Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 11/13/15
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Announces Winners of Its 2015 Innovation in Plastics Recycling Awards
Nov 13, 2015 | Recycling Today
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), Washington, has announced that Demilec Inc., Publix and The Recycling Partnership have been selected to receive Innovation in Plastics Recycling Awards. -
The Fight to Rid Black Women’s Hair Salons of Toxic Chemicals
Nov 13, 2015 | National Journal
By Vicky Gan
When Teni Adewumi surveyed African-American salon workers in Inglewood, California, she kept seeing the same health concerns over and over: Asthma. Dermatitis. Hair loss. Uterine fibroids. Miscarriage. -
Breast Implants Absorb Chemicals Like Fatty Tissue -- Study
Nov 13, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
Silicone breast implants absorb toxic chemicals from the body, which could help scientists understand what kind of chemicals their owners have been exposed to. -
Study: Teflon Chemical Linked To Childhood Obesity
Nov 13, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Bill Walker
Children born to mothers who were exposed during pregnancy to higher levels of PFOA, the non-stick chemical DuPont formerly used to make Teflon, tend to put on more weight and do so more quickly than children of less-exposed women, anew study by researchers at Brown University found. -
Chemicals of Concern Found at Treated Landfills -- Study
Nov 13, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Treatment of liquid waste from landfills may not remove all of the chemicals present, according to a new study by researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey. -
US EPA Received 55 Pre-Manufacturing Notices in September
Nov 13, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA received 55 pre-manufacturing notices (PMNs) for new chemicals in September. Several have their manufacturer, or importer, protected as confidential business information. -
(ACC Mentioned) One Year After Deadly Texas Chemical Leak, Has Safety Improved?
Nov 13, 2015 | Center for Effective Government
By Brian Gumm
One year ago, a toxic chemical leak at a DuPont plant in La Porte, Texas killed four workers, including grandmother Crystle Wise. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Companies Say Trust Us, But Environmental and Workplace Safety Violations Belie Their Rhetoric
Nov 13, 2015 | Center for Effective Government
Large chemical companies and their major trade association and lobbying arm, the American Chemistry Council, say they can maintain high safety standards through self-regulation and voluntary actions. Our report finds this isn't the case. -
With Keystone XL Conquered, Enviros Keep Wary Eye on Rail
Nov 13, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
With TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL pipeline proposal in their rearview mirror, environmentalists in the United States and Canada are now looking to blunt the climate impact of moving oil by rail. -
House Energy Committee to Vote Next Week on Measures to Block EPA Carbon Rules
Nov 13, 2015 | Politico Pro - Whiteboards
By Alex Guillen
The House Energy and Commerce Committee will vote on measures next week to kill EPA's carbon rules for existing and new power plants, according to an aide. -
Sierra Club Warns Vulnerable Senators to Back EPA Climate Rule
Nov 13, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Sierra Club is urging vulnerable senators to support President Obama’s climate rule for power plants, warning that it’s popular with voters who are heading to the polls next year. -
New Ad Campaign Targets 4 Senators for Votes to Kill WOTUS
Nov 13, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Annie Snider
The League of Conservation Voters today is launching an ad campaign targeting four Republican senators for their votes last week to kill the Obama administration's contentious water rule. -
Colorado Challenges EPA Claims in Mine Waste Spill
Nov 13, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Colorado officials are challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) account of the state’s role in the August mine waste spill that the EPA caused. -
EPA Proposes Longer Permit Terms For Solid Waste Landfill R&D Projects
Nov 13, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
In response to requests from states, EPA is proposing to lengthen the permitting terms for experimental landfill projects -- such as bioreactors and alternative covers -- that could speed biodegradation and accelerate landfill gas generation collected as a source for renewable fuel.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Announces Winners of Its 2015 Innovation in Plastics Recycling Awards
Nov 13, 2015 | Recycling Today
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), Washington, has announced that Demilec Inc., Publix and The Recycling Partnership have been selected to receive Innovation in Plastics Recycling Awards.
The awards recognize companies and nonprofits that successfully bring new technologies, products and initiatives to communities and the marketplace that demonstrate significant advancements in plastics recycling. ACC announced the awards in recognition of America Recycles Day Nov. 15.
"We are thrilled to recognize this year’s award recipients,” says Steve Russell, vice president of plastics for the ACC. “Each of these organizations is a leader in recycling innovation, and their contributions will likely inspire ongoing contributions to the rapidly growing field of plastics recycling.”
Demilec Inc., Arlington, Texas, converts polyethylene terephthalate (PET) scrap into polyols, which can be used in its spray foam insulation products. The company has recycled more than 300 million plastic bottles into spray foam insulation products in recent years and expects to recycle more than 35 million plastic bottles into high-performing spray foam insulation in 2015, ACC says. In addition to the environmental benefits of plastics recycling, spray foam insulation helps to increase energy efficiency in homes and buildings.
Lakeland, Florida-based Publix Super Markets has established itself as a leader in recycling rigid plastic packaging, such as commercial high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and polypropylene (PP) containers, ACC says. With more than 1,100 stores and nine distribution centers, Publix optimized its back-of-store recycling stream through the use of vertical and horizontal balers that produce large, dense bales of clean plastic material for recycling.
The Recycling Partnership, Falls Church, Virginia, facilitates public-private partnerships to significantly boost curbside recycling programs. Over the last 15 months, The Recycling Partnership has provided 115,000 large recycling carts and improved public education in Florence, Alabama; Columbia, South Carolina; Richmond, Virginia; and East Lansing, Michigan. Thanks to its efforts, 18,000 additional households now have access to a recycling program that collects wide-mouth plastic containers in addition to bottles, the ACC says. Cumulatively these efforts are expected to recover an additional 22 million pounds of plastics over the next 10 years.
ACC’s Innovations in Plastics Recycling Awards contest is open to all U.S. companies, nonprofits, individuals and government bodies (including schools) that collect or process plastics for recycling, promote plastics recycling through education and infrastructure, manufacture equipment used to collect or process plastics for recycling, or manufacture a new product made in whole or part from recycled plastic.
-
The Fight to Rid Black Women’s Hair Salons of Toxic Chemicals
Nov 13, 2015 | National Journal
By Vicky Gan
When Teni Adewumi surveyed African-American salon workers in Inglewood, California, she kept seeing the same health concerns over and over: Asthma. Dermatitis. Hair loss. Uterine fibroids. Miscarriage. Veteran stylists told her they experienced symptoms when they applied relaxers and other chemical hair straighteners, and they now preferred working with natural styles. But many didn’t know that the products they used could be making them sick.
Adewumi, a graduate student at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, works to close that knowledge gap as the environmental-justice program coordinator at the California nonprofit Black Women for Wellness. In salons across Inglewood and South Los Angeles, she helps train stylists in safe products and practices, from ventilation and personal protective equipment to ergonomics and label comprehension. But her work is also part of a nationwide effort to make beauty salons safer for the people—mostly women—who work in them.
That starts with research. Epidemiological studies dating back to the 1980s have found that hair stylists are at risk for a range of chronic occupational health conditions, including skin and respiratory diseases and adverse reproductive outcomes. Certain toxic chemicals found in hair glues and straighteners, such as formaldehyde, styrene, and trichloroethylene, have been linked to cancer, liver damage, and dermatitis.
“When we held focus groups with salon workers, we found these stories of lack of education on chemical exposures and chemical-related health problems,” Adewumi says. “Even though they had all gone to beauty school, there was just really no training around what these products could do to your body and to your reproductive system.”
“A salon worker is never exposed to just one chemical at a time.”
That’s partly because there’s precious little research on the long-term health effects of salon products. Alexandra Scranton, director of science and research at the environmental organization Women’s Voices for the Earth, explains: “The weakness in the data is being able to connect [health impacts] to specific chemicals, because those connections are almost never studied.” And so far, research has failed to account for the combination of toxic chemicals found in hair salons. “They’ll look at a chemical at a time, but of course a salon worker is never exposed to just one chemical at a time,” Scranton says.
In the absence of comprehensive longitudinal data, assessing the health risks of specific products is “an art as much as a science,” Scranton says. Her organization singles out chemicals of concern by drawing on watch lists created by governmental authorities—California and Washington state have them, along with the European Union—and recommends safer alternatives where available.
Regulatory gaps
The case of Brazilian Blowout offers a window into federal regulation of the beauty industry. This professional hair-smoothing product contains formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, which is released into the air when hair treated with the solution is heated with a blow dryer and flat iron.
In 2011, OSHA issued a hazard alert about formaldehyde exposure from Brazilian Blowout, and the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning letter to the company, citing the product’s health risks and misleading “Formaldehyde Free” label. But the agency had no power to recall the product, even though it had been linked to “adverse events” including eye, respiratory, and nervous-system disorders. It was only after the state of California sued the makers of Brazilian Blowout that they modified its formula, reducing but not eliminating the formaldehyde content. Without mandatory recall authority, the federal government could do little more than send strongly worded letters.
The FDA regulates cosmetics in the United States, but it doesn’t approve products before they hit the shelves. It also doesn’t require manufacturers to list the ingredients of professional salon products. That means that, on the label, the word “fragrance” may stand in for hundreds of unreported chemicals. “The burden is on us as consumers or us as researchers to test these products,” Adewumi says. That’s the reverse of the regulatory protocol in Europe, where cosmetic products must undergoscientific safety assessment before they can be sold. In the United States, companies can ask for forgiveness rather than permission, letting potentially hazardous products slip through the cracks.
The risks are particularly severe for salon workers, who have more exposure to these chemicals than consumers do. These women are “a tough lot,” says Scranton. “They really love their jobs, they really want to continue to work their jobs, so they tend not to complain as much, even though their health is definitely suffering.” And even when salon workers do report their health problems, public-health agencies are often unwilling or unable to help. They rely on federal “permissible exposure limits” to determine whether a workplace is hazardous. But those limits are mostly based on studies of healthy adult men working in heavy industry—and even the Occupational Safety and Health Administration admits that they’re “outdated and inadequate for ensuring protection of worker health.”Salon workers have the most to lose from the dearth of information. “There’s a great need for better training and warnings, and less [saying], ‘This is just the cost of the job,’” says Scranton. “It shouldn’t be the cost of the job. They shouldn’t be paying with their health.”
These regulatory gaps are inseparable from historic gender and racial inequities in clinical research. Before the 1990s, women and minorities were consistently under-represented in clinical studies, due in part to the assumption that research on male subjects could be extrapolated to these groups. Scranton says that the disparity is especially stark when it comes to women of color: “I could find almost no studies on salon workers who either are women of color or work with women of color, and work with the different products that are marketed to women of color—the hair relaxers, certain kinds of dyes, the hair glues for extensions,” she says. “These are some of the products that seem to contain the most toxic chemicals, and no one has studied them.”
Brazilian Blowout is one such “ethnic” beauty product, marketed to women seeking super-straight hair that conforms to European beauty standards. The natural-hair movement is making a dent in demand for chemical straighteners; sales of hair relaxers fell 26 percent between 2008 and 2013. Still, according to a 2013 Nielsen report, African-American women spent nine times more on “ethnic hair and beauty aids” than any other group—and we don’t really know what’s in those products.
Salon workers have the most to lose from the dearth of information. “There’s a great need for better training and warnings, and less [saying], ‘This is just the cost of the job,’” says Scranton. “It shouldn’t be the cost of the job. They shouldn’t be paying with their health.”
A pamphlet from the organization Black Women for Wellness. UCLA
Recent progress
To protect salon workers across the board, federal cosmetic regulations will need to change. Scranton and Adewumi want to see legislation that requires manufacturers to list ingredients on all beauty product labels; bans ingredients linked to cancer, birth defects, and developmental harm; empowers the FDA to recall unsafe products; and enforces stricter salon safety standards. With the powerful chemical lobby standing in the way, advocates have their work cut out for them.
But while they grind away at national policy, environmental and women’s health organizations are making significant progress at the state and local level—though mostly, so far, with nail salons, logical partners in the reform effort. California, Boston, Massachusetts, and King County, Washington, have certification programs for safe and healthy salons. New York state, in the wake of a widely shared New York Times exposé, enacted emergency regulations to improve workplace conditions for nail-salon employees. Adewumi is currently working with the city of Inglewood to create a pilot healthy hair-salon recognition program.
And she’s still in salons, talking to workers about their health. On the whole, she says, stylists have been receptive and eager to learn more about greener products and practices. “We’re definitely very aware about economics,” she says. “This is what they do for a living. They are pillars in the black community; they are really strong women in terms of starting their own businesses. We come in with this open approach. We just want to talk to them, to know how they’re doing, … addressing [health] issues in a holistic sense, and then bringing up the conversation around product use.”
It’s a conversation Scranton encourages women to have with their own stylists. Women’s Voices for the Earth offers a number of informational materials about toxic salon exposures and products to avoid, which can kick-start the discussion about your stylist’s safety. “We often encourage people to take those with them when they go to the salon, and to have that conversation from the point of view of ‘I’m concerned about your health,’ and not, ‘You work a toxic job,’” Scranton says. “Com[ing] from that standpoint of ‘I want to make sure that you’re healthy, because I appreciate the service that you’re doing.’”
-
Breast Implants Absorb Chemicals Like Fatty Tissue -- Study
Nov 13, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
Silicone breast implants absorb toxic chemicals from the body, which could help scientists understand what kind of chemicals their owners have been exposed to.
"These breast implants -- there are tens of thousands -- are being disposed of as waste," said Kim Anderson, a professor of environmental and molecular toxicology at Oregon State University who conducted a recent pilot study published in the journal Environment International. "They could be a resource to understand the contaminants and chemical load in women. They could be a huge resource for understanding the actual levels in our body."
The process occurs because silicone has a similar molecular structure to fatty tissue, where pollutants also accumulate.
Anderson's early study looked at eight discarded implants obtained from a doctor at Oregon Health & Science University. Despite the findings, others say it's not clear how the research can benefit the broader population.
"It's a glimpse of something," said David Kalman, an environmental chemist at the University of Washington, "but how the something applies to the population as a whole is always going to be a question"
-
Study: Teflon Chemical Linked To Childhood Obesity
Nov 13, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Bill Walker
Children born to mothers who were exposed during pregnancy to higher levels of PFOA, the non-stick chemical DuPont formerly used to make Teflon, tend to put on more weight and do so more quickly than children of less-exposed women, anew study by researchers at Brown University found.
Ten years ago, independent research commissioned by EWG and the public health non-profit Commonweal showed that PFOA could pass from a mother to her unborn child in the womb. In 2012, a study by researchers in three Nordic nations showed that children whose mothers had been exposed to high levels of PFOA while pregnant were more likely to be obese at age 20.
Exposure to PFOA has also been linked to kidney and testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease and other diseases.
The new study provides more evidence of the link between PFOA and obesity. It followed 204 mothers in Cincinnati and their children from birth to age 8. The researchers divided the mothers into three groups based on the amount of PFOA in their blood. They found that children born to mothers in the two most highly exposed groups weighed less at birth and at age 2, but by age 8 they had put on one to two-and-a-half pounds more body fat than the average child in the study.
Joseph Braun, an assistant professor of epidemiology at Brown and leader of the research team, said the amount of extra fat was small, but still enough to increase a child’s risk of developing diabetes later in life. In the university’s news release, he said: “There isn’t a threshold at which we say you shouldn’t add more fat mass – any more fat mass is bad fat mass.”
Starting in the 1950s, DuPont used and later manufactured PFOA at its Washington Works plant in Parkersburg, W. Va. The company dumped PFOA waste in area landfills and the Ohio River, contaminating the drinking water of nearby communities and far downriver
Cincinnati is almost 200 miles from Parkersburg, and although its water has been filtered to reduce levels of PFOA since 2002, officials of the city’s water works said the levels still exceed the federal government’s recommended safety guidelines.
Under pressure from the Environmental Protection Agency, DuPont and other chemical companies agreed in 2005 to phase out PFOA by the end of 2015. It is no longer made or used in the U.S., but the chemical industry is now using similar chemicals that may also be harmful but have not been adequately tested for safety.
A huge personal injury lawsuit, consolidating 3,500 claims against the company by people who got sick after drinking PFOA-laced water, is underway in federal court in Columbus, Ohio. In the first test case, the jury found DuPont liable for an Ohio woman’s kidney cancer and awarded her $1.6 million in damages.
-
Chemicals of Concern Found at Treated Landfills -- Study
Nov 13, 2015 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
Treatment of liquid waste from landfills may not remove all of the chemicals present, according to a new study by researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey.
The scientists found leachate -- liquid waste that collects at landfills -- can still contain a variety of chemicals of concern even after the waste is processed.
The findings "pose concerns about the potential disposal of these compounds to adjoining groundwater and surface water and the toxicity, estrogenic activity, carcinogenesis and possible effects on aquatic and terrestrial organisms," the study said.
USGS scientists Jason Masoner, Dana Kolpin, Edward Furlong, Isabelle Cozzarelli and James Gray examined liquid waste samples from 19 landfills in the United States. The scientists then tested samples for 190 chemicals of emerging concern.
By examining treated waste, rather than untreated waste, the researchers could develop "a much better understanding of chemical concentrations that are actually being put into the environment by landfills," Masoner said, including into streams, groundwater, wastewater treatment plants, or irrigation or spraying at landfills.
Though treated waste samples saw far lower levels of the chemicals than untreated samples, the treated samples still contained a "complex mixture" of chemicals, the study said, including steroid hormones, bisphenol A and pharmaceutical drugs.
The scientists said a total of 101 chemicals of emerging concern were detected, with the most common being lidocaine, a local anesthetic; cotinine, a nicotine byproduct; carisoprodol, a muscle relaxant; bisphenol A, used to manufacture plastics; carbamazepine, an anticonvulsant; and N,N-diethyltoluamide, an insect repellant also known as DEET.
The findings, which were published yesterday in the journal Environmental Chemistry, raise the possibility that waste discharged from landfills can still be a source of exposure to chemicals of concern.
-
US EPA Received 55 Pre-Manufacturing Notices in September
Nov 13, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA received 55 pre-manufacturing notices (PMNs) for new chemicals in September. Several have their manufacturer, or importer, protected as confidential business information.
During the same period, the agency received 25 notices of commencement to manufacture new chemicals and one application for test market exemption.
-
(ACC Mentioned) One Year After Deadly Texas Chemical Leak, Has Safety Improved?
Nov 13, 2015 | Center for Effective Government
By Brian Gumm
One year ago, a toxic chemical leak at a DuPont plant in La Porte, Texas killed four workers, including grandmother Crystle Wise. A massive leak of 23,000 pounds of methyl mercaptan erupted in the plant’s pesticide manufacturing building in the early morning hours of Nov. 15, 2014, and Wise and other co-workers died when they were overcome trying to stop the leak.
The La Porte plant, located in the Houston area, had ongoing safety problems in the years leading up to the leak. Reports filed with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in 2008 and beyond showed thatworkers in the plant’s pesticide unit were repeatedly exposed to toxic chemicals at levels well above worker safety standards.
In fact, releases of the same chemical that killed the four workers were detected by monitoring equipmenton each of the two days before the tragic incident, but were never reported or investigated by DuPont as a serious safety concern. Furthermore, no one ever alerted the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to these dangers, even though they violated federal workplace safety standards.
So, one year later, has safety improved? No.DuPont isn’t the only large chemical company with serious safety violations.
DuPont isn't the only large chemical company with serious health, safety, and environmental problems. A recent Center for Effective Government report, Blowing Smoke, looked at 12 large companies in the U.S. chemical industry that collectively own and operate 644 active chemical manufacturing facilities with serious health and safety or environmental violations in the past three to five years.
Seven of the 12 companies (DuPont, Arkema, Mitsubishi Chemical, Honeywell, BASF, Dow, and Chemtura) are members of the industry’s main trade association, the American Chemistry Council, and should have been following its Responsible Care® program guidelines. The chemical industry says voluntary standards work, but our investigation suggests otherwise.Chemical incidents happen every other day in the U.S. Is anything being done?
The rash of fires, explosions, leaks, and other incidents at U.S. chemical plants contradicts the industry's rhetoric. Two-and-a-half years ago, 15 Americans were killed and 200 injured in a fertilizer facility explosion in West, Texas that also destroyed surrounding schools, a nursing home, and residences. Since that time, more than 400 incidents have occurred at facilities across the country, a rate of roughly one incident every two days.
The West, Texas disaster sparked a much-needed discussion of the dangers that facilities can pose to local communities. In the wake of the West explosion, President Barack Obama signed an executive orderdirecting OSHA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Homeland Security to improve chemical facility safety and security.
The Center for Effective Government and the Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters have repeatedly urged these agencies to require chemical facilities to use inherently safer chemicals and technologies where feasible. This approach is the best and most effective way to prevent chemical disasters like the ones at La Porte and West. But the EPA has missed its own schedule for proposing a chemical facility safety rule and is unlikely to get one finalized before the end of Obama’s tenure.
Moreover, the current fines assessed against violators are not a deterrent. When OSHA and the EPA inspected a sample of facilities from the 12 large companies highlighted in our report, they found 679 serious violations in just three to five years, which resulted in nearly $25 million in estimated penalties. But these companies' collective profits were at least $20 billion in 2014 alone, making those fines just a "cost of doing business." It's simply cheaper to pay the fine than it is to upgrade or replace aging or failing equipment.We need to act now to protect workers and the public from dangerous chemical facilities.
More needs to be done to make chemical plants safer, and there are several ways to more effectively protect workers, communities, and the environment from chemical disasters.Require all companies to shift to safer chemicals and technologies. The best and most effective way for EPA and OSHA to prevent injuries, deaths, and chemical disasters is to requirechemical companies and facilities to switch to inherently safer chemicals and technologies when they are available. The EPA is currently developing a facility safety rule and should include a requirement that chemical facilities make the switch to safer chemicals whenever feasible.
Expand the number of chemical manufacturing facilities that are regularly inspected. To make this happen, Congress will need to restore and then expand enforcement budgets at EPA and OSHA. EPA's enforcement budget was cut 20 percent between 2010 and 2015 (when adjusted for inflation), and OSHA's fell 14 percent.
Significantly increase the financial and criminal penalties for violating safety and environmental standards to create a real deterrent for risky corporate behavior. Congress recently made some progress in this area by directing OSHA to increase its shockingly low penalties for the first time since 1990 and then adjusting them for inflation in the future. The agency is due to set new maximum penalties sometime next year. Serious violations could result in a maximum fine of $12,500, up from $7,000, and willful violations could garner a maximum of $125,000, compared to the current $70,000, though those new maximums could be lower depending on the outcome of OSHA's rulemaking process. These fines will still be too small, especially compared to other agencies; for example, the EPA can level penalties of $320,000 for some serious violations.
Make more information more accessible and available to workers, residents, and citizen groups in order to hold the owners of risky facilities more accountable to ordinary American workers and consumers.Chemical plant workers and all Americans living near potentially dangerous facilities deserve better. You can help right now by contacting EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy at mccarthy.gina@epa.gov and urging her to move swiftly on a chemical plant safety rule that includes requirements for facilities to use safer chemicals.
-
Nov 13, 2015 | Center for Effective Government
Large chemical companies and their major trade association and lobbying arm, the American Chemistry Council, say they can maintain high safety standards through self-regulation and voluntary actions. Our report finds this isn't the case. Voluntary standards don’t work, and existing regulations are not effectively enforced.Chemical manufacturing uses dangerous substances that can be hazardous to the health and well-being of chemical plant workers and to the residents who live nearby.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) and leaders in the chemical industry have fought stronger government oversight of chemical manufacturing for decades, arguing that the rules currently regulating toxic chemicals are adequate.
The ACC runs a program called "Responsible Care®" that purportedly helps member companies meet safety and environmental standards and implement industry best practices. So, is it working? Are these companies representing “the best of the best” in the chemical industry?
Our report found that facilities owned by ACC member companies are leaders – in violating our nation’s environmental and workplace safety standards.
While examining workplace safety and environmental violations, we looked at 12 large companies in the chemical industry that collectively own and operate 644 facilities in the U.S. Seven of these companies(DuPont, Arkema, Mitsubishi, Honeywell, BASF, Dow, and Chemtura) are members of the industry’s main trade association, the ACC.
While the ACC claims their member companies are meeting safety standards, we found serious violations at these seven ACC member-companies. DuPont topped the list with 125 serious violations at the plants they own. Additionally, 78 serious violations were found at Arkema's inspected plants.
We mapped out where violations have been reported at the facilities these 12 companies own.View our map.
The violations provide just a sampling of the overall shortcomings of our current regulatory enforcement system.
Only 42 percent of active facilities manufacturing chemicals were inspected in a three to five year period. Of those that were inspected, serious workplace safety and environmental violations were found at 25 percent of them.
This demonstrates that we need to strengthen enforcement of our nation's existing chemical safety policies and require the use of safer substances and manufacturing processes.
Our Findings:
Too few chemicals have been tested for safety. Of the 84,000 chemicals registered for commercial use today, government agencies have tested only 250 and restricted the use of only nine.
Too few chemical manufacturing facilities are inspected. Just 42 percent of our nation’s active chemical manufacturing plants have been inspected in the last three to five years.
The resources of our state and local enforcement agencies are being reduced, even though the number of older production facilities is growing, increasing their risk to workers and communities. EPA and OSHA have had their enforcement budgets cut by 20 percent and 14 percent, respectively, since 2010.
When serious violations are identified, the penalties are too small. Even when a worker is killed on the job, the maximum fine OSHA can impose on a facility is $70,000 per violation. In FY 2014, the average fine following a worker's death was just above $5,000, a small cost of doing business for chemical companies that make billions in profits."Every two days, there is a reportable leak or explosion at a U.S. chemical plant, but the chemical industry keeps telling us companies can regulate themselves and no new oversight is needed."
-Katherine McFate, president and CEO of the Center for Effective GovernmentOur Recommendations:
Require companies to shift to safer chemicals and technologies.
Expand the number of facilities regularly inspected. EPA and OSHA have experienced cuts to their enforcement budgets in recent years and need more resources.
Significantly increase the financial and criminal penalties for violating safety and environmental standards to create a real deterrent for risky corporate behavior.
Make more information accessible to workers, residents, and citizen groups in order to hold the owners of risky facilities more accountable to ordinary American workers and consumers.Read our letter to the American Chemistry Council. And here is their response.
-
With Keystone XL Conquered, Enviros Keep Wary Eye on Rail
Nov 13, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
With TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL pipeline proposal in their rearview mirror, environmentalists in the United States and Canada are now looking to blunt the climate impact of moving oil by rail.
Proposed crude unloading terminals in the U.S. Pacific Northwest, if approved and built, could unlock nearly 500,000 barrels per day of new production among oil sands producers in western Canada over the next decade and a half, according to a report commissioned by the Sightline Institute and prepared by the group Oil Change International. The roughly 1 million barrels per day of potential oil offloading capacity in Oregon and Washington could also encourage extra-light crude output from North Dakota's Bakken Shale play.
Meanwhile, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is seeking public input on a logistics firm's proposal to double crude loading capacity at an existing rail terminal near Hardisty, Alberta. USD Terminals Canada's expansion plan would also enable it to load heavier crude onto 120-car unit trains, potentially picking up some oil that would have moved through the 830,000-barrel-per-day KXL.
Still, poor market conditions for moving oil by rail, coupled with the prospect of increased scrutiny of rail projects from green groups and the public, have left some environmentalists skeptical that tank car traffic increases will play out.
"The idea that with Keystone dead all this oil is going to move by rail is a red herring," noted Keith Stewart, head of the energy campaign at Greenpeace Canada. "The cost of moving by rail is much higher, particularly if you're going to go from Alberta to the [U.S.] Gulf Coast.
"Unless oil goes back up to $100 per barrel, we're not going to see a lot of oil moving by rail, at least in Canada," he added.
Matt Krogh, director of the U.S. oil campaign at environmental group ForestEthics, put it even more bluntly. "There is really no connection between the Keystone decision and the oil train problems that we've been seeing for the last five to six years."
Krogh pointed out in a recent conference call with reporters that the most hazardous oil trains to date have "almost exclusively" originated in the Bakken Shale play.
With oil prices trending well below $50 per barrel in most places and with plenty of other options available for coastal refiners, even the once-booming rail business out of the Bakken has fallen slightly in recent weeks compared to 2014 levels. Canada has also witnessed year-over-year declines in oil train traffic coming out of its oil sands region.
In its final environmental impact analysis of the KXL pipeline, which would have ferried mostly heavy crude from Alberta to Nebraska, the U.S. State Department predicted railroads would pick up the slack in the event the project didn't get built. Many analysts believe rail traffic will bounce back sooner or later in Alberta (EnergyWire, Nov. 9).
Yet the lease rates for oil tank cars have fallen precipitously since last year and show no signs of rebounding even in the wake of President Obama's decision to deny the pipeline last Friday. David Arno, oil editor at energy research and consulting firm Genscape Inc., recently quoted a rail car source who said that "it's like we can't even give the things away," referring to oil tank cars.
"The changing North American crude market landscape has led some domestic refiners to shun U.S. inland shale crude delivered via rail, and in turn, has resulted in less bids for the tank-cars that were previously in high demand," Arno said in the blog post.Next-best choice?
Despite the recent downturn, the rail market for crude is notoriously fast-paced, with shippers striving to take advantage of price differences that may evaporate in days. Following projections from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, analysts at Oil Change International forecast that the Pacific Northwest would be a likely destination for Canadian oil sands products due to the relatively modest cost of sending tank cars there.
"Rail has -- particularly to the Northwest, because it's cheaper and shorter -- become the next best choice" for oil sands producers, said Eric de Place, energy policy director at the Sightline Institute, which backed the Oil Change report. "It's not their first choice. Obama took that away."
De Place said the technical analysis of the climate impacts of proposed rail terminals arrived on his desk right before Obama nixed TransCanada's KXL application. While coincidental, de Place said he expects the decision will reverberate near major oil infrastructure projects, such as the Tesoro-Savage terminal in the Port of Vancouver, Wash., which would add about 360,000 barrels per day of rail unloading capacity to the region if approved. The facility would be equipped to handle both heavy and light types of crude oil.
"We do think [KXL's rejection] puts pressure on the Northwest," de Place said. If oil sands producers fail to realize other pipelines such as the Trans Mountain expansion, he explained, "they're going to be looking increasingly hard at Oregon and Washington."
He added that he expects environmentalists will be free to focus protests and other efforts on oil train terminals now that a decision has been handed down on KXL.
"That movement is fighting back hard here -- I don't think it's a slam-dunk for the industry to get this stuff built," he said. "I would not be at all surprised if what [oil sands shippers] see in the Northwest is a shutdown defense that prevents them from getting their commodities to market."
-
House Energy Committee to Vote Next Week on Measures to Block EPA Carbon Rules
Nov 13, 2015 | Politico Pro - Whiteboards
By Alex Guillen
The House Energy and Commerce Committee will vote on measures next week to kill EPA's carbon rules for existing and new power plants, according to an aide.
The two Congressional Review Act resolutions are sponsored by Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield, and both are expected easily clear committee and to pass the House when they come to the floor. The committee will hold opening statements on Tuesday and vote on the resolutions on Wednesday, the aide said.
The CRA resolutions “are about protecting hard-working folks in Michigan and around the country from higher electricity prices, threats to grid reliability, and EPA’s economy wide energy tax,” Chairman Fred Upton said in a statement. “Cap and trade was rejected by a Democratic Congress in 2010 and the rules are just as ill-advised today as they were five years ago.”
It is not yet clear when the House will vote on the measures. The Senate is pursuing its own CRA votes, although they have not yet been formally scheduled. Republicans are aiming to send a message to international negotiators ahead of the Paris talks that begin Nov. 30.
The measures are expected to be vetoed by President Barack Obama, and Republicans do not have the votes to override him.
-
Sierra Club Warns Vulnerable Senators to Back EPA Climate Rule
Nov 13, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Sierra Club is urging vulnerable senators to support President Obama’s climate rule for power plants, warning that it’s popular with voters who are heading to the polls next year.
The group polled voters in half a dozen states about the Clean Power Plan, a rule designed to cut carbon pollution from power plants, and found generally positive reviews among registered voters.
The poll, conducted by liberal-leaning firm Public Policy Polling, found majority support for the plan in Maine, Missouri, Illinois, Ohio, Virginia and Iowa. It said voters in those states generally prefer the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to write environmental rules rather than members of Congress.
Four Republicans from those states are seeking re-election in 2016: Sens. Roy Blunt (Mo.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Chuck Grassley (Iowa).
Handicappers consider Kirk to be especially vulnerable next year, and greens have looked to push him on environmental issues. Portman is also considered a potential Democratic target in 2016. Iowa is a key early voting state in the presidential contest.
The Senate is set to vote soon on Congressional Review Act resolutions blocking the Clean Power Plan and other EPA power plant rules. The regulations are unpopular among Republicans, though at least one senator facing a tough re-election — Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) — has come out in favor of the plan.
In a statement, the Sierra Club urged other lawmakers to do so, too.
“Voters from these states have made it crystal clear that they want their senators to support the Clean Power Plan, not coal interests on Capitol Hill,” Mary Anne Hitt, the director of Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign, said.
“Senators in these states have a choice: listen to their constituents back home and support the Clean Power Plan, along with all the public health and clean energy benefits it provides, or side with deep-pocketed polluters in Washington who are attacking it.”
Greens say the Clean Power Plan is critical for reducing carbon emissions and confronting climate change, a major goal of the Obama administration. Its opponents have warned it could raise electricity prices and lead to job losses in the energy industry.
-
New Ad Campaign Targets 4 Senators for Votes to Kill WOTUS
Nov 13, 2015 | E&E Energywire
By Annie Snider
The League of Conservation Voters today is launching an ad campaign targeting four Republican senators for their votes last week to kill the Obama administration's contentious water rule.
The $20,000 Facebook ad campaign criticizes Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Rob Portman of Ohio, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Richard Burr of North Carolina for their votes last week in favor of S. 1140, a stand-alone measure to scrap and then rewrite the Waters of the U.S. rule, and a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval to permanently block the rule.
The ads are targeted to the senators' respective states.
"These Senators made the reprehensible choice to place polluters' profits ahead of the clean drinking water of 117 million Americans," LCV Legislative Representative Madeleine Foote said in a statement. "These two bills comprised one of the most extreme legislative assaults on our clean water that we've seen in the U.S. Senate, threatening the clean water our families, communities, and businesses depend on."
S. 1140 failed to garner the 60 votes necessary to proceed, but the resolution of disapproval passed, needing only a simple majority. House leadership has said it plans to take up the resolution shortly, where it would likely pass, but the Obama administration has vowed to veto it (Greenwire, Nov. 4).
The fight is likely to play out during closed-door negotiations over an end-of-year spending deal to keep the federal government open past Dec. 11. Republicans have named the water rule as one of the top regulations they hope to block through the deal.
-
Colorado Challenges EPA Claims in Mine Waste Spill
Nov 13, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Colorado officials are challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) account of the state’s role in the August mine waste spill that the EPA caused.
The EPA has repeatedly said that experts with Colorado’s Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety (DRMS) approved of their plans to start cleaning up the Gold King Mine near Silverton.
But in a September letter to the EPA, Colorado natural resources director Mike King rejected that claim, telling the EPA that “no one at DRMS directed any work at Gold King, nor did any DRMS personnel approve or disapprove any of the work EPA was conducting there,” according to the Denver Post.
The Post obtained the letter in a public records request related to the incident, in which a contractor for the EPA caused 3 million gallons of harmful heavy metal sludge to drain into a tributary of the Animas River, closing it and downstream rivers for days as they turned bright orange.
Colorado’s position challenges the claims from not only the EPA but also the Bureau of Reclamation, which conducted an outside review of the spill. The bureau painted a picture of an even closer collaboration with the state than the EPA initially described.
The reviews found that the EPA underestimated the pressure of the waste water buildup in the mine’s exit tunnel because the agency did not directly measure the pressure before breaching a dam.
The EPA told the Post that it was reviewing Colorado’s letter. The agency said its independent inspector general office received the letter initially, and the rest of the agency only became aware of it this week.
-
EPA Proposes Longer Permit Terms For Solid Waste Landfill R&D Projects
Nov 13, 2015 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
In response to requests from states, EPA is proposing to lengthen the permitting terms for experimental landfill projects -- such as bioreactors and alternative covers -- that could speed biodegradation and accelerate landfill gas generation collected as a source for renewable fuel.
In a Nov. 13 Federal Register notice, EPA is proposing to revise the maximum term for research, development and demonstration (RD&D) permits at municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs), extending from the current total possible permit term of 12 years to a possible permit term of 21 years. Six three-year permit renewals would be allowed on top of the original permit period, rather than just three current renewals, the notice says.
The proposed extension aims “to provide more time to support research into the performance of bioreactors, alternative covers and run-on systems,” EPA says in the notice. The agency “believes the period of 21 years strikes a balance between providing more time for projects to continue operations as research facilities, while providing enough time for the EPA to consider making permanent changes to the Part 258 MSWLF regulations,” it says.
The agency says stakeholders have told EPA the 12-year limit has unintentionally discouraged bioreactor development, according to the notice.
A source with the waste management sector says the proposal appears to respond to states, several of which have bioreactors reaching the end of their permit period. EPA is likely hoping that the change will create more incentives for investments in such projects and state buy-in, the source says. The projects, such as bioreactors, are considered experimental, and require a variance from part 258 MSWFL regulations, the source says. The source adds that in order for projects to go forward, states must adopt a program for permitting such projects.
One cost hindrance for installing a bioreactor, however, has been Clean Air Act requirements to install costly landfill gas collection systems, which the source says makes it less likely for a company or municipality to invest in a bioreactor if it cannot get a return on its investment within the 12-year term. The source says at first glance the proposed rule looks to be favorable to industry.
EPA estimates that about 30 facilities with RD&D permits and one facility on tribal lands would currently fall under the rule, but says additional facilities may continue to seek permits after the rule is finalized.
“Increasing the possible number of extensions of RD&D permit terms will provide more time for the EPA to collect additional data on the potential benefits of the approaches being taken under these RD&D permits,” EPA says in the notice.
The agency says it separately plans to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that will seek comment on revising part 258 criteria “to authorize bioreactor operation (and other changes to the national criteria) on a permanent basis."
EPA in the notice lists several potential benefits from the methods being applied under the RD&D permits, including: “decreased costs for leachate treatment due to leachate recirculation in bioreactors; increased revenue from the sale of landfill gas for use as a renewable source of fuel; decreased risk due to a reduction in the transportation of leachate for treatment; accelerated production and capture of landfill gas for use as a renewable fuel; and, accelerated stabilization, and corresponding decreased post-closure care activities, for facilities as a result of the accelerated decomposition of waste.”
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested