treatment.
Numerous products in the Look Good, Feel Better kits contain chemicals that are linked to increasing cancer risk and may even interfere with cancer treatment:Parabens: Parabens are chemicals often used as preservatives in personal care products and can be absorbed through the skin. These chemicals may increase breast cancer risk by mimicking the hormone estrogen. Because breast cancer is a hormone-driven disease, common treatments target our hormones—and hormone disruptors like parabens may also interfere with the effectiveness of breast cancer treatment in addition to increasing our risk of disease. Scientists have found that breast cells that have been exposed to methylparaben in the lab are less responsive to the common breast cancer hormone therapy, Tamoxifen.Formaldehyde releasers: Formaldehyde releasers are also used to preserve personal care products and can be absorbed through the skin. In order to prevent microbial growth, these chemicals slowly and continuously release small amounts of formaldehyde, a known human carcinogen.Fragrance: “Fragrance” is a term used by companies to hide ingredients under the assertion that they are “trade secrets.” The International Fragrance Association, an industry trade group, published a “transparency list” of more than 3,000 chemicals commonly used in fragrance. From this list, we know that “fragrance” conceals hormone disruptors and carcinogens. Fragrance also conceals sensitizers, allergenic fragrance ingredients that can, trigger asthma, sneezing, headaches and contact dermatitis. This is particularly concerning for women in cancer treatment.Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE): Commonly known by the trade name Teflon, this chemical is used in cosmetics for smoother application of the product and to fill in fine lines and wrinkles on skin. PTFE can be contaminated with the possible carcinogen and hormone disruptor perfluorooctonoic acid (PFOA), which is linked to altering mammary gland development.
That’s just a sample of the chemicals of concern we uncovered. Because not all Look Good, Feel Better kits are the same, there’s no telling what’s in the kits given to cancer patients.
The chemicals in these products are a serious concern for the program’s volunteer cosmetologists, who donate their time to run the workshops, as well as for cancer patients. A recent report found that the breast cancer risk for cosmetologists is five times higher than the general population. Volunteers wanting to help women in cancer treatment should not have to put their own health at risk to do so.
The health risks of these cosmetics and personal care products extend to the general public as well. Anyone can purchase these products at local stores. Toxic cosmetics end up on store shelves and in make-up bags because regulation of cosmetic products is a sham. The personal care products industry is one of the least regulated industries in the U.S. Companies are not required to demonstrate a product is safe before it lands on store shelves—or in makeup kits. And the Personal Care Products Council spends millions of dollars lobbying against cosmetic safety regulations to make sure it stays that way.
The cosmetics and personal care industry claim that exposure to chemicals linked to increased cancer risk at low doses is harmless. But a clear and growing body of scientific evidence pointsto the role of environmental exposures, specifically human carcinogens and endocrine disrupting chemicals—even in low doses—in increasing women’s risk of breast cancer. Cosmetics and personal care products are not one-time exposures; many of these products are used daily (or even more often) and multiple chemicals in multiple products add up.
The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (CSC) and Environmental Working Group (EWG) provide useful resources for anyone interested in researching some of the chemicals to avoid. But the truth is that too little is known about the safety of many commonly-used chemicals. And there are examples where the replacements for certain chemicals have turned out to as bad or worse than the chemical they were replacing. None of us should feel like we need an advanced degree in science to go shopping. And so-called safer products should not be out of reach of low-income people who may not be able to afford premium prices. We should all be able to trust that the products on our shelves have been safety tested and we are all protected, no matter our educational background or income.
It’s time the American Cancer Society and Personal Care Products Council stand together to protect cancer patients and prevent cancer in the first place. They need to ban companies from participating in the Look Good, Feel Better program if the chemicals used in their products are linked to increased breast cancer risk or interfere with breast cancer treatments.
Now that would really make us feel better.
Take action now to tell these pinkwashers that Poison Isn’t Pretty by sending your letter to the Personal Care Products Council and the American Cancer Society to demand that no corporation that uses harmful chemicals in their personal care products is allowed to participate in the Look Good, Feel Better program!

Return to headline | Return to top
More Bad News About Nail Polish

Oct 19, 2015 | Environmental Working Group

By Megan Boyle

If you wear nail polish, you might be applying more than glossy color to your fingertips.
A new study by researchers at EWG and Duke University finds that nail polishes can contain a suspected endocrine disruptor called triphenyl phopshte, or TPHP.
Researchers tested the urine of 26 women volunteers before and after they applied nail polish. They were looking for DPHP, a different chemical created by the body when it metabolizes TPHP. They detected much higher levels of DPHP after the polish was applied.
The scientists at Duke also tested 10 different nail polishes for TPHP itself and found that eight contained it. According to EWG’s Skin Deep database, polishes that list TPHP as an ingredient include such popular brands as Sally Hansen, Essie, OPI, butter LONDON, Revlon and Wet N Wild. You can see the full list here.
TPHP might disrupt hormones in humans, and in animal studies has upset reproductive and development processes. Cosmetics companies use it because the chemical makes nail polish more flexible and durable. It’s also used in plastics manufacturing and as a common fire retardant in furniture cushions and some foam children’s products.
As a result, most Americans are widely exposed to TPHP, but some research shows that women have higher levels in their bodies. This may be explained by use of the chemical in personal care products for women, including nail polish.
The EWG and Duke study reveals how applying nail polish can increase your short-term exposure to TPHP. But regularly painting your nails could lead to long term exposure.
Parents, this is a particular concern for kids and teens. For many youngsters, nail polish is the first introduction to cosmetics. But before and during puberty, they’re especially vulnerable to hormone disruptors. Before applying another coat, try these tips for healthy nail polish use in your family:Use less. Paint only your fingers or toes, not both – or better yet, skip the polish and buff your nails to a natural shine.
Read labels. Look for red-flag ingredients on the label or check products inEWG’s Skin Deep database. Of the more than 3,000 nail polishes in Skin Deep, 49 percent list TPHP among ingredients. Also avoid products that contain toluene, formaldehyde or dibutyl phthalate.
Talk to your kids and model good behavior. If your children wear nail polish, talk to them about smart choices. Limit use – say, only during sandal season – and help them pick polishes that are free of harmful chemicals. Remind them not to chew polish off their nails. Then practice what you preach.
If you must paint your nails, DIY. The air in nail polish salons can be hazardous to both customers and workers. Avoid them, and never take your kids to the salon.
Don’t inhale. That strong, recognizable nail polish smell can be a sign of airborne toxic chemicals. Apply polish in a well-ventilated room.

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

New Ad Campaign Launched for Cyber Bill

Oct 19, 2015 | The Hill - Cybersecurity

By Cory Bennett

The financial sector is launching a new advertising campaign to push cybersecurity legislation though the Senate.
The Financial Services Roundtable (FSR) — which represents top banks, insurers and credit card companies — has produced radio, video and social media ads that will run for several weeks in an attempt to get Congress to pass the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA).
CISA is intended to boost the exchange of cyber threat data between the public and private sector, but has been stalled over privacy concerns and worries about the bill’s actual potential to fight cyber crime.
“America needs a team approach to fight this national security threat,” says FSR’s radio spot, airing on WTOP in Washington, D.C. “The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act is part of the solution. This bill would enable businesses and the government to voluntarily share cyber threat information, not personal information, to better protect Americans from hackers. Tell the Senate, we need to pass CISA now. Hackers aren’t waiting, so why are we?”
Financial firms and other industries like retailing have long supported the bill, as has a large bipartisan coalition of lawmakers. The White House recently came out in favor, as well.
But digital rights advocates and a small but growing group of privacy-minded senators oppose the bill. In recent weeks, a number of prominent tech firms, such as Apple, have also said they don’t support the bill in its current form.
When CISA hits the floor — perhaps as early as this week — lawmakers will consider at least 22 amendments, many of which are intended to assuage these concerns.
“We urge political leaders to collaborate and get this crucial bill over the finish line,” said FSR CEO Tim Pawlenty.

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News

Congress Should Extend Rail Safety Deadline With Safeguards

Oct 19, 2015 | New York Times

By Editorial Board

Most of America’s railroads are threatening to stop running freight and passenger trains as early as next month unless Congress gives them more time to install technology that can prevent deadly collisions and derailments. Such a shutdown would be devastating to the economy, which is why lawmakers should extend a year-end deadline for the new safety systems, but put in place safeguards to prevent any further delays.
After a rail accident in California killed 25 people in 2008, Congress required railroads to install positive train control systems on their locomotives and on about 60,000 miles of track by the end of 2015. The technology can slow down or stop trains to compensate for human error or negligence. Experts say such a system might have prevented the Amtrak derailment near Philadelphia in May by slowing down the train as it approached a sharp curve.
The National Transportation Safety Board has said such train-control systems could have prevented or reduced the severity of 140 accidents that have killed nearly 300 people and injured 6,500 people since 1970, when the board first recommended their use. The technology will also benefit railroads, which will be able to decrease the distance between trains and haul more goods and passengers.
The rollout of this lifesaving technology has been marred by numerous avoidable problems. Many commuter railroads in New York, Chicago and elsewhere are struggling to install train-control systems because Congress has not appropriated enough money for cash-strapped transit systems to buy equipment and pay for the radio spectrum over which the devices relay information.
Some freight and commuter railroads took too long to devise plans to install the technology. Other railroads were delayed because they did not realize they needed permits from the Federal Communications Commission to place antennas along tracks on tribal lands, according to areport by the Government Accountability Office.
Railroads are asking Congress to give them three years to finish the installation of positive train control and two more years to test it. If lawmakers do not extend the deadline, rail executives say they will have to begin taking trains out of service in early November to achieve a full shutdown by Dec. 31. Railroads say they have to bring their system to a grinding halt because the Federal Railroad Administration is required by law to levy daily fines if they operate without positive train control.Continue reading the main storyRECENT COMMENTSAurther Phleger 10 minutes ago
You could get 75% of the benefits of these sophisticated systems with the equivalent of a GPS and iPhone app. The app knows exactly where...EJS 11 minutes ago
Since 1970, how many billions have some of these railroads, like the Union Pacific, earned? How many billions have they paid their CEO and...Gene 51 minutes ago
Like always, the reasl issue is whose pocket the money comes out of to pay for the improvements. Let the people who use the trains pay for...SEE ALL COMMENTS WRITE A COMMENT
Clearly, nobody wants a large-scale rail shutdown. That would make it much harder and more expensive for businesses to transport goods and for commuters to get to work. Congress should extend the deadline but make sure railroads are not in a position to demand another delay in three years by holding the economy hostage again.Continue reading the main storySign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.
Lawmakers should give the Railroad Administration authority to set strict timelines for when each company has to meet installation milestones and penalize any company that falls behind schedule — something that should have been part of the plan from the start. The administration and railroads should be required to publish regular updates so the public can keep track of their progress. Congress should also appropriate more money to commuter rail systems to help them comply with the law.
Despite the technical and other challenges, a few railroads will meet the deadline. Amtrak says it will have the technology in place on most of its Washington-to-Boston corridor, except for a few stretches of track that it does not own. Commuter trains in Philadelphia and Southern California are also expected to comply. Congress, regulators and railroads need to do everything they can to make sure the rest of America’s rail system catches up with them soon.

Return to headline | Return to top
Oil Boom Highlights Need for Funding -- Obama Admin

Oct 19, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

By Sean Reilly

Freight transportation projects warrant their own stand-alone source of federal funding, similar to what highways and public transit programs already receive, the Obama administration said in a newly released draft plan that points to the boom in domestic oil production as one reason for a more assertive national approach.
Shipments of oil and other energy products already account for more than 30 percent of freight traffic. And the existing pipeline network is generally not well-suited to handle new supplies coming out of places like the Bakken Shale oil fields in North Dakota and Montana and the Eagle Ford Basin in Texas, the plan says. As a result, skyrocketing volumes of oil train shipments have "created stresses on the railroads, contributing to some accidents among North American carriers and concerns about rail safety."
More generally, "we have a fragmented vision of how our freight system should look and operate, rather than a unified vision, with little clear accountability for its performance," says the draft document, dubbed the National Freight Strategic Plan.
The plan was released yesterday by Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx during an appearance in Seattle. Between an increasingly competitive global marketplace and deteriorating facilities stateside, "the need for us to have a national freight plan could not be more urgent," Foxx said in the release.
Besides tapping existing grant funds for freight projects, the plan recommends that Congress adopt the administration's proposal to create two new programs that would devote $18 billion over six years to freight needs, covering ports, highways and other transportation modes.
The plan also urges more coordination between government and private businesses; improved tracking of freight trends; and a sustained effort to train new workers in the freight transportation sectors to replace those who are retiring.
Congress required the plan under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), a transportation authorization measure signed in 2012. The draft arrives about three months after the deadline set by lawmakers.
While there is bipartisan interest on Capitol Hill in freight issues, lawmakers have taken no action on the administration's bid for $18 billion in new grant funding contained in H.R. 2410, its version of a long-term transportation bill.

Return to headline | Return to top
T&I forges Ahead on Transportation Funding Plan

Oct 19, 2015 | Politico - Morning Transportation

By Jennifer Scholtes

T&I FORGES AHEAD ON TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PLAN: Still set on postponing floor action until the Ways and Means Committee comes through with offsets, House T&I leaders march on this week with a markup of the multiyear highway and transit plan they laid out on Friday. While the proposal is surprisingly devoid of major policy differences that could jeopardize an ultimate deal with the Senate, the bill differs in one important way from the legislation the upper chamber passed this summer.
‘Locking’ mechanism: As we’ve explain in detail for Pros, “the accounting tricks just got trickier in the congressional effort to advertise three years of funding as a six-year transportation investment. … Leaders in both chambers are billing their measures as six-year plans, but with only enough offsets to pay for the first three years. The bill the Senate passed in late July would actually promise six years of cash flow, though, regardless of whether it’s actually freed up in the meantime and without forcing Congress to pass another measure. The House bill, conversely, would ‘lock’ the last three years of funding authority, requiring enactment of wholly separate legislation — that is, if lawmakers are even able to dig up the extra money.”
Story Continued Below
The challenge: That House language is unlikely to fly with lawmakers intent on providing six years of funding certainty to those trying to plan major infrastructure projects, especially since they’ve just been reminded of how difficult it is to cull congressional consensus around hundreds of billions in pay-fors.
Policy meat: Within the House measure, T&I leaders have included language that would force DOT to require trains to have half-inch thermal jackets on tank cars, among several other new oil train mandates, our Kathryn A. Wolfe reports. The legislation has angered highway safety advocates who are concerned about the way it takes aim at the FMCSA’s Compliance, Safety, Accountability program, which is essentially a public report card for the motor coach and trucking industries, Heather Caygle explains. And it would create a grant program for states to demonstrate alternative revenue-raisers for highways based on a user fee, Lauren Gardner notes.
The measure would also require DOT to study the consequences for drivers who toke up before getting behind the wheel and would build on MAP-21 by encouraging federal agencies to move quicker in conducting environmental reviews of infrastructure projects.

Return to headline | Return to top
SEPTA Mixup Gave Passengers Jarring Stop

Oct 19, 2015 | Philadelphia Inquirer

By Jason Laughlin

An abrupt, unexpected stop on a train is likely to cause a passenger's stomach to drop just as fast. One reader said he recently experienced exactly that repeatedly while riding the Norristown Line. He asked to remain unnamed, but SEPTA confimed trains on that line came to unexpected stops more than once the first week of this month. The reason, they said, is related to a federally mandated safety system that has gotten a lot of attention since May's Amtrak crash in Philadelphia, PTC.
Positive Train Control is an automatic braking system that should stop a train if an engineer isn't obeying speed and movement signals. It would have prevented that fatal Amtrak crash from happening. And a federal mandate that it be installed in 40 rail systems nationwide by the end of the year has made Dec. 31 the most important, and dreaded, dates on the calendar for the country's transportation agencies. It's a fairly complicated technology that involves refitting both trains and the rails themselves, and linking them through satellites. Here's a graphic SEPTA provided giving a sense of how it works.
So what went wrong? Much of SEPTA's rail fleet are Silverliner IV's, which date to the Carter Administration, and the Silverliner V's, which are at most five years old. In the process of installing the PTC systems the brakes on the trains needed to be rewired, and SEPTA used the specifications for the Silverliner IV brakes on the whole fleet. Worked fine for the Silverliner IV's. Not so much for the newer trains. With a Silverliner IV's brake wiring, what was supposed to be a gradual slowdown turned into a stop on some of the newer trains, said Michael Monastero, who is in charge of the PTC installation on SEPTA trains.
These kinds of snafus are part of the process when installing something as complicated as PTC, Monastero said. SEPTA is racing to get the systme up before a federally mandated Dec. 31 deadline that expects 40 rail systems around the country to have the system online.
Virtually every affected rail line has said they won't be able to meet the deadline. The Government Accountability Office issued a report in September saying almost no rail lines will meet the deadline. SEPTA said they could make the deadline, but sent a letter to Congress last month saying if they could get more time, they wouldn't complain. My colleague Jonathan Tamari down in D.C. sayd Congress may come up with a plan to extend the deadline this week, so stay tuned.
The challenges of getting this system installed for a looming deadline is also something we'll keep an eye on here.
This is the first post in our new transportation blog, In Transit. The goal is to offer a look at the interesting, perplexing, frustrating and funny aspects of getting from point A to point B in this region. Between car services, bike shares, surging interest in rail and a big pot of state money for roads, there are more ways to get around than ever and I'd like to talk about them all. I'm pretty new to the transportation beat so I'll be learning as I go as well, and am going to be very interested in your feedback about things you'd like to see explored. My email address is jlaughlin@phillynews.com and my twitter handle is @jasmlaughlin. I'd like to hear from you.

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/in-transit/In-Transit-Begins.html#8Ck6eOqDGbzcKpfW.99

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy and Environment News

White House Emphasizes Companies’ Commitment to Cutting Emissions

Oct 19, 2015 | New York Times

By Gardiner Harris

The Obama administration announced Monday that 81 major companies have committed to large reductions in carbon emissions, part of a broad push by the White House to show progress ahead of international climate talks in Paris this year.
The companies that have made the pledge include such iconic American brands as Levi Strauss & Co., McDonald’s, I.B.M. and Procter & Gamble. They have operations in all 50 states, employ over nine million people, have more than $3 trillion in annual revenue and a combined market capitalization of over $5 trillion, according to the White House.
But many of the newly announced commitments were in fact issued before. Part of the White House campaign is simple theatrics: convincing both domestic and international audiences that the United States — long the world’s greatest source of carbon emissions — is serious about making significant reductions in its carbon footprint.
Many of the chiefs of the companies met with President Obama on Monday morning, part of a continuing push by the administration to use both carrots and sticks to persuade businesses to move away from operations that rely on coal and oil toward ones that use more wind and solar power.
Some of the companies, including Nike, have pledged to power their operations entirely with renewable energy or to reduce their carbon emissions to zero.
“The bottom line is this: These commitments show that international action on climate are not only good for our climate but good for the bottom line,” said Brian Deese, a senior adviser to the president.
Todd Brady, global environmental director at Intel, acknowledged Monday morning that his company’s pledge is a combination of prior and new commitments.
The administration’s leadership on the issue “has caused us to step back and see if we can do more,” Mr. Brady said.
The administration is also using significant new regulations, including the newly released Clean Power Plan, to drive down carbon emissions in the United States over the next 15 years. Republicans have denounced such regulations as job killers that will result in significant costs to both businesses and consumers. By showing that many major businesses are making large reductions in carbon emissions voluntarily while still being profitable, the Obama administration hopes to prove that its new rules will lead to greater economic growth, not less.
The administration expects to persuade even more businesses to sign its climate pledge before climate talks in Paris begin in six weeks. Such pledges, Mr. Deese said, “will really help drive the conversation and drive progress going into Paris.”

Return to headline | Return to top
Greens Decry Ozone Limit as Easier Lift than Bush-Era Reg

Oct 19, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire

By Amanda Reilly

Key green allies are delivering a scathing critique about the new ozone standard finalized by the Obama administration earlier this month: President Obama is letting industry off easy compared to the Bush administration.
Green groups contend that fewer counties are likely to be named out of compliance under U.S. EPA's final standard than were designated in noncompliance under the 2008 limit set during the George W. Bush administration.
While they disagreed with the Bush administration's standard, environmentalists also say that the Republican president set a bigger safety cushion based on analysis of harmful levels of ozone.
"This was the weakest option on the table," Terry McGuire, a Washington representative for the Sierra Club, said of the Obama administration's standard. "It's a step in the right direction, but this is not a huge lift for industry."
Industry, however, maintains that the low-hanging fruit of pollution control has already been picked, leaving on the table more costly options for reducing emissions. Background levels of ozone greatly complicate compliance at the new standard, compared with the 2008 standard, according to industry experts.
EPA on Oct. 1 unveiled a final new ambient air quality standard for ground-level ozone of 70 parts per billion, down from the 2008 limit of 75 ppb. The agency based the new limit on a scientific review of negative public health effects linked to ozone (Greenwire, Oct. 1).
Ground-level ozone is a key component of smog that's formed when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds react in the presence of sunlight.
Determining compliance with the standard is complex: An area could exceed the standard four times a year for three years before it's considered in violation.
Using that formula, EPA says it expects 213 counties outside of California that monitor air quality to fail to achieve the new limit when it issues designations in 2017. Under the Clean Air Act, states with nonattainment areas will be required to submit pollution control plans to EPA.
But the agency says all but 14 of those counties will meet the standard by 2025 thanks to the Clean Power Plan, mercury standards, emission limitations for cars and trucks, and other air pollution regulations.
According to EPA's regulatory impact analysis, just five coal-fired power plants will have to make changes to reduce levels of NOx pollution.
When the Bush administration lowered the ozone standard from 84 ppb to 75 ppb in 2008, it later labeled 232 counties in whole or in part in "nonattainment." Many of those other regulations were not in place at the time the standard was promulgated.
The Natural Resources Defense Council, a key green ally of the Obama administration, last week pointed to those figures and argued that industry was being let off the hook under the new limit.
"There are far fewer new nonattainment areas required by this standard than by the Bush administration's standard in 2008," said John Walke, clean air director at NRDC, during a panel last week held by the Environmental Law Institute.
Concerns about compliance, however, helped fuel an aggressive campaign by industry and business groups against the tighter standard.
Cindy Langworthy, a counsel at Hunton & Williams LLP who represents industry clients, pushed back against the contention that the new standard will be an easy lift and said its reach extends beyond the coal industry.
EPA, she argued, is oversimplifying the compliance process when it says most areas will come into compliance by 2025 thanks to other air regulations.
"EPA's assessment," Langworthy said, "that many areas will come into attainment using business-as-usual approaches -- which, by the way, can be pretty costly, including for the electric utility industry -- that assessment is just really not relevant to what areas are going to have to do."
Langworthy also noted that, under the Clean Air Act, most areas around the country will be required to show compliance before 2025.
She also raised concerns that background levels of ozone stemming from the upper atmosphere, overseas pollution and wildfires will complicate efforts to comply. EPA has several mechanisms for addressing air pollution that is out of states' control, but "historically none of these tools has worked very well," she said.
Lorie Schmidt, associate general counsel at EPA, last week said that the concerns about background ozone were overblown and that the agency intended to release a white paper in the coming months on the subject.Scientific review also under question
Obama's green allies have also blasted the scientific review that underlies the administration's new ozone standard (Greenwire, Oct. 2).
EPA said it determined that negative effects occurred in healthy, exercising adults at ozone concentrations of 72 ppb. The agency set a new standard at 70 ppb to provide the margin of safety required by the Clean Air Act.
In comparison, the Bush administration's EPA found that studies showed actual harm from ozone pollution at 80 ppb. The agency set a new standard at 75 ppb to cushion the public from the negative effects.
Walke of NRDC said the Obama administration did "worse" by adopting a 2 ppb margin of safety.
"They merely lowered the standard to 70 rather than to 67 as they would have done had they followed even the example of the Bush administration," he said.
To be sure, green groups were not pleased with the Bush administration's standard when it was set, arguing that the limit was too weak. Environmentalists and public health groups have long argued that the scientific evidence shows ozone levels above 60 ppb are harmful.
Green groups have already said they would likely sue the Obama administration over a 70 ppb standard (Greenwire, Sept. 29).
Schmidt at EPA acknowledged that setting a new ozone standard was "very controversial" and defended the administration's decision.
EPA has said the link to negative health effects at levels below 70 ppb is too uncertain to be the basis of a national ambient air quality standard.
"Because of that uncertainty, we did not believe it was appropriate to require complete elimination of exposures to ozone at levels as low as 60," Schmidt said.

Return to headline | Return to top
The EPA’s Clean Power Plan Won’t Save The World, But It Will Cause Human Suffering

Oct 19, 2015 | Daily Caller

By Chuck Devore

Americans are largely ambivalent about global warming. A Gallup poll in March after last winter’s epic run found 55 percent of Americans thought that increases in the Earth’s temperature were mostly due to human activities while only 37 percent thought that global warming would pose a serious threat to them personally or their way of life.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan (CPP) aims to cut carbon dioxide emissions among America’s electrical power industry by 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 for a total of 871 million tons per year. To what end? The EPA’s own calculations estimate a reduction in the global temperature of eighteen one-thousandths of a degree by 2100.
Revisiting Gallup’s poll, had respondents known that concerns over global warming and what to do about it would double, triple, or quadruple their electric bills to achieve an imperceptible temperature reduction, a solid majority might have expressed pessimism about their future living standards.
American’s ongoing reluctance to fully embrace the centralization of another industry essential to their daily lives—all in the name of the greater good—is likely due to an instinctively practical outlook. Applying some logical rigor to the issue, three questions must be answered in the affirmative before embarking on a full scale quest to dismantle our reliable and efficient electrical infrastructure: Does human activity contribute significantly to climate change? If so, then: Is the amount of human-caused climate change on balance provably negative (for instance, on the positive side of the leger, more people die from the cold of winter than from heat waves while crops benefit from a longer growing season and more CO2)? If so, then: Can something be done about it with government action or technology that doesn’t, on balance, increase human suffering?
The EPA’s plan to nationalize the U.S. electric grid assumes that the answers to the first two questions are a “yes” then proposes action that does nothing while substantially increasing human suffering, especially among the working poor.
According to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) in an October 16 news release, the Clean Power Plan would necessitate the retirement of 4,000 megawatts (MW) of coal-fired power plants in Texas alone beginning as soon as seven years from now with EPA mandates requiring another 2,200 MW of coal power retirements by 2030. Retail electric prices would increase by 16 percent, not including the substantial costs for new transmission lines from remote wind or solar power projects as well as billions for needed redundant backup power systems for when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining with the reliability of the grid itself put at risk. (Anyone for rolling blackouts on a hot, humid Texas summer day?) Additional costs would pile on as the CPP’s emissions targets ratchet down.
Anticipating pushback on the CPP for proposing a lot of pain for no gain, the EPA has taken to claiming that a forced reduction in CO2, a natural atmospheric gas that has no health implications for humans—we breathe out about 2.3 pounds of the stuff every day—will have “co-benefits.” In other words, reducing CO2 itself won’t do a darn thing to improve human health, but, in the process of de-fossil fueling America, there will be ancillary health benefits—trust us!
Dr. Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., P.E., the Chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality said as much in a letter to Congress on Oct. 16 where he noted that the EPA itself has concluded that, “Greenhouse gases, at both current and projected atmospheric concentrations, are not expected to pose exposure risks on human respiratory systems…” Further, Chairman Shaw noted that EPA chief Gina McCarthy herself testified to Congress that the “CPP will not have any meaningful direct impact on respiratory health, atmospheric temperatures, or sea level rise.” Which begs the question: why are we doing this? To which Administrator McCarthy responds: it can “…actually trigger global action…”
But wait, it gets even better! Even the expected “co-benefits” from a reduction in CO2 aren’t, in fact, beneficial. The EPA claims that a reduction in CO2 will reduce PM2.5 particulates which will be a benefit to human health, but, in Texas’ case, not a single of its 254 counties are out of compliance for PM2.5 particulates today with the EPA itself concluding that the particulate levels don’t need to be reduced. The U.S. Supreme Court took a dim view of claiming “co-benefits” in its Mercury and Air Toxics Standard ruling, with Chief Justice Roberts noting that a claim of “co-benefits” to justify a rule could be “an illegitimate way” for the EPA to avoid legal limitations. (Perish the thought, a government agency grasping for power not its own to wield!)
By the EPA’s own admission, the Clean Power Plan is nothing more than a global PR scheme—expect to see it take center stage at the international climate talks in Paris this December. In the meantime, average Americans will see higher electric bills and no benefit for the lower standard of living.

Return to headline | Return to top
It's Conference Season for EPA Carbon Rule

Oct 19, 2015 | E&E - Power Plan Hub

By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro,

Starting today, Infocast will hold its second annual Clean Power Plan Implementation Summit. The first day focuses on using natural gas to comply with the rule. Tomorrow's and Wednesday's sessions kick off with remarks from U.S. EPA Associate Assistant Administrator and Senior Counsel Joe Goffman before delving into legal issues, carbon-cutting options and power system considerations. A variety of state environment and energy officials, as well as electric regulators, will speak. Panelists also include utility and grid organization leaders, consultants, and environmental advocates. ClimateWire's Elizabeth Harball will be there.
Also today, the Great Plains Institute and Bipartisan Policy Center host a workshop in Little Rock, Ark., to discuss implementation options with states and utilities from all over the midcontinent region. The two groups have been supporting talks among the Midcontinent States Environmental and Energy Regulators group and the Midwestern Power Sector Collaborative. Federal Energy Regulatory Commissioner Colette Honorable will give the keynote address. EnergyWire's Jeffrey Tomich will report from Arkansas, and the event is also viewable by webcast.
Each Monday, Power Plays previews upcoming moves on the way to Clean Power Plan compliance and recaps the week's developments.
Tomorrow, the Distributed Sun 2015 New Energy Summitin Washington, D.C., will feature a keynote address by Goffman on the Clean Power Plan.
On Wednesday, the Environmental Council of the States -- the organization of state environmental agencies -- holds its own meeting on the Clean Power Plan. Panels will explore state perspectives on the rule's regulatory and economic challenges and feature more than a dozen officials from diverse states. Acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe and White House senior policy adviser Megan Ceronsky will speak.
At 2 p.m. Thursday, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power will hold a hearing on the legal aspects of EPA's CO2 regulations for new and existing power plants. Greenwire's Jean Chemnick will be reporting.
In case you missed it:Five states face the highest Clean Power Plan compliance costs, according to Fitch Ratings (ClimateWire, Oct. 15).A group of states led by Tennessee will receive $800,000 from the Department of Energy to create a voluntary national energy efficiency registry, to standardize benchmarks for projects that could qualify for compliance with the Clean Power Plan (EnergyWire, Oct. 14).A Republican operative turned federal judge has emerged as one of the most powerful critics of President Obama's environmental rules (Greenwire, Oct. 13).Entergy Corp. will close Massachusetts' only nuclear power plant in 2019, which might complicate the state's efforts to reach greenhouse gas goals (Greenwire, Oct. 13).State officials in Minnesota held their first Clean Power Plan stakeholder meeting and are optimistic they can meet EPA's goals (ClimateWire, Oct. 13).Arkansas kicked off its planning process too and maintained a spirit of coordination (EnergyWire, Oct. 13).Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster, a Democrat, is joining a lawsuit against the rule (EnergyWire, Oct. 13).

Return to headline | Return to top
Texas Grid Operator Still Concerned About Rule Even as Numbers Shift

Oct 19, 2015 | E&E - Energywire

By Edward Klump

U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan could lead to the closure of at least 4,000 megawatts of coal-fired generation in Texas and a rise in retail electricity prices, according to a new report from the state's main grid operator.
The outlook, issued Friday by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), isn't as severe as one last year that relied on a draft version of the EPA proposal.
But the report shows ERCOT remains worried about how the plan, known as the CPP, may affect reliability as it seeks a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
"In the coming years, resource owners will need to make decisions about their generation units -- taking into account the CPP as well as other environmental regulations -- that could result in localized reliability issues and transmission constraints associated with a changing resource mix," ERCOT said in its report.
ERCOT said retail power prices in its region could climb as much as 16 percent by 2030 because of the carbon plan, not factoring in investments in areas such as transmission that might be needed for compliance.
Some of Texas' leading environmental voices were quick to respond to ERCOT's study, questioning various assertions while touting renewables and energy efficiency.
Warren Lasher, director of system planning at ERCOT, told reporters on a call Friday that ERCOT is focused on "high-level potential reliability concerns consistent with our role in planning a reliable electric grid in Texas," even though there are unknowns in realms such as technology.
The 4,000 MW of possible retirements represent about a quarter of the current coal-fired capacity in ERCOT's region, Lasher said. ERCOT suggested some retirements might happen before 2022, in part because of regional haze regulation.
"The loss of this capacity could lead to periods of reduced generating reserves and increase the risk of emergency operations during periods of peak customer demand, such as the hottest days of summer," Lasher said.Texas scenarios
ERCOT looked at four different scenarios in its analysis: a base case without the Clean Power Plan; a carbon limit scenario; a carbon price scenario to reach CPP compliance; and a scenario that factors in a carbon price and regional haze regulation. The operator also examined investments in energy efficiency in a separate view.
In the carbon price scenario, coal retirements could be 5,500 MW by 2030, compared with 1,500 MW in a baseline case. When regional haze was factored in with a carbon price, coal retirements could climb to 6,200 MW by 2030.
Using a carbon price and regional haze scenario, ERCOT said more than 14,000 MW of solar and 9,000 MW of wind could be added by 2030, along with 2,900 MW of combustion turbine capacity.
Last year, the Texas operator mentioned the possible closure of 3,300 to 8,700 MW of coal-fired generation in response to a draft carbon proposal (EnergyWire, Nov. 18, 2014). The council also talked last year of a potential 20 percent increase in power prices by 2020, not counting certain related costs.
ERCOT said its outlook changed in part because the final rule altered the emissions target and timing, while market economics also changed.
EPA unveiled outlines of a final Clean Power Plan in August, with an aim of reducing carbon emissions from power plants 32 percent by 2030 compared with 2005 levels. Initial compliance is envisioned in 2022, and state targets vary. States can develop a response under the rule or face a possible federal plan.
Under the rule, Texas would need to cut its power-sector carbon emissions rate about 33 percent below 2012 levels by 2030, compared with an earlier draft target of more than 38 percent. States can look at mass-based compliance plans that could create a cap on emissions, and carbon trading may be possible.
"Though overall fewer coal units are at risk compared to the number of units under the CPP proposal, there continues to be a risk that the ERCOT Region could see multiple unit retirements within a short time frame," the council said in its new report.
The operator cited uncertainty in Texas about possible implementation of the Clean Power Plan, but Lasher said it's "far too early" to discuss potential strategies.Signs of a 'cleaner' grid
ERCOT said it assumed a rise in natural gas prices over time, including to a little over $6 per million British thermal units by 2030. Lasher said further gas price increases could occur in light of the Clean Power Plan. He also said using storage could help integrate more renewables in the future, but the report didn't necessarily factor in such unknowns.
Environmental groups had their own reads on the new study as they backed a move toward cleaner energy sources.
"ERCOT's report downplays or ignores some extremely valuable energy resources that will ensure a just and resilient transition off of coal, including large and small-scale community solar, wind, demand response, energy storage, and energy efficiency," Cyrus Reed, conservation director at the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, said in a statement.
Reed said clean air rules don't "mandate that many power plants suddenly retire." He said good planning is needed, adding that "all signs point to Texas transitioning to a cleaner and more flexible grid, and we need to make sure our leaders allow that to happen."
For others, the focus was on some numbers ERCOT did include, such as a potential for 13,000 MW of solar added by 2030 under the baseline scenario. Today, there's roughly a couple hundred megawatts of utility-scale solar in the ERCOT region.
"This recognizes the historically low prices we're seeing in the solar market today," Luke Metzger, director of Environment Texas, said in a statement. "It's a remarkable time for solar, with each new prediction or price beating the previous historic one."
And last week, the Environmental Defense Fund issued a report that said current trends could put Texas at 88 percent of compliance with the Clean Power Plan by 2030, and it said other actions could help the state reach or surpass its compliance target (EnergyWire, Oct. 13).Focus on reliability
John Hall, state director of the Texas clean energy program with EDF, said in an interview Friday he was glad to see energy efficiency mentioned in ERCOT's report. He said efficiency measures could help offset any increase in power prices on customers' bills.
Hall also noted EPA's decision to allow a reliability safety valve, if needed, under the plan.
ERCOT is assessing what practical reliability protections are enabled by that limited safety valve and it's too early to quantify what that would look like in application, said Robbie Searcy, a spokeswoman for the operator.
A group called Balanced Energy for Texas said Friday that ERCOT's report re-emphasized concerns about reliability. The Balanced Energy group said the market should be allowed to work and it asked why Texas would agree to take part in a plan that affects state sovereignty.
Texas' attorney general has talked of potential litigation if there's no stay of the carbon rule.
At the Association of Electric Companies of Texas, President John Fainter said it remains to be seen how litigation affects potential timelines. Fainter said companies will analyze plants and look at how to go forward as the public focuses on keeping the lights on.
"The thing they want the most is to make sure the system maintains reliability," Fainter said in an interview.
Trip Doggett, ERCOT's CEO, said in a statement that the "market is designed to encourage new, more efficient technologies, but that change needs to occur at a pace that supports continued reliability."
Lasher said it can take more than five years to build new major transmission lines. He said it could take several years to replace generation. ERCOT currently has a 90-day notification requirement from owners to signal an intent to have a power unit retire.
Looking ahead, Lasher said a large increase could be needed from renewables, and integration of such resources can hamper reliability if operators don't have adequate tools in real time.
Lasher was asked on Friday's media call how severe the threat might be from EPA's carbon rule in ERCOT's view.
"The Clean Power Plan requirements are long-term requirements," Lasher said. "They don't start until 2022. They don't reach their final compliance requirements until 2030, which is 15 years away.
"But we do have concerns about the combined impact of this rule and other regulatory changes on more near-term implications to the grid."

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested