Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Feb 18
-
(ACC Mentioned) Mining Industry, Montana Back Arguments About U.S. CERCLA Liability
Feb 17, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA is granting the chemical sector's request to reconsider part of a final rule imposing new requirements on curbing air toxics from industrial waste and recovery operations, saying it will reassess a mandatory monitoring system for pressure relief devices (PRDs) on portable containers that industry uses to manage off-site materials. -
(ACC Mentioned) Brokers of Junk Science?
Feb 18, 2016 | Vice News
By Jie Jenny Zou
Hardbound volumes of Critical Reviews in Toxicology and Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology spanning decades are shelved at the National Library of Medicine's subterranean archives — the world's largest medical collection — in Bethesda, Maryland. The peer-reviewed journals are among a select group of medical titles indexed by the National... -
(ACC Mentioned) Zimbabwe: Mandizha - Zim's Own Curie
Feb 18, 2016 | All Africa
By Ruth Butaumocho
When it comes to the topic of women in science, Marie Curie's name usually dominates conversations globally. A two-time Nobel Prize winner, whose work led to the discovery of radioactivity, Curie's contribution to science is immeasurable. Zimbabwe has its own Curies who have straddled... -
(ACC Mentioned) Battle Lines Are Drawn in One of the Biggest Fights Against Toxic Chemicals in Decades
Feb 18, 2016 | Alternet
By Reynard Loki
2016 marks the 40th anniversary of the Toxic Substances Control Act. But there is little to celebrate. Signed into law by President Gerald Ford in 1976, the TSCA has been sharply criticized for failing at what it was meant to do: protect public health and the environment from the tens of thousands of chemicals that saturate the marketplace... -
(ACC Mentioned) New Website Provides Tools, Information About Green Building Codes, Standards
Feb 17, 2016 | Proud Green Building
A new website dedicated to highlighting chemistry in building and construction materials is designed to make available pivotal information to those in the green-building industry. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) launched www.BuildingWithChemistry.org to provide architects, material specifiers, interior designers and other... -
More Time Given to Provide Chlorinated Paraffin Use Data
Feb 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Companies that process or use any of seven chlorinated paraffins as lubricants or flame retardants and for other purposes will have until March 23 to provide the Environmental Protection Agency information about how they use these chemicals, the agency said in a pre-publication Federal Register notice released Feb. 17. -
US Committee Considers Chemicals For EPA Low-Dose Review
Feb 18, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Catherine Cooney
An independent committee of experts in the US has considered using phthalates, the dioxin TCDD and bisphenol A as case studies in a systematic review process for assessing low-dose effects associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals. The National Research Council’s Low Dose Committee was established following a request... -
EPA to Release RDX Draft Analysis at May Meeting
Feb 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated Risk Information System Program will release a draft assessment for a chemical used in explosives at an upcoming May meeting, it announced Feb. 17. The program will release the draft IRIS Toxicological Review of hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) on May 10 at its IRIS ... -
Vermont Consults On Chemical Disclosure Programme Guidance
Feb 18, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Vermont's Department of Health (DoH) has released draft guidance clarifying compliance requirements for its recently adopted chemical disclosure programme. The programme requires manufacturers of children's products to report to a state database the presence of any of 66 chemicals designated as of high concern to children, on a product-level... -
Endocrine Disruptor 4NP Found In Children’s Urine
Feb 18, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
Researchers in the US have found that almost a third of children have the oestrogenic compound 4-nonylphenol (4NP) in their urine, together with a selection of ten other contaminants. All children's urine contained at least five compounds, they found. In a paper in the journal BioMedCentral Endocrine Disorders, the researchers describe... -
New York Classifies PFOA as Hazardous
Feb 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
The chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was classified by New York state as a hazardous substance Feb. 17 in an emergency regulation published in the New York State Register. The regulation is a response to water contamination in the upstate town of Hoosick Falls, N.Y. With the classification, the state can now expend funds from its Superfund... -
Cancer and the Environment: 10 Common Misconceptions Answered
Feb 17, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Curt DellaValle
As a cancer epidemiologist, I’ve spent a lot of time researching the links between environmental contaminants and cancer. One of the pitfalls of the Digital Age is that people come across a lot of information that isn’t based on sound scientific evidence or is, at best, anecdotal. That’s dangerous, because conjecture and falsehoods that masquerade... -
Groups Win New Regs From EPA For Storage Sites
Feb 17, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus
Environmental and public health groups have won a lawsuit that will require U.S. EPA to write new regulations governing the storage of hazardous waste at industrial sites. In a consent decree signed off on by the groups and the federal government and filed yesterday in court... -
Walmart: The Awakening of an Environmental Giant
Feb 18, 2016 | The Huffington Post
By Fred Krupp
About 20 years ago, I got on a plane to Bentonville, Arkansas, home of Walmart. Buoyed by the success of EDF's pioneering partnership with McDonald's, which did away with the company's polystyrene packaging and reduced waste by 300 million pounds in the first decade, and by our continued success with other leading brands... -
After Flint, Dems Question State's Use Of CDC Funds
Feb 17, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee are raising questions about Michigan’s use of CDC money intended to monitor lead levels in young children in light of the water crisis in Flint. In a letter to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Thomas Frieden, four Democrats asked why Michigan’s Department of Health... -
EPA Agrees To Deadline For Spill Prevention Rules
Feb 17, 2016 | InsideEPA
EPA has reached a legal settlement with environmentalists that commits the agency to proposing within 18 months long-sought regulations to prevent and contain chemical spills from above-ground tanks at industrial facilities, such as the massive 2014 spill of a hazardous substance that contaminated drinking water in West Virginia. -
California Back In The Saddle On Tackling Oil And Gas Pollution
Feb 17, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tim O'Connor
After nearly ten months of waiting, California regulators at the state’s Air Resources Board stepped up this month in a big way to reduce emissions of the powerful greenhouse gas methane from the state’s oil and gas industry. For a state that prides itself on leading the charge to fight climate change, it was odd to see California had been... -
Oklahoma Announces Plan for Wastewater Injection Cutbacks
Feb 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Stinson
In a continuing effort to address increased earthquake activity, Oklahoma's energy and gas regulators unveiled what they called the “largest volume reduction plan yet” for underground wastewater disposal from oil and gas activities in the western part of the state. Announced Feb. 16 by the Oil and Gas Conservation Division... -
Heller Breaks With McConnell On SCOTUS Pick
Feb 17, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Burgess Everett
Nevada GOP Sen. Dean Heller is breaking sharply with his party's strategy on a Supreme Court nominee, calling on President Barack Obama to put forward a consensus candidate to replace Antonin Scalia while insisting that Nevadans should have a voice in the process. -
Air Standards Set for Los Angeles Area Near Gas Leak
Feb 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California state and local agencies released criteria late Feb. 16 for determining when emissions from Southern California Gas Co.'s underground natural gas storage field near Los Angeles no longer affect air quality in nearby neighborhoods. The criteria, which set thresholds for methane and other ... -
EPA Proposes 12 Nonattainment Areas for Sulfur Standards
Feb 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency will propose designating 12 areas in eight states as not achieving 2010 federal air quality standards for sulfur dioxide. The EPA's proposal would designate Alton township and Williamson County in Illinois; Jefferson County and Posey County in Indiana; parts of Desoto Parish in Louisiana; Anne Arundel... -
EPA Downgrades Several States' SO2 NAAQS Attainment Designations
Feb 18, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is proposing to downgrade several states' designations for attaining the agency's 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), in many cases rejecting state suggestions to designate their areas as meeting the standard and instead given the areas a “nonattainment” or “unclassifiable” status. -
Green Group Threatens Suit Over Ozone Rule Implementation
Feb 17, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
The Center for Biological Diversity is warning of a possible lawsuit over U.S. EPA's plans to give Washington, D.C., and 18 other areas around the county more time to meet the 2008 standard for ground-level ozone. "The Clean Air Act saves lives, protects wildlife and clears up smoggy skies, but only when polluters... -
EPA Didn't Enforce Flint Drinking Water Violations: CRS
Feb 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The Environmental Protection Agency did not use its authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act to enforce violations against the public water utility in Flint, Mich., despite being aware of the elevated lead levels in the city's tap water, according to a Congressional Research Service report.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) Mining Industry, Montana Back Arguments About U.S. CERCLA Liability
Feb 17, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA is granting the chemical sector's request to reconsider part of a final rule imposing new requirements on curbing air toxics from industrial waste and recovery operations, saying it will reassess a mandatory monitoring system for pressure relief devices (PRDs) on portable containers that industry uses to manage off-site materials.
However, the agency is still weighing whether to grant industry’s request to reconsider another aspect of the rule that establishes equipment leak provisions for equipment known as connectors, according to a Feb. 16 joint motion filed by industry petitioners, EPA and an industry-backed intervenor in litigation over the rule, which was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and currently placed in abeyance.
The final rule, “National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations,” regulates toxic air pollutants from waste management and recovery operations that are part of a range of facilities, including hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities, chemical plants and refineries.
According to environmentalists’ June 17 motion to intervene in the D.C. Circuit suit, which the court granted, the final rule removes an emissions limit exemption for periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction; requires electronic reporting of performance test results; bars emissions releases from PRDs that are safety devices used to reduce pressure in containers when needed; and strengthens requirements for certain valves and lines.
Following release of the final rule last March, American Chemistry Council (ACC) and Eastman Chemical Company petitioned EPA in May, requesting reconsideration of two issues: equipment leak provisions for connectors and monitoring requirements for PRDs on portable containers. They argued that it was “impracticable” for them to raise these objections during the rule’s comment period.
The petitions by the two entities were consolidated under the case, ACC v. EPA, before the D.C. Circuit. The case was then stayed, providing EPA time to review the petition for reconsideration, according to the Feb. 16 joint motion.
Acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe sent a Feb. 8 letter to industry petitioners ACC and Eastman, granting reconsideration of the agency’s final rule on the issue the groups raised in their 2015 petition regarding PRD monitoring requirements for portable containers.
EPA's Reconsideration
“We intend to issue a Federal Register notice initiating notice and comment rulemaking on the issue for which we are granting reconsideration,” McCabe says in the letter.
As a result of its reconsideration, EPA could revise the PRD provision, delete the measure or retain it as is, ACC says in a written response to Inside EPA.
The joint motion filed with the D.C. Circuit acknowledging the reconsideration asks the court to extend the deadline for parties to file motions to govern further proceedings by 90 days -- until May 16 -- in order to give EPA more time to issue a determination on the petition for reconsideration.
The parties point out the agency has not yet decided whether to grant reconsideration of the equipment leak provisions for connectors. On the issue, EPA in the final rule requires mandatory instrument-based leak detection requirements for connectors in gas/vapor and light liquid service, the industry parties say in their May 18 petition.
On the PRD matter, the chemical industry “is generally concerned with how EPA is treating PRDs, which are safety devices that are designed to release in the event of an over-pressurized situation, in a number of NESHAP rules,” according to ACC’s written response to Inside EPA. Specifically, in this rule, ACC is concerned with the requirement to implement a monitoring system for portable containers used to manage off-site materials.
“It is extremely challenging, if not impossible” for facilities to put in place a monitoring system for portable containers, the petitioners say in their petition. But intervenors Sierra Club and Community In-Power and Development Association argued in their June 17 motion to intervene that prohibiting PRD emission releases and requiring monitoring will strengthen protections from large, uncontrolled releases.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Brokers of Junk Science?
Feb 18, 2016 | Vice News
By Jie Jenny Zou
Hardbound volumes of Critical Reviews in Toxicology and Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology spanning decades are shelved at the National Library of Medicine's subterranean archives — the world's largest medical collection — in Bethesda, Maryland.
The peer-reviewed journals are among a select group of medical titles indexed by the National Institutes of Health, and they belong to international associations whose members pledge to uphold ethical and scientific standards. The titles come at a price: an issue of Critical Reviews retails for $372, while an annual subscription to Regulatory Toxicology costs $275.
Yet critics also claim the journals are purveyors of "junk science" — misleading, industry-backed articles that threaten public health by playing down the dangers of well-known toxic substances such as lead and asbestos. The articles often are used to stall regulatory efforts and defend court cases.
An analysis by the Center for Public Integrity found that half of all review articles written by top scientists at the consulting firm Gradient since 1992 were published either in Critical Reviews or Regulatory Toxicology. No other journal came close."It was so blatantly biased towards industry and against open and transparent science"
"You'd have to be delusional to not recognize that the issues they're dealing [with] and policies they're setting won't affect the profits of very powerful sources," said Canadian anti-asbestos activist Kathleen Ruff, who called both journals "egregious examples" of a deeper problem of industry influence. "Creating doubt is an endless activity and, in the meantime, people die unnecessarily."
Editorial boards at both journals are laden with scientists and lawyers employed by industry, making them easy targets for public-health advocates. Current board members include private consultants who have also received compensation as expert witnesses in court.
"The harm is that it actually muddies the independent scientific literature," said Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. "They're stacking their weight on their side of the scale."
Those behind the journals deny that industry relationships compromise scientific independence.
"There is this prevailing issue, which is really unfortunate, that anything supported by industry is tainted," said David Warheit, a Critical Reviews board member and scientist at Chemours, which manufactures titanium dioxide, an ingredient in sunscreen. "Perceptions pervade everything."
Warheit said each submission to the journal is evaluated by four or five peer reviewers as opposed to the typical two or three. "I have reviewed some awful papers for [Critical Reviews in Toxicology], and they didn't get published."
New Mexico veterinarian and Critical Reviews editor Roger McClellan declined an interview request from the Center, writing in an email that he was proud of the journal's 45-year history. "My scientific record speaks for itself," he added, providing copies of his 64-page résumé and biography.
Roger McClellan. Photo via Wikimedia Commons
Gio Gori, editor of Regulatory Toxicology, also declined to comment and referred all questions to the publisher, Elsevier. A spokesperson cited a 2003 editorial by Gori, which referenced the journal's objectivity and "more than 600 international scientists who generously assist in the journal's peer-review process."
Chaos and turmoil
Epidemiologist Philippe Grandjean was one of 42 scientists who signed a letter in late 2002 criticizing Regulatory Toxicology's frequent failure to disclose conflicts of interest and deep industry ties, starting with Gori.
A former director of the National Cancer Institute, Gori made millions as a tobacco consultant questioning the dangers of secondhand smoke in scientific journals as well as The Washington Post.
"Gori is the kind of guy who would write especially obnoxious editorials where he would castigate honest scientists as being out of their minds," said Grandjean. "It was so blatantly biased towards industry and against open and transparent science."
Elsevier stood by the journal, but introduced a disclosure policy in 2003.
Gio Gori. Photo from Wikimedia Commons
A decade later, Grandjean found himself drafting another letter — this time airing his concerns about Critical Reviews, where he served as a board member himself.
An adjunct professor at Harvard School of Public Health and a pioneering mercury researcher, Grandjean said he joined the Critical Reviews board more than 30 years ago, despite its reputation for being cozy with industry, because he believes in collaboration and felt he could have a say in the journal's content.
That changed in 2012 when the journal published two articles rebutting research from the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health which linked lung cancer to diesel fumes. Grandjean said the publication "wasn't science for science's sake," but a way to cast doubt on the Institute's findings.
His complaints got no traction with editor McClellan or then-publisher Informa Health, which Grandjean said reneged on promises to conduct an independent review. Taylor & Francis, the current publisher, declined to comment. In 2012, McClellan defended the journal's disclosure policies and said that Grandjean's complaint had been shared with other members of the editorial board, "none of [whom] shared the views expressed by Dr. Grandjean."
Grandjean resigned in 2012, ending a positive relationship that began under founding editor Leon Golberg. "I thought if [McClellan] invited me, he thought my advice would be useful, but apparently this changed to a situation where it was useful to have my name on the masthead to justify this was a balanced journal."
Like the journal he founded, Golberg's career aligned closely with industry. A native of Cyprus who held academic positions in South Africa and Britain and spent the end of his career at Duke University in the US, Golberg oversaw Critical Reviews from its inaugural issue in September 1971, published by The Chemical Rubber Co.
The journal was introduced as "the voice of reason" in an era of "chaos and turmoil."
"Never before have so many regulatory actions been taken or proposed — some too late, others prematurely — that have bewildered the consumer and had a crushing impact on industry," Golberg wrote.
That same year, a public health crisis unraveled when the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning against diethylstilbestrol (DES) — a synthetic hormone used for decades by pregnant women to combat morning sickness and prevent miscarriages or premature deliveries — which Golberg had co-created in 1938. As many as 10 million people were exposed to DES before it was linked to a rare vaginal cancer and other fertility problems, spawning myriad lawsuits.
Golberg's role in the DES debacle is less well known than his later achievements. They include founding the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology (CIIT), now the Hamner Institutes for Health Sciences, a research group "founded and funded by the chemical industry," according to the Research Triangle Regional Partnership. He also jump-started the British Industrial Biological Research Association, a consulting firm whose clients include ExxonMobil and Procter & Gamble.
In the 1970s, Golberg consulted for a now-discredited campaign for "safer" cigarettes by R.J. Reynolds, which still funds fellowships in his honor at Wake Forest and Duke. He died in 1987 from mesothelioma, an aggressive cancer linked to asbestos exposure.
McClellan succeeded Golberg as both Critical Reviews editor and CIIT leader, working with trade groups like the American Chemistry Council. Critical Reviews has since become one of the most-cited toxicology journals, at the same time drawing a spate of criticism.
Ruff, the anti-asbestos advocate, chastised Critical Reviews in May for what she alleged to be improper disclosure in a 2013 asbestos article. Testimony in a court case stated that an industry group paid the authors nearly $180,000 in writing fees, which were erroneously described as "grants." She cited the incident as a reason for stricter disclosure reporting and enforcement.
As Critical Reviews editor, McClellan has been outspoken against regulation. By his own count, he has testified before Congress 20 times. In 2011, he argued against a proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency to curb ground-level ozone, or smog, as too expensive, calling for lawmakers to recognize that "a healthy economy with people employed is the cornerstone of a healthy population."
Industry ties
Since its 1981 debut, Regulatory Toxicology has billed itself as a credible and objective source for a broad audience. Its co-editors promised to focus on science instead of politics and "mythology."
"Safety is relative, not absolute," AIDS researcher Frederick Coulston and FDA scientist Dr. Albert Kolbye Jr. wrote in the inaugural issue. "Safety is a moving target."
The journal has been sympathetic to industry from the start. In its first issue, an associate editor lamented: "There has always been a sense of competition between government and industry, but always a high degree of mutual respect. In the seventies that spirit changed from competition to an adversary posture and from respect to distrust."
Regulatory Toxicology is the official publication of the International Society of Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology, an association whose leaders include a Coca Cola executive, corporate consultants, and lawyers.
In an email to the Center, President Sue Ferenc denied that the society plays any editorial role at the journal. Outside of the society, Ferenc heads the Council of Producers & Distributors of Agrotechnology, a pesticide group with its own political action committee.
But significant overlap at both the society and the journal has existed for years.
Gary Yingling, a former FDA attorney who now represents industry clients, has been an editorial board member of Regulatory Toxicology since 1981 while also serving as the society's general counsel. Fellow board member Terry Quill is an industry lawyer and former society president, who led the society's push against labeling chloroform as carcinogenic. The EPA has since classified chloroform, a byproduct of chlorinating water, as a probable human carcinogen.
Recipients of the society's achievement award include well-known journal figures like McClellan, the Critical Reviews editor who also sits on Regulatory Toxicology's board. The society credited the journal's growing popularity as the "major" source of its success and "esteem."
Responding to questions about industry's financial support of the society, then-president Christopher Borgert wrote in a 2008 newsletter, "Science has an objective means of evaluating information, but it has nothing to do with who got the money and why . . . The process of science removes the scientist, with his numerous biases and conflicts of interest, as far as humanely [sic] possible from the process of data generation and interpretation."
Regulatory Toxicology's editors have also made headlines. Chain-smoking through an interview with The Wall Street Journal in 1997, Coulston claimed nicotine wasn't addictive and smoking didn't cause cancer. In 2001, his New Mexico chimpanzee lab was stripped of federal funding amid animal abuse claims.
Gori became editor of Regulatory Toxicology following Coulston's 2003 death and has also served as society president. In 2013, he and 17 other toxicology journal editors penned an editorial criticizing the European Union's plans to regulate chemicals known as endocrine disruptors. Of the 18 editors, only one did not have industry ties.
'All that noise'
"If a call comes in and the number is withheld, you might become suspicious and ignore the call," Grandjean wrote in 2012. "Scientific authorship should be just as simple so that we can concentrate our attention on the sources we trust."
But representatives of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) said their agencies treat science equally, regardless of the funding source. Disclosure is encouraged by all three agencies but isn't mandatory."The science tends to get lost and the politics wins or the economics wins"
Speakers at FDA proceedings are asked to disclose relevant financial relationships but the agency doesn't bar those who don't comply from participating.
Science at the EPA and OSHA is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Study authors are asked to disclose "funding sources and other pertinent interests" at the EPA, while OSHA asks those who comment on proposed rules to provide disclosures with their submissions.
What should or shouldn't be disclosed is a matter of debate. "There is no agreement on what a conflict of interest is," said Arthur Caplan, founding director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University's Langone Medical Center. "The disclosures currently say, 'I'm going to disclose industry funding because that is a potential source of bias. You, reader, have to decide for yourself whether it is or it isn't. Good luck to you.'" Current sentiment "demonizes the industry side," Caplan added, while ignoring potential biases created by private foundations or government money.
Disclosure policies don't exist to eliminate bias, said Sheldon Krimsky, a professor at Tufts University who studies science and public policy, but to allow the public to assess potential conflicts that can undermine findings. "Science is not a matter of this fact and that fact; there's all sorts of nuance in science," he said. "You can draw conclusions in science beyond what your data tells you."
Krimsky's own research has found that industry-backed studies typically yield findings that bolster a company's bottom line. "Companies want you to produce a specific result," he said. "They won't publish it if you don't."
Even with proper disclosure, assessing a study's credibility takes time, said the NRDC's Sass. "In the end we still have to go through it on its merits; so do the EPA, and [other] federal bodies," she said. "That leaves us with the task of addressing the substantive flaws each time, article by article."
In the federal regulatory process, this can mean additional public hearings and meetings where activists go head to head with, and are often outnumbered by, industry representatives.
"The system can't manage all that noise," Caplan said. "The science tends to get lost and the politics wins or the economics wins. When there's that much noise going on, other factors start to resolve the dispute and they're not factual."
-
(ACC Mentioned) Zimbabwe: Mandizha - Zim's Own Curie
Feb 18, 2016 | All Africa
By Ruth Butaumocho
When it comes to the topic of women in science, Marie Curie's name usually dominates conversations globally.
A two-time Nobel Prize winner, whose work led to the discovery of radioactivity, Curie's contribution to science is immeasurable.
Zimbabwe has its own Curies who have straddled the geographical space and made their own contributions towards science in its diversity.
One such woman is Mrs Naume Mandizha, a chemist who has made immense contribution in the field of chemistry and microbiology for more than two decades in Zimbabwe.
Her strides might not be as bold and pronounced as Curie's yet, but she is carving her own piece of history through her contribution in chemistry and microbiology.
Mrs Mandizha co-owns GNK Laboratories, trading as Zim Lab, one of the biggest microbiology and chemistry laboratories in Zimbabwe that offers an array of services to big mining companies, agricultural institutions and other players.
Her achievements as a scientist, trainer and businesswoman bring out a compelling narrative of determination, hard work and perseverance, born of out of the need to push socio- and economic boundaries.
"I have always liked challenging assignments and getting into sciences has been quite fulfilling. I really enjoy what I do," she said recently.
Zim Lab offers mineral ore testing and geochemical services for the mining sector, soil and plant tissue analysis for fertility purposes, and irrigation water analysis for the agriculture and horticulture sectors, microbiological examination for food safety and hygiene swabs for the hospitality industry, and wastewater and industrial effluent characterisation and monitoring.
The laboratory also provides technical support to customers through the use of networks established with scientists and researchers in various fields.
From the time that the laboratory was started around 2004, it has worked on a number of strategic projects locally and regionally, earning accolades in the process, for demonstrating competency in its field of expertise.
In 2004, Zim Lab won a prize in the regional competition for the analysis on tryphton -- testing for protein in maize -- in a competition where more than 10 regional laboratories competed.
It was also instrumental in the setting up of the SADC Water Laboratory Association, and is currently working with the Great Dyke Investment on various testing projects.
"All these accolades are an affirmation of the hard work that I put together with my team towards the success of our project. We believe we have harnessed expertise that we should also share with others as a way of giving back to the community," she said.
A chemist with over 20 years hands-on experience, she has worked for different organizations among them the Tobacco Research Board. Mrs Mandizha's decision to set up a lab was inspired by a need to share her expertise and knowledge in science.
A holder of a Master in Analytical Chemistry and Master in Business Administration, she knew she had mastered enough skills and experience that could be imparted to others in the industry.
She also wanted to fulfil her long-term ambition to be an entrepreneur, taking after her parents who were revered businesspeople in Murehwa.
"While working for the private sector, I realised that there was need to set up a laboratory that specialised in ore analysis for platinum, gold, palladium, and rhodium among other minerals."
Armed with information, resources and a passion to contribute towards chemistry and microbiology testing in the country, Mrs Mandizha entered a partnership with a colleague, resulting in the birth of GNK Laboratories, trading as Zim Lab.
For someone who had been "sheltered" under the corporate umbrella, where she would execute her duties without worrying about the financial side of business, it soon dawned on her that running a business was not be easy.
"We started the business at a time the country was facing serious foreign currency shortages, and at one time, we almost closed shop owing to operational challenges," she revealed.
It took a lot of strategic decisions that included serious cost control measures to pull the laboratory out of the financial quagmire it found itself it.
"Soon the business was growing and both the public and private sector was slowly gaining confidence in us and the services that we provided."
In no time Zim Lab was getting business from all major mining companies in Zimbabwe, non-governmental organizations and individual players keen on getting their services.
The recognition spurred Mrs Mandizha to continue giving her expertise through training of students and workforce in science across the region.
"I have been conducting training in Tanzania, Uganda, Botswana and other neighbouring countries, and that development has helped me to amass information on trends in chemistry and microbiology.
"I believe in the importance of information sharing to ensure that players in the industry are up to date with developments and trends in the field," she said.
And her contribution to the science field in Zimbabwe has not gone unnoticed. In 2009, the Zimbabwe Institute of Management honoured her with the Manager of the Year award in the Small to Medium Enterprise category.
In 2013 she came second in the Zimbabwe National Chamber of Commerce awards in the Women in Enterprise (open category), for her consistence and contribution in the science sector.
She is a member of the American Chemical Council and also sits on the Medicine Control Authority of Zimbabwe laboratory committee as a technical expert.
"I am very proud of my achievements and what I have contributed to the science world, thanks to my parents who encouraged me to take up sciences when STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) then wasn't the buzzword.
"My parents understood back then the importance of educating the girl child, and I am happy to say that eight of the girls in my family received good education and are doing well," she enthused.
Mrs Mandizha will soon be enrolling for her PHD in Environmental Chemistry focusing on small scale mining.
Like many women in her group, Mrs Mandizha says; "These woman and others like them did not just prevail, they excelled when personal, economic, political, and racial obstacles threatened.
"My other advice to women in business is for them to embrace the aspect of continuous improvement and have business objectives as well as personal goals. I am continually taking advantage of training opportunities. I was in Sweden for three weeks end of April -- beginning May 2015 for advanced training in strategic management sponsored by SIDA."
-
Feb 18, 2016 | Alternet
By Reynard Loki
2016 marks the 40th anniversary of the Toxic Substances Control Act. But there is little to celebrate. Signed into law by President Gerald Ford in 1976, the TSCA has been sharply criticized for failing at what it was meant to do: protect public health and the environment from the tens of thousands of chemicals that saturate the marketplace, and the hundreds of new ones that are introduced every year.
Adding to the concern is the fact that the law hasn’t been significantly updated since it was enacted, during which time some 22,000 new chemicals have entered American commerce, with around 700 new ones rolled out each year. Many of these chemicals — most of which did not previously exist in nature — have been widely dispersed throughout the environment, into the air, soil and water where some will persist for decades, or even centuries.
The figures are staggering. Every year, around 4 billion pounds of toxic chemicals are released by American industries. In 2011 alone, 16 new chemicals accounted for nearly 1 million pounds. There is far too little testing of these substances: Only a fraction of the nearly 3,000 high-production-volume (HPV) chemicals — chemicals that have an annual production run of at least one million pounds — have been studied for their potential toxicity. According to the EPA, the agency has “only been able to require testing on a little more than 200 existing chemicals” out of the 62,000 that have been introduced since the TSCA’s enactment. The EPA has banned just five.
It has been a long time in coming, but after several years of negotiations, two bills seeking to overhaul the TSCA have finally been passed in both houses of Congress. And while one might assume a federal effort to improve the TSCA would receive widespread popular support (a nationwide poll conducted in 2012 found that nearly 74 percent of Americans believe the threat of chemical exposure to people’s health is serious), the legislation has been met with fierce opposition — and not from the chemical industry.
For decades, regulating chemicals in the U.S. has been a “too little, too late” exercise in futility. Now that Washington is on the verge of a major overhaul, chemical policy reform has become a pitched battleground. Several stakeholders have been vying for leverage, from federal lawmakers and state attorneys general, to chemical industry lobbyists and community activists, to public and environmental health activists. How did something so basic as keeping people and animals safe from dangerous substances become such a highly politicized arena?
One Word: Plastics
Since World War II, some 80,000 new chemicals have been invented. But it wasn’t until the early 1970s when the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), formed in 1969 under the Nixon administration, proposed federal legislation to regulate American commerce in chemical substances. So why did it take so long for the government to address the potential health and environmental effects of chemicals? It’s a familiar and tragic narrative: Public health regularly takes a back seat to corporate interests. Time and time again, major toxic disasters occur, reminding us just how susceptible humans, animals and the environment are to toxins produced by industrial activity. Look at Love Canal in Niagara Falls in the 1950s, Times Beach, Missouri in the 1970s or the Summitville mine in Colorado in the 1980s. More recently, there was the Exide lead contamination in Los Angeles. Today, the Flint water crisis unfolds in Michigan.
While big disasters such as these make national headlines, it was actually a series of festering environmental contamination events around the country — and the community activism that gradually grew around them — that set the stage for the TSCA’s passage.
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were contaminating the Hudson River; polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) were contaminating agricultural produce in Michigan; and chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions were depleting the ozone layer. But it was the process behind making polyvinyl chloride, a plastic commonly known as PVC, that was ultimately the driving force that finally got the law passed. In their 2002 book Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution, public health historians Gerald Markowitz and David Rosner write, “While the discovery of various kinds of industrial pollution had led the EPA to begin pressing for passage of Toxic Substances Control Act, the publicity and seriousness of the vinyl crisis would become the impetus for more assertive efforts to get TSCA passed, with a view toward regulating more chemicals than vinyl chloride.”
Developed in the 1920s, PVC is one of the most used plastics in the world. Impervious to rust and rot, it is used predominantly in water systems, sewer lines and underground wiring, and also across a wide array of consumer goods, from tire treads and credit cards to children’s toys and medical devices. In many ways, PVC has changed things for the better, particularly across the developing world, where almost all the clean water projects depend on bacteria-resistant PVC pipe. Chemical engineer Arjen Sevenster, who sits on the board of EU vinyl industry trade group VinylPlus, is a vocal proponent of PVC, the third most widely produced synthetic plastic polymer in the world. “PVC products make life safer, more comfortable and more pleasurable,” he says. “And, because PVC has an excellent ratio of economic cost to performance, it allows people of all income levels access to these important benefits.”
But there is a big problem with this popular plastic. In order to make it, you need to start with vinyl chloride (VC), an intermediary organic compound that was implicated in causing liver damage as early as the 1930s, when the PVC industry was still in its infancy. But it wouldn’t be until 1949, when Russian researcher S.L. Tribukh published a paper about the health effects of VC that it became clear: VC exposure causes liver injury.
In the decades to follow, her research would be tragically manifested in the workplace. A mortality study conducted in 1988 by the Health and Safety Executive, the United Kingdom’s independent regulator for work-related health, found that between 1940 and 1974, there were 11 tumor-related deaths among British vinyl workers — seven of them from angiosarcoma, an exceedingly rare cancer tumor of the liver. The HSE concluded that the deaths indicated “a significant excess of non-secondary liver tumors.” By the late 1960s, the issue got attention in the United States, when four cases of angiosarcoma were diagnosed among workers at a B.F. Goodrich tire-making plant near Louisville, Kentucky, between 1967 and 1973. The episode was one of the earliest reports of an occupational disease outbreak published by the Center for Disease Control’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
The 1967 film The Graduate was one of the biggest movies of the period. One of its most famous lines was uttered by Mr. McGuire (Walter Brooke), who gives Ben, a 21-year-old recent college grad played by Dustin Hoffman, some friendly business advice: “There's a great future in plastics.” He was right, of course. In 1976, the global production of plastics was around 50 million metric tons. By 2002, that number had quadrupled. Today, more than 311 metric tons of plastics are produced worldwide. In 2013, plastic wholesaling generated $55 billion in the United States, which is behind only China in total PVC production.
But plastic’s future would not be all bright. Just a few years after The Graduate was released, VC health concern had reached critical mass in the U.S. Nancy Beach, who was coordinating the EPA’s vinyl chloride efforts at the time, revealed that exposure to the toxin wasn’t limited to factory workers. In a private session organized by the National Cancer Institute and attended by representatives from 10 federal agencies, including the FDA, OSHA, CDC and the National Institutes of Health, Beach revealed that some 6 percent of the VC used during PVC production was escaping into the outside air. “It sounds small,” she said, “but if one considers that the annual production of PVC in the U.S. is well over 5 billion pounds a 6 percent loss figure is on the order of 250 million pounds, which is somehow getting out of the workplace.”
By the summer of 1974, the FDA, EPA and Consumer Product Safety Commission moved to prohibit the use of VC in bottles and other consumer goods. In October, EPA administrator Russell Train announced new air emissions standards for vinyl chloride. The announcement would have far-reaching implications: By framing the VC issue within the larger goal of regulating the hundreds of chemicals that enter the marketplace every year, Train helped pave the way for the passage of the TSCA:For the past five years, an estimated 600 new chemicals a year have been introduced into U.S. commerce. These chemicals have been sold without any systematic, advanced assessment of their potential impact on human health. As we have learned through our experience, materials such as vinyl chloride, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, nitrosamines and several others, we often do not discover how harmful a compound can be until it has become a commonplace item in our everyday life.
Two years after Train’s announcement — and after significant negotiation between the government and industry — the TSCA was finally signed into law by President Ford on Oct. 11, 1976, authorizing the EPA to test and regulate new and existing chemicals. In a statement accompanying the signing of the bill, Ford said, “I believe this legislation may be one of the most important pieces of environmental legislation that has been enacted by the Congress.” He may have been right, but important does not equal effective.
Fixing 'Fundamental Weaknesses'
A large part of the problem with the TSCA is its fundamentally Sisyphean nature. In 1994, former EPA assistant administrator Lynn Goldman testified to Congress, saying, “Our available tools for gathering testing data about these chemicals are cumbersome.” Later, she explained that under the provisions of the TSCA, “It’s almost as if ... we have to, first, prove that chemicals are risky before we can have the testing done to show whether or not the chemicals are risky.” Since the TSCA was enacted, some 62,000 chemicals have never been tested by the EPA because they were grandfathered in and remain on the market.
In 2009, Michael Wilson and Megan Schwarzman, environmental health scientists at UC Berkeley, published a damning analysis of U.S. chemical policy, identifying “fundamental weaknesses” in the way the government protects Americans from toxic substances — weaknesses that not only leave the public unprotected, but hamstring the development of a chemical marketplace that is less toxic and more sustainable. “These policies have largely failed to adequately protect public health or the environment or motivate investment in or scientific exploration of cleaner chemical technologies,” they wrote in the paper, which was published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a peer-reviewed journal. “On this trajectory,” they warned, “the United States will face growing health, environmental and economic problems related to chemical exposures and pollution.”
Two bills, a House and Senate bill, which passed their respective chambers last year, represent Congress’ first serious attempt to “reauthorize and modernize” the TSCA. The Senate bill, S. 697 (the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act), has been hailed as the result of bipartisan compromise on Capitol Hill led by Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and David Vitter (R-LA), who co-sponsored a bill in May 2013. A month later, Lautenberg died. Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) picked up the reins and worked with Vitter — an ally of the chemical companies — to improve the bill, which eventually secured enough support in the Senate to be filibuster-proof. Now dubbed the “Udall-Vitter chemical safety bill,” it passed on December 17 by unanimous consent.
New York Times columnist Joe Nocera sees a rare quality in the Udall-Vitter bill: “In this era of polarized politics,” he writes, “it is something of a miracle.” He said Udall told him that the bill stood as “an example of good, old-fashioned legislating.” Nocera also relayed the opinion of Dominique Browning, a co-founder of the grassroots green group known as Moms Clean Air Force:Browning, an old friend of mine, describes herself as an environmental pragmatist. She concluded that whatever the flaws in the bill, it was a vast improvement over the status quo — a status quo in which the Environmental Protection Agency can’t even regulate formaldehyde. She and her brain trust decided that their 570,000-member group would work to improve the bill instead of oppose it. This is also the position taken by the ever-pragmatic Fred Krupp of the Environmental Defense Fund, with which Moms Clean Air Force is affiliated.
The House bill, H.R. 2576 (TSCA Modernization Act), was introduced in May 2015 by Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL-15) and passed in June. The next step is for the bills to be assessed in a conference committee to reconcile the two versions. (Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund has published an excellent side-by-side comparison of how the two bills address 12 of TSCA’s key limitations.)
As the first major overhaul of the 40-year-old TSCA, the bills have several laudable goals and fix glaring omissions in the old law. For example, the TSCA gives no special consideration to segments of the population that may be more susceptible to toxins, such as infants, children, pregnant women, workers and the elderly. This is a striking oversight. Less than 20 percent of HPV chemicals have been studied for their ability to impact child development. The Senate bill addresses this omission, expressly requiring protections for these vulnerable groups. Furthermore, the TSCA gives the EPA the authority, but regrettably no mandate, to restrict chemicals deemed to present an “unreasonable risk.” The new legislation closes this breach by requiring restrictions on such substances.
Another target of reform is the “safety standard.” Under the TSCA, a substance of unreasonable risk requires the EPA to conduct a cost-benefit analysis, an unwieldy requirement that is ultimately not necessary — if the bottom line is protecting public health. Both bills address this by prohibiting the EPA from considering costs and other non-risk factors in making safety determinations, eliminating an onerous requirement of the TSCA that Denison characterized as a “paralyzing regulatory hurdle.”
The final bill will likely meet one of the threshold principles for the Obama administration: that the safety standard is a “health only” standard and not a “cost-benefit” standard. In their analysis, Wilson and Schwarzman note three key “gaps” caused by the weaknesses in the TSCA:Data gap: “Producers are not required to investigate and disclose sufficient information on chemicals' hazard traits to government, businesses that use chemicals, or the public.”Safety gap: “Government lacks the legal tools it needs to efficiently identify, prioritize, and take action to mitigate the potential health and environmental effects of hazardous chemicals.”Technology gap: “Industry and government have invested only marginally in green chemistry research, development, and education.”
The bills address these gaps to varying degrees. Regarding the data gap, the new legislation mandates a greater level of transparency, requiring an upfront justification from companies for all or most new claims. Regarding the safety gap, the bills, as stated earlier, prohibit the EPA from considering costs in risk evaluations. Regarding the technology gap, the Senate bill mandates that, no later than two years after the bill’s enactment, an Interagency Working Group — comprised of representative from several agencies, including the USDA, EPA, National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation — must submit “a summary of federally funded sustainable chemistry research, development, demonstration, technology transfer, commercialization, education, and training activities.”
Whether or not these changes survive the final combined version of the bill remains to be seen.
Question of Authorship
While there is much to like to about the reform bills, particularly the protection they require for vulnerable segments of the population, they have drawn strong opposition. Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a 450-member coalition dedicated to TSCA reform that counts as its members a number of leading environmental and public health advocacy groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Breast Cancer Fund, opposes the part of the reform bills that gives the EPA the ability to declare substances “low-priority” based on a finding that the chemical is “likely to meet” the safety standard, thereby leaving them off the official assessment table. That’s a loophole that, according Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families’ national campaign director Andy Igrejas, lets industry off the hook:A low-priority designation is a new form of pro-active non-assessment. It is effectively a hall pass for the chemical; a declaration that EPA will not review the chemical so it is therefore free to roam the economy and potentially your home without any restrictions. All on the back of “likely to.” This distinction, which confers many of the benefits of being declared “safe” but without a thorough safety evaluation, is likely to be coveted by chemical companies.
Is it possible that the low-priority designation isn’t just coveted by chemical companies, but was actually written by them? Hearst Newspapers obtained a copy of the draft bill in the form of a Microsoft Word document, which has led to questions concerning the bill’s authorship. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, a Hearst paper, accessing the document’s “advanced properties” revealed that the company of origin was none other than the American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry’s powerful lobbying group. Ken Cook, president of the non-profit Environmental Working Group, was quick to denounce the legislative process behind chemicals reform. “We’re apparently at the point in the minds of some people in the Congress that laws intended to regulate polluters are now written by the polluters themselves,” he said.
Indeed, the chemical industry is so far supportive of the reform. "Updating the Toxic Substances Control Act is critical for our industry, one that creates the building blocks for 96 percent of all manufactured goods, playing a fundamental role in every facet of national commerce and the U.S. economy," the American Chemistry Council said in a statement. According to the trade group, the Senate bill balances the needs of the public to be informed about chemicals in the marketplace without getting in the way of the industry’s job to make the kinds of chemicals — toxic though they might be — that manufacturers need.
Igrejas also notes that the Senate bill “weakens EPA’s ability to intercept imported products, like most of the toys under your Christmas tree, when they contain a known toxic chemical.” Following the March 2015 hearing by the Senate environment committee, he wrote, “The overwhelming conclusion to any but the most partisan observer was that the bill — though improved over last year’s version — needs additional work before it represents true progress for public health and gathers the broader support needed to become law.”
States Rights vs. Federal Oversight
But perhaps the most dramatic change that would be ushered in by the new legislation as it is currently written regards the role of states, which would have diminished control. The new law threatens to undo state-led efforts to protect citizens in light of failures at the federal level. “The toxics tug-of-war in state houses,” says Ronnie Greene of the Center for Public Integrity, “is direct fallout from the muddled environmental politicking of Washington, D.C.” Notably, the new law would block states from taking direct action on potentially hazardous chemicals while the EPA makes its own assessments, which could delay rolling out necessary steps to protect public and environmental health, possibly for years.
In a letter to Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, California State Attorney General Kamala Harris said it “is deeply troubling given the enormous time lag certain to occur between the beginning of an EPA assessment and the effective date of any federal safety rule.” The federal time lag is truly extraordinary. In 2010, for example, the EPA added 16 new cancer-causing chemicals to the list of toxic substances that must be reported to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), which allows the American public to know what kinds of chemicals might be polluting their communities. It was the first time chemicals had been added to the list in over a decade.
Harris wasn’t the only state AG to come out against the Senate bill. A week after it was introduced, the state attorneys general of Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New York, Oregon and Washington sent a similar letter to Sens. Boxer and James Inhofe (R-OK), the environment committee chairman. They write:We oppose S. 697’s broadly expanded limitations on the ability of states to take appropriate action under state laws to protect against … risks posed by chemicals and chemical mixtures … In contrast to the existing law, S. 697 would prevent states from adopting new laws or regulations, or taking other administrative action, “prohibiting or restricting the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce or use” of a chemical substance deemed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to be a “high-priority” for federal review even before any federal restrictions have been established. As a result, a void would be created where states would be prevented from acting to protect their citizens and the environment from those chemicals even though federal restrictions may not be in place for many years. S. 697 also eliminates two key provisions in the existing law that preserve state authority to protect against dangerous chemicals. One is the provision that provides for “co-enforcement” — allowing states to adopt and enforce state restrictions that are identical to federal restrictions in order to provide for additional enforcement of the law. The second is the provision that allows states to ban in-state use of dangerous chemicals.
Last month, Sharon Lerner, who covers the environment for The Intercept, wrote an article focusing on the effect the TSCA reform bill would have on the work that is happening on the state level. “If the worst provisions from both bills wind up in the final law,” she writes, “the new legislation will gut laws that have put Oregon, California, Maine, Vermont, Minnesota and Washington state at the forefront of chemical regulation.”
Lerner told me that there are almost 20,000 chemicals currently on the marketplace whose identities remain unknown because they're protected by law. “They're considered confidential to business, and you can't check the safety of something if you don't know the identity of it,” she said. Under the new legislation, she added, “none of that will change. I think it's really important to remember that.”
But there is still time to make the final bill that reaches the president’s desk one that will please more of the stakeholders. But ultimately, legislators mustn’t lose sight of the bill’s basic goal: to protect people, wildlife and the environment from dangerous substances. “Luckily, it is not too late,” Igrejas said in a statement. “When Congress reconciles the House and Senate versions, they should focus on the fundamentals of reform and simply empower and direct EPA to identify and restrict toxic chemicals.” And they shouldn’t let corporate interests make the sausage.
Plastics and other toxic substances have arguably helped shape the modern world in many positive ways. But the rules governing their use, and the way those rules have been written, are problematic, to say the least. As Dustin Hoffman remarked in The Graduate, “The rules don't make any sense to me. They're being made up by all the wrong people.”
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Website Provides Tools, Information About Green Building Codes, Standards
Feb 17, 2016 | Proud Green Building
A new website dedicated to highlighting chemistry in building and construction materials is designed to make available pivotal information to those in the green-building industry.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) launched www.BuildingWithChemistry.org to provide architects, material specifiers, interior designers and other building and construction professionals with tools and information about green building codes and standards, materials selection and the role of chemistry in developing innovative, sustainable building materials, according to the ACC.
The website includes an interactive graphic of a mixed-use residential building that highlights how chemical ingredients are used in materials, from polycarbonate panels in skylights and plastics in piping, to nylon and polyester fibers in carpeting, reports the website Construction & Demolition Recycling. A “green building” section provides an overview of commonly used standards, codes, certification systems and assessment tools, as well as examples of green building approaches by building type.
Recognizing chemistry provides unique properties to the materials used in every commercial, residential and mixed-use projects, the site includes a section that details some of the most common chemistries used in various applications, including roofing, insulation, walls, plumbing, flooring, door frames, windows, countertops and cabinets as well as fencing, decking and railing.
-
More Time Given to Provide Chlorinated Paraffin Use Data
Feb 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Companies that process or use any of seven chlorinated paraffins as lubricants or flame retardants and for other purposes will have until March 23 to provide the Environmental Protection Agency information about how they use these chemicals, the agency said in a pre-publication Federal Register notice released Feb. 17.
The EPA will use the submitted information as it assesses the risks of the medium- and long-chain chlorinated paraffins, which the agency is reviewing as new chemicals even though they have been in commerce.
The Federal Register notice, scheduled for publication Feb. 22, extends by one month the time companies have to submit information that could affect restrictions the agency would require for the chemicals.
Lynn Bergeson, managing partner of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C., told Bloomberg BNA companies that use the chlorinated paraffins asked for the opportunity to provide the agency data.
Use by ‘Many, Many’ Companies
“EPA's risk assessments will decide the fates of chemicals used by many, many downstream industrial users, many of which may only now be fully aware of the implications of these assessments,” she said in an e-mail.
EPA's original request for comment was published in December (80 Fed. Reg. 79,886; 247 DEN A-6, 12/28/15)).
“The request for comment was published at a very challenging time of year—Dec. 23. The comment period included the holidays, several federal holidays, and a number of weather events, all of which have diminished the actual time available to consider the important technical docket information and develop cogent comment on these assessments,” Bergeson said.
The EPA's draft risk assessments, available in the docket established for the agency's chemical review, concluded the chemicals are persistent, they persist in the environment and they are toxic to aquatic organisms.
Given EPA's preliminary risk determinations, the agency said it has told the two manufacturers of the chemicals—Dover Chemical Corp. and INOVYN Americas Inc. (formerly INEOS Chlor Americas)—absent additional information, the EPA “does not believe that manufacture of these PMN substances should commence.”
PMNs Part of Legal Settlement
It is unusual for the EPA to seek comment on draft risk assessments of new chemicals. Typically, such chemicals have not entered commerce and therefore there is not a company—other than the original manufacturer—or industries that would be directly affected by the agency's conclusions.
In this particular case, Dover Chemical Corp. and INOVYN Americas Inc. submitted premanufacture notices (PMNs) for the seven medium- and long-chain chlorinated paraffins to comply with court settlements and to address the EPA's allegation that the companies had violated the Toxic Substances Control Act by manufacturing chlorinated paraffins that were not listed on the inventory of chemicals that are or have been on the U.S. market.
The settlements were reached in 2012 (163 DEN A-8, 8/23/12).
As part of its settlement, Dover Chemical also agreed to pay $1.4 million in civil penalties to resolve charges that the company engaged in unauthorized manufacture of chemical substances (25 DEN A-8, 2/8/12).
-
US Committee Considers Chemicals For EPA Low-Dose Review
Feb 18, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Catherine Cooney
An independent committee of experts in the US has considered using phthalates, the dioxin TCDD and bisphenol A as case studies in a systematic review process for assessing low-dose effects associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals.
The National Research Council’s Low Dose Committee was established following a request from the EPA for guidance on how to assess low-dose toxicity for chemicals affecting the oestrogen, androgen or thyroid pathways. It will select two or more case studies to illustrate a “systematic” review that integrates data from epidemiological as well as toxicological studies.
The studies should help answer the question of whether the EPA’s current assessment practices – in terms of low-dose toxicity effects – need to be rethought or recast. At a workshop on 3 February the committee heard the views of three panels of experts on each of the chemicals.
The committee sought the panels' advice to help it identify examples of chemicals, populations, models and health endpoints that it can use to perform a “systematic” review of low-dose toxicity, says David Dorman, professor at North Carolina State University and NRC committee chair.
“For each chemical, we are not trying to do a risk assessment: we are not attempting to do a global hazard assessment: we are trying to come up with very focused questions that we can use and go forward [with a systematic review]. I just want to make people aware of that,” professor Dorman says.
The committee developed PICO statements. For each of the chemicals these outline: population;exposure;comparator populations; andprimary and secondary outcomes.
It has been trying to decide how narrowly it should interpret the EPA’s task request, says professor Dorman. For example, whether it should narrow the review of phthalates to only focus on rat studies. Panel members in general recommended that rat and mice research on phthalates be included.
Professor Dorman asked the phthalates panel whether the research database on the chemicals for both animal and human effects from low-dose exposures was adequate for this review.
Noting that phthalates are among the most studied chemicals in the world, the panel members generally agreed that the database of research on them was very robust, for both animals and humans.
The committee members said they had considered a range of chemicals, including a number of drugs, PCBs, and DDT. Professor Dorman says the committee is considering adding another chemical and asked the panel for recommendations on candidate chemicals.
Ruthann Rudel, director of research with the Silent Spring Institute and a member of the NRC committee, said after the meeting that the discussions "showed that our methods are not as precise in measuring female reproductive outcomes in response to toxic exposures at low doses.”
During the public comment period, Pat Casano, counsel with General Electric, said although she has never done a systematic review, her impression is that it involves a lot of work. “I encourage you, as others have done, to really focus what you are looking at with these chemicals, and to really narrow down [your review] to one or two endpoints,” she said.
-
EPA to Release RDX Draft Analysis at May Meeting
Feb 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated Risk Information System Program will release a draft assessment for a chemical used in explosives at an upcoming May meeting, it announced Feb. 17. The program will release the draft IRIS Toxicological Review of hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) on May 10 at its IRIS Public Science Meeting, and it will solicit input at the meeting on the document, according to the EPA's announcement e-mail. More details on how to attend or speak at the meeting to be held in Arlington, Va., will be available in mid-March. Additional IRIS public science meetings will be held June 29-30, Sept. 7-8 and Oct. 26-27, the agency said. More information on upcoming meetings is available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/iris-recent-additions.
-
Vermont Consults On Chemical Disclosure Programme Guidance
Feb 18, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Vermont's Department of Health (DoH) has released draft guidance clarifying compliance requirements for its recently adopted chemical disclosure programme.
The programme requires manufacturers of children's products to report to a state database the presence of any of 66 chemicals designated as of high concern to children, on a product-level basis.
The draft guidance provides details on the brand name and product model details that must be reported under the scheme. Industry groups raised specific concern with this provision, as it differs from the broader category-level reporting required under other states' rules, such as those in Washington.
The document clarifies what constitutes a “manufacturer” required to report under the rule. According to the document, this could include the: product's fabricator;assemblers of product components; orimporters of final products.
The draft guidance also addresses: what content must be reported, and when;protection of information deemed a trade secret;reporting of contaminants;specific exemptions; andfurther information on data-sharing with other states.
As adopted, the Rule would have required submission of product-specific reports by 1 July. The guide reiterates that the DoH will not consider a phased-in reporting schedule, nor will it grant waivers for compliance with the initial reporting deadline to small companies.
However, “unforeseen circumstances” that prevented the launch of the online reporting tool by 1 January will delay this deadline. Products will need to be reported within six months once the portal goes live.
According to the agency's latest update, it is “continuing development and beta-testing of the online reporting system, and launch of the new system is now anticipated for spring 2016”.
But the draft guidance indicates that the DoH will still evaluate disclosure data from July 2017, and biennially thereafter. This will allow them to propose chemicals that should be considered for further regulation, including potential bans.
Comments on the draft document are accepted until 15 March.
-
Endocrine Disruptor 4NP Found In Children’s Urine
Feb 18, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
Researchers in the US have found that almost a third of children have the oestrogenic compound 4-nonylphenol (4NP) in their urine, together with a selection of ten other contaminants.
All children's urine contained at least five compounds, they found.
In a paper in the journal BioMedCentral Endocrine Disorders, the researchers describe a study of urine samples taken from 50 children, split half and half between boys and girls. They were evenly distributed between the ages of four and eight years old.
The samples were analysed for the contaminants: bisphenol A (BPA);triclosan;4NP;four metabolites of di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP);ethyl paraben;methyl paraben;butyl paraben; andpropyl paraben.
Almost three-quarters of children (74%) had detectable levels of eight or more chemicals. There were no significant differences found in average values between males and females, or between ages, for any of the chemicals.
The authors – from the Deirdre Imus Environmental Health Center at Hackensack University and the New Jersey Institute of Technology – also examined levels of oestrogen metabolites, but could find no link with any of the contaminants.
More than a quarter (28%) of samples had measurable levels of 4NP, which the authors say is a chemical that is less well researched in urine. Although found in American adults, they say it has not previously been reported in children. A Belgian study found little or no 4NP in adult, however a Taiwanese paper has reported that 84 to 94% of children’s samples were contaminated, sometimes at relatively high levels.
The wide variation of levels documented in existing research “suggests a need for further evaluation of this ubiquitous chemical”, the authors conclude. They say that the sources of exposure are not clear, but nonylphenol derivatives may be used in: detergents;cleaning products; andcosmetics.
Echa lists 4NP as a substance of very high concern (SVHC) because of its endocrine disrupting properties. A February meeting of the agency’s Member State Committee concluded that more use and exposure information is required on it to complete its substance evaluation.
-
New York Classifies PFOA as Hazardous
Feb 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
The chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was classified by New York state as a hazardous substance Feb. 17 in an emergency regulation published in the New York State Register.
The regulation is a response to water contamination in the upstate town of Hoosick Falls, N.Y. With the classification, the state can now expend funds from its Superfund program to remediate the water problems.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) said the classification will also allow the state to respond if elevated concentrations of the chemical are found elsewhere in the state.
The state expects to adopt the emergency regulation, which expires April 25, 2016, as a permanent regulation, according to the DEC.
PFOA is a chemical used in the manufacture of non-stick cookware and other consumer products that resist heat and repel oil, grease and water.
Other Steps
The regulation is the latest in a series of steps taken by the state and some of the responsible parties to address PFOA contamination in Hoosick Falls, which is about 35 miles northeast of Albany (30 DEN A-1, 2/16/16).
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) announced Feb. 12 that the state has begun planning for a possible alternate water supply and will pay for the purchase and installation of water filtration systems for 1,500 homes.
In addition, Cuomo ordered the state Department of Financial Services Feb. 16 to set up a mobile command center in Hoosick Falls to assist homeowners with insurance and mortgage finance issues.
-
Cancer and the Environment: 10 Common Misconceptions Answered
Feb 17, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Curt DellaValle
As a cancer epidemiologist, I’ve spent a lot of time researching the links between environmental contaminants and cancer. One of the pitfalls of the Digital Age is that people come across a lot of information that isn’t based on sound scientific evidence or is, at best, anecdotal. That’s dangerous, because conjecture and falsehoods that masquerade as fact can hamper efforts to prevent and treat cancer.
Here are some common misconceptions:
#1: Getting cancer is almost completely out of your control.
While genetics and bad luck play a role, many cancers are caused by other factors, some of which you can control.
Smoking, poor diet and lack of exercise are major contributors to the development of cancer. Another 20 percent of cancers, according to the World Health Organization, are believed to be caused by environmental factors such as pollution, infections and radiation.
The bottom line: You certainly can’t avoid every potentially dangerous exposure, but as many as half of cancers may be preventable.
#2: “Everything” causes cancer.
Almost every day, you may read a news story suggesting that items in your home or substances in your food are linked to cancer or otherwise bad for your health. Recent headlines trumpeted the risks of eating red and processed meats. The constant onslaught of warnings can be overwhelming. But not all chemicals, pollutants or guilty pleasures will lead to cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, a research arm of the World Health Organization, has looked into nearly a thousand suspected causes of cancer. Of those suspicious substances and activities, they have concluded that just about half are known or potentially carcinogenic (117 known, 74 probable and 287 possible carcinogens).
Keep in mind that dose plays a key role. Smoking one cigarette probably won’t hurt you, but smoking for years is a clear health hazard.
#3: Exposure to a known carcinogen will give you cancer.
Government agencies and international health bodies classify a substance as a “known carcinogen” when strong evidence demonstrates that it CAN cause cancer. Officials at these institutions base their determinations on the strength of scientific evidence. But a person exposed to a known carcinogen is not 100 percent certain to develop cancer, not by a long shot.
Let’s compare asbestos and processed meats. Both are known carcinogens based on many scientific studies that consistently show they can cause cancer. In both cases, the strength of the evidence is consistently high. But there’s a difference. Asbestos is a potent carcinogen. Substantial exposure dramatically increases a person’s risk of getting mesothelioma, lung and other cancers. On the other hand, eating processed meats only modestly increases your chances of getting cancer.
#4: Natural products are safe and synthetic products are harmful.
Arsenic, asbestos, formaldehyde, radiation and tobacco occur naturally and are known carcinogens. The word “natural” on a food label or consumer product is meaningless. The government does not issue standard guidelines for the term, in contrast to “organic,” which can be displayed only by certain foods meeting strict government standards. Arm yourself with information. Read labels, consult EWG’s guides and resources, know what you’re buying and don’t assume everything that says “natural” is harmless.
#5: Chemicals that the body absorbs and retains for a long time are more dangerous than those that are quickly excreted or metabolized.
The hazard of a substance is determined not just by the degree of exposure but also how it interacts with the body. Sometimes a chemical that isn’t dangerous can metabolize into a compound that is carcinogenic. Nitrates and nitrites in food and water can metabolize during digestion into carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds. Other chemicals such as benzene, pesticides and heavy metals are excreted quickly from the body, but they are still carcinogenic. The chemicals that persist in the body can act as a constant source of exposure and may even pass from mother to child, which are additional concerns.
#6: The cancer risk you accumulate is irreversible.
Your ability to turn back the clock on cancer risk depends on the exposure. Certain harmful exposures, such as to radiation, damage cells so seriously that the body cannot recover fully. Other substances can accumulate in the body and act as a source of continuous exposure. However, damage from many environmental exposures can be partly reversed by eliminating or significantly reducing the exposure. The Surgeon General’s report on tobacco concluded that quitting smoking at any age reduces a smoker’s risk of cancer by up to 50 percent in just five to 10 years. That’s powerful evidence that it’s never too late to make healthy lifestyle changes.
#7: Mammograms cause breast cancer.
The risk associated with the very small amount of radiation emitted during a mammogram is minuscule for most patients. It’s equivalent to a few weeks of the natural background radiation you experience from the elements in the earth, cosmic radiation and even your own body. A small percentage of the carbon that makes up the body is the isotope carbon-14, which is unstable and emits radiation. Women who are pregnant should avoid mammograms and X-rays that their doctors don’t consider necessary. Radiation could harm the developing fetus. Consult your health care professional to determine if a mammogram or any other medical screening is appropriate.
#8: Cell phones, Wi-Fi, microwaves, power lines and airport X-ray machines will cause cancer
Cell phones, Wi-Fi, microwaves and power lines emit non-ionizing radiation, which is less energetic and doesn’t penetrate the body to the same degree as cancer-causing ionizing radiation such as X-rays, sunlight and the radiation from uranium. The World Health Organization considers cell phone radiation a possible carcinogen based on a suspected association between cell phone use and brain cancer. Holding the phone a few millimeters from your body can drastically reduce exposure. EWG recommends hands-free devices and texting. Although little or no evidence supports a conclusion that Wi-Fi signals, microwaves and power lines cause cancer, it’s a good idea to keep wireless routers a few feet from places where people spend long periods of time. Airport screening devices use either low-dose X-rays or non-ionizing radiation. It takes about 1,000 trips through an airport X-ray scanner to equal the radiation exposure from one medical chest X-ray.
#9: Artificial turf sports fields cause cancer.
Scientists have detected several carcinogens in ground-up tire rubber, also known as crumb rubber, used as infill and cushioning in artificial turf. Heavy metals, PCBs and other volatile compounds have shown up in some turf. Air measurements over turf, especially in indoor facilities, have found excessive amounts of certain volatile chemicals. Researchers do not know whether worrisome chemicals in turf migrate into the body through contact with skin or breathing. No data exists at this time to say that artificial turf causes cancer, but scientists are just beginning to explore the question. In the meantime, you should play on artificial turf in well-ventilated areas, avoid hand-to-mouth contact while playing and limit direct contact between turf and skin.
#10: Residential pesticides are safe.
Many of the pesticides suspected to cause cancer in farm workers are being sold for residential use. Some evidence exists that exposure to pesticides can increase the risk of cancer, even though people tend to apply pesticides less frequently and at lower doses around the home than would be done on farms. Children may be particularly susceptible to damage from pesticides. Scientific studies have shown that children exposed in the womb and in infancy to pesticides face increased risk of childhood cancers such as leukemia and brain tumors.
-
Groups Win New Regs From EPA For Storage Sites
Feb 17, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus
Environmental and public health groups have won a lawsuit that will require U.S. EPA to write new regulations governing the storage of hazardous waste at industrial sites.
In a consent decree signed off on by the groups and the federal government and filed yesterday in court, EPA will begin a rulemaking process to finalize spill prevention rules within 3 ½ years. The new rules will cover more than 350 chemicals and apply to tens of thousands of industrial facilities across the country, according to the groups.
The Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform, People Concerned About Chemical Safety and the Natural Resources Defense Council filed the lawsuit against the agency in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York last July. They alleged that EPA had failed to issue rules to prevent hazardous chemical spills from storage tanks as called for in the Clean Water Act, which became law more than 40 years ago (E&ENews PM, July 21, 2015).
Erik Olson, director of the health program at NRDC, said in a statement that "it's long past time for EPA to protect the health of residents near these industrial sites, and we urge the agency to adopt strong, protective standards to prevent future spills."
Richard Moore, co-coordinator of EJHA, called the settlement "a tremendous victory for at-risk communities across the nation, but millions of people -- who are disproportionately low-income and people of color -- have had their water polluted while EPA ignored its mandate to protect the public."
He added, "While the four-decade delay is troubling, at last our communities can look forward to EPA providing these protections."
In 2014, EJHA released a report finding that residents living near facilities at risk of dangerous chemical spills were more likely to be black or Latino and have lower home values and incomes than average Americans (E&ENews PM, May 1, 2014).
-
Walmart: The Awakening of an Environmental Giant
Feb 18, 2016 | The Huffington Post
By Fred Krupp
About 20 years ago, I got on a plane to Bentonville, Arkansas, home of Walmart. Buoyed by the success of EDF's pioneering partnership with McDonald's, which did away with the company's polystyrene packaging and reduced waste by 300 million pounds in the first decade, and by our continued success with other leading brands, I hoped that the world's largest retailer might become our next big corporate partner.
Big companies can leverage big changes.
But the visit flopped. The leaders I spoke with at the time wanted to focus on their core business, so we didn't get the partnership going for another 10 years. By 2005, however, a new generation of Walmart leaders had become convinced that sustainability should be a core business principle, right alongside low prices and great customer service. EDF helped awaken Walmart to the possibilities.
I invited Lee Scott, Walmart's CEO at the time, to join me on a climate study tour. It began in New Hampshire, with a trip to the summit of Mount Washington. For decades, scientists there had braved minus-50-degree temperatures to chip ice off gauges hourly to get good readings, 24/7, even in gale force winds and ferocious storms. As we ascended the mountain, the temperature dropped 50 degrees. At the top, safely indoors, we had a simple supper with the observatory's scientists and talked about how Walmart could become a force for environmental progress. I wasn't sure what Lee would decide, but out of that evening came his welcome commitment to lead on these issues.
Though it had taken some time to begin working with Walmart, we soon learned that the company generally moves quickly. To get things done, we had to be in the room. So we opened up our own office in Bentonville, which remains an effective base of operations to this day.
In the early days of the partnership, we were eager to demonstrate that big goals could drive big innovation, and big results. This was too rare a convergence of market power and environmental opportunity to approach timidly.
Walmart, to its credit, stepped up and set ambitious goals: to power its operations with 100 percent renewable energy, to create zero waste and to sell products that sustain people and the environment. EDF also convinced the company to publicly embrace an initial climate goal: to reduce 20 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions from its global supply chain by 2015.
True to EDF form, we stuck around after the public commitments. And we've been on the ground with Walmart for the past ten years, driving results through an extensive process of trial and error. We started out by looking at Walmart's retail operations, but soon recognized that the biggest opportunities were to be found in its vast network of suppliers.
Supply chain accounts for 90 percent of the company's total greenhouse gas impact. EDF helped the company realize that by taking simple steps, such as encouraging suppliers to make efficient use of raw materials, it could drive change on a grand scale. One example: optimizing fertilizer use on farms that grow the corn used in so many Walmart products. This idea proved to be contagious. Six major brands, including Coca-Cola, Smithfield Foods and Cargill have now committed to optimize fertilizer use on 20 million acres of U.S. farmland by 2020.
Walmart's purchasing and convening power creates a ripple effect across the retail sector. Three years ago, EDF helped Walmart create a first-of-its-kind chemicals policy that led to the phasing-out of ten chemicals of concern in over 10,000 home and personal care products sold by Walmart. The phase-out soon expanded to major manufacturers like Johnson & Johnson and Colgate-Palmolive, and even led to a collaboration with Target to encourage industry-wide adoption of safer products. This private sector leadership was critical in driving support for the strong chemical-safety reform legislation that recently passed the U.S. Senate and could reach the President's desk this year. Our work with Walmart is still gaining momentum. While we surpassed by 30 percent our goal of reducing 20 MMT of GHG from Walmart's supply chain, we see the potential for much greater reductions. And the partnership is just beginning to go global: from improving energy efficiency in supplier factories in China through our Climate Corps program, which trains graduate students to help companies mange energy use, to sustainably sourcing commodities from deforestation free zones.
Walmart is no stranger to controversy, and EDF's decision to enter into this long-term partnership has not gone unchallenged. But the scale and purchasing power of Walmart couldn't be ignored 10 years ago, and it can't be denied today. By working with Walmart we are driving a level of environmental progress that has surpassed our original expectations.
I am proud of the persistence and ambition that both EDF and Walmart have displayed over the past ten years, and I look forward to the even more ambitious goals that Walmart will set for the next ten. If history is any guide, the decade ahead will prove transformative.
-
After Flint, Dems Question State's Use Of CDC Funds
Feb 17, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee are raising questions about Michigan’s use of CDC money intended to monitor lead levels in young children in light of the water crisis in Flint.
In a letter to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Thomas Frieden, four Democrats asked why Michigan’s Department of Health and Human Services — which received a CDC grant to track lead levels in children under 6 — didn’t respond more quickly to the water problems in Flint.
“We seek CDC’s assistance to better understand how the State of Michigan used its three-year funding from the CDC and why Michigan officials failed to detect and respond to rising lead blood levels in children after the city of Flint switched the city’s water supply to the Flint River,” wrote Democratic Reps. Frank Pallone Jr. (N.J.), Gene Green (Texas), Diana DeGette (Colo.) and Paul Tonko (N.Y.).
The group also asks whether the agency needs more funding for its Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program.
The program provides grants to 29 states, the District of Columbia and five cities for lead poisoning prevention and oversight work. The program received $17 million in 2016, down nearly half from what lawmakers appropriated in 2011.
“We seek to understand whether our federal investments in lead poisoning prevention and public health surveillance are up to the task of addressing this public health challenge and whether additional resources are merited,” the letter reads.
Water quality around the U.S. has come under scrutiny since lead levels in Flint water surged after city officials switched the drinking water supply, causing health problems and outrage in the city and nationwide.
The crisis has lead to criticism of how federal and state environmental and health regulators failed Flint. Democratic presidential hopefuls Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton will hold a debate in the city shortly before the Michigan primary.
-
EPA Agrees To Deadline For Spill Prevention Rules
Feb 17, 2016 | InsideEPA
EPA has reached a legal settlement with environmentalists that commits the agency to proposing within 18 months long-sought regulations to prevent and contain chemical spills from above-ground tanks at industrial facilities, such as the massive 2014 spill of a hazardous substance that contaminated drinking water in West Virginia.
The Feb. 16 consent decree filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York calls for EPA to finalize spill prevention rules within three and half years, and to meet interim deadlines for proposing the rule and collecting information to support the effort. The agency could postpone the initial 18 month deadline for a proposal by up to 10 months to collect more information on how to craft the rule, the settlement says.
Groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform, sued EPA July 21 seeking a court order for EPA to issue Clean Water Act (CWA) rules to prevent and contain discharges of hazardous substances from non-transportation-related facilities.
Advocates cited the massive spill of more than 5,000 gallons of 4-methylcyclohexane methanol from an above-ground storage tank into the Elk River, contamination that left 300,000 people without drinking water for a week.
In a statement announcing the settlement, NRDC says the new procedures and requirements for preventing discharges of hazardous substances from on-shore facilities will cover 350 chemicals and apply to tens of thousands of facilities nationwide. “There are thousands of hazardous substance spills each year from industrial facilities that are not subject to any hazardous substance spill prevention rules,” the statement says. “Uniform federal safeguards for above-ground storage tanks and secondary containment will better protect not only public drinking water systems, but also the groundwater for households using private wells,” according to NRDC.
In the lawsuit, advocates argued that CWA section 311(j)(1) directs the executive branch to issue regulations "as soon as practicable after October 17, 1972" to prevent and contain discharges of oil and hazardous substances from onshore facilities. In 1973, the president delegated that responsibility to EPA, the suit says.
The groups argued EPA has fulfilled only half of Congress' mandate under section 311(j)(1)(C), issuing spill prevention and containment regulations for oil spills from non-transportation-related onshore facilities, but not for hazardous substance spills. “While the four decade delay is troubling, at last our communities can look forward to EPA providing these protections,” the advocates say in the statement.
-
California Back In The Saddle On Tackling Oil And Gas Pollution
Feb 17, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tim O'Connor
After nearly ten months of waiting, California regulators at the state’s Air Resources Board stepped up this month in a big way to reduce emissions of the powerful greenhouse gas methane from the state’s oil and gas industry.
For a state that prides itself on leading the charge to fight climate change, it was odd to see California had been lagging behind others when it came to addressing methane pollution. After all, methane is such a powerful short-term climate forcer that it’s responsible for a quarter of the warming we feel today. Now, by introducing long-awaited draft rules tackling the problem, the golden state has put itself back in the game.
A rule worthy of praise – with still room for improvement
Several provisions in the draft rule represent some of the strongest standards in the nation and have the potential to seriously advance the conversation on methane controls. Among them, the new rule proposes to cover both new and existing sources in oil and gas fields – something that should draw the federal government’s attention as it contemplates whether to include both types of categories in its proposed national rules. The rule also uses better science than prior proposals – evaluating methane’s impact based on its 20-year impact rather than a longer 100-year value.
Additionally, California’s new regulations would require stringent quarterly inspection of leak-prone equipment instead of a more loose annual inspection requirement – a key improvement to the rule from prior drafts – though the ability for operators to step-down the inspection requirements into an annual schedule still needs to be rescinded.
A surprise improvement to several provisions is a move away from flaring of wasted gas – a decision that will result in the removal of existing gas combustion devices in places like California’s central valley, an air basin that routinely ranks as one of the nation’s most polluted. By requiring oil and gas operators with waste gas to either put the gas into closed vapor recovery systems or install extremely low NOx units, the rule will deliver a double benefit by cutting vented methane that hurts the climate while also cutting smog-forming gases that hurt public health.
And, a not-so-surprise addition to the rule around natural gas storage also emerged, a direct response to the massive release of gas from Aliso Canyon. While this portion of the rule will certainly be fleshed out in the coming weeks and months, new provisions over leak detection, repair and mitigation were introduced for the first time – somewhat matching the work of the California Department of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) and charting a robust regulatory response to the multi-month Southern California disaster.
Methane is a national problem and it needs a national solution
As the second largest consumer of natural gas in the U.S., it’s critical that California adopt rigorous methane reduction standards within its own borders. However, as evidence mounts about the true scale of methane leaks across our country, it has become clear that action by California alone is not enough: methane is a national problem and it needs a national solution.
Along with a handful of other states, including Colorado and Pennsylvania, California will now join the charge in holding the oil and gas industry accountable for its emissions of this potent greenhouse gas, and set an example for the federal government to do the same. Earlier this year, EPA released a long-awaited historic proposal for new rules to cut methane emissions from the nation’s oil and gas sector. However, those less comprehensive rules now stand in contrast to the more stringent efforts of bold states like California.
The largest discrepancy between the federal rules and the new standards proposed by California is the application of oversight on both new and existing facilities. The EPA rules propose to regulate emissions from future operations, but don’t include the thousands of existing production sites, processing plants, pipelines and storage facilities across the country that are the source of millions of tons of methane emissions each year. While leaks from these existing sources are far less extreme that the gusher at Aliso Canyon, they add up to the same climate impact over the next 20 years as the annual emissions from 160 coal plants.
Getting the rules across the finish line
Stronger federal rules could reduce leaks from the intentional venting that is common practice, as well as the accidental leaks that are the result of poorly maintained equipment and below-standard field performance.
In California, the Aliso Canyon disaster has made an irrefutable case for more robust regulations to limit methane pollution from both current and future oil and gas sites, and California appears to be rising to the challenge. The state’s proposed rules show a commitment to increased oversight and more rigorous maintenance requirements of oil and gas facilities and we look forward to seeing the state finalize the strongest possible version of those rules.
Now it’s time for the federal government to also take a look at its proposed rules and ensure the final product is as strong and comprehensive as it can be.
-
Oklahoma Announces Plan for Wastewater Injection Cutbacks
Feb 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Stinson
In a continuing effort to address increased earthquake activity, Oklahoma's energy and gas regulators unveiled what they called the “largest volume reduction plan yet” for underground wastewater disposal from oil and gas activities in the western part of the state.
Announced Feb. 16 by the Oil and Gas Conservation Division of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the cutback in wastewater disposal for the area will be more than half a million barrels a day, or about 40 percent, officials said.
All of the division's plans are voluntary with the exception of directives regarding plug-back and well depth in 2015, OCC spokesman Matt Skinner told Bloomberg BNA in a Feb. 17 e-mail.
Covering 5,281 square miles and 245 disposal wells injecting wastewater into the Arbuckle formation, the plan is the latest effort by the state as it continues to target saltwater disposal wells in that geologic formation. In January alone, the state ordered the reduction of saltwater disposal volumes in areas of concern on three separate occasions (09 DEN A-9, 1/14/16); (03 DEN A-4, 1/6/16).
The announcement of the plan follows a 5.1 magnitude earthquake on Feb. 13, the third-strongest quake recorded in the state.
Need for Regional Response
Tim Baker, director of the Oil and Gas Conservation Division, said there was a need for an expanded, regional response.
“The wells covered in this plan include those along the western area of the plan's boundaries where there has not yet been major earthquake activity,” Baker said in an advisory issued by the commission.
“This plan is aimed not only at taking further action in response to past activity but also to get out ahead of it and hopefully prevent new areas from being involved,” Baker said.
The Oil and Gas Conservation Division said that researchers “largely agree that wastewater injection into the Arbuckle formation poses the largest potential risk for earthquakes in Oklahoma.” Most of the wastewater injected into disposal wells comes from producing wells, not from hydraulic fracturing, the division said.
Concerns Over Compliance
While hailing the plan as a “step in the right direction,” Oklahoma Sierra Club Director Johnson Bridgwater told Bloomberg BNA the proof would be in the behavior of those whom the plan is intended to guide.
“It is still just a step,” Bridgwater said by e-mail Feb. 17. “We also will wait to see how the companies involved react, if they fully comply.”
Skinner, the OCC spokesman, said companies are well aware of the potential legal consequences if they do not adhere to the plan.
“The operators know that if they do not comply with the plan, the [OCC] Oil and Gas Division will take them to commission court to have their application changed to match the given plan,” Skinner said in a Feb. 17 e-mail, noting that such challenges had surfaced on two occasions.
“In both cases, the operators eventually complied with no court action necessary,” Skinner said. “Under the present system, mandatory compliance can only be achieved through time-consuming court action and an order from the commissioners.”
Previous Agreement by Operator
A date with court action was averted in January following an agreement between the OCC and Sandridge Energy, one of Oklahoma's largest energy companies. Sandridge agreed to the removal of seven wells from disposal operations and cuts in saltwater disposal volumes by 40 percent in areas of seismic activity (19 DEN A-10, 1/29/16).
Prior to that agreement, the agency had been on the verge of filing a case to force compliance with two plans issued in December, Baker said in January.
Bridgwater said he found the oil and gas regulators piecemeal approach toward disposal wells “puzzling,” suggesting that financial considerations explained a measure that didn't extend to the whole state.
“Obviously, the fact that the [Oklahoma] Corporation Commission is calling for reductions means they too see the clear link between earthquakes and injection operations—so why they would choose to let the crisis continue with partial actions covering partial geographic areas is baffling,” Bridgwater said. “We are fairly certain money lies at the heart of that answer.”
The issue of money and the approach to cuts in disposal well volumes surfaced in comments following the Sierra Club's filing on Feb. 16 in federal court of a lawsuit against three Oklahoma oil and gas companies alleging that earthquakes induced by the injection of wastewater from hydraulic fracturing are a danger (31 DEN A-17, 2/17/16)
State Finances Impacted by Oil Prices
Finances are an ongoing area of concern for Oklahoma. The state is seeking new revenue streams following a December 2015 declaration of a “revenue failure” for fiscal year 2016. State officials who made the declaration pointed to falling tax revenue attributed to low oil prices.
Declared by Oklahoma's Office of Management and Enterprise Services, a “revenue failure” occurs when collection to the general revenue fund falls below 95 percent of the certified estimate. As a result of the declaration, monthly general revenue allocations to state agencies will be cut 3 percent for the next six months to make up for a projected $157 million shortfall.
-
Heller Breaks With McConnell On SCOTUS Pick
Feb 17, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Burgess Everett
Nevada GOP Sen. Dean Heller is breaking sharply with his party's strategy on a Supreme Court nominee, calling on President Barack Obama to put forward a consensus candidate to replace Antonin Scalia while insisting that Nevadans should have a voice in the process.
The statement from the purple-state senator is the most direct rebuttal to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's plans to completely block a Supreme Court nominee. Though Heller admits that a nominee is unlikely to be confirmed this year, he encouraged Obama today "to use this opportunity to put the will of the people ahead of advancing a liberal agenda on the nation’s highest court."
“The chances of approving a new nominee are slim, but Nevadans should have a voice in the process," Heller said.
Heller also nodded to Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval, who many in Washington believe wants a judicial appointment after his term is over.
"Should [Obama] decide to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, who knows, maybe it’ll be a Nevadan," Heller said.
The Nevada senator won reelection in 2012 even as Obama carried the state, a ticket-splitting triumph over state Democrats and Minority Leader Harry Reid, who dumped millions on him in attack ads. Although Heller's not up for reelection this cycle, his move suggests he's already keeping his eyes on his 2018 reelection campaign.
-
Air Standards Set for Los Angeles Area Near Gas Leak
Feb 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California state and local agencies released criteria late Feb. 16 for determining when emissions from Southern California Gas Co.'s underground natural gas storage field near Los Angeles no longer affect air quality in nearby neighborhoods.
The criteria, which set thresholds for methane and other contaminants, are based on typical levels that predate the Oct. 23 discovery of the massive gas leak at the facility, which is now in the final stages of being permanently capped.
At a Feb. 16 news conference at the SoCalGas Co. office in Chatsworth, U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said lessons learned from the leak will inform a multi-agency effort by the federal government to address the nation's aging energy infrastructure.
Issues that have come to light in Aliso Canyon are obviously of huge local concern, but underscore the problems with the nation's aging energy storage infrastructure, Moniz said following a tour of the facility. This incident identifies a problem we have to study more generally across the country, he said.
“Frankly, gas storage fields need a fresh look in terms of the regulatory requirements,” Moniz said.
Some ideas for requirements are already emerging in California, like monitoring and testing standards, he said.
The federal government is looking at improving the energy infrastructure to address climate issues as well as safety, Moniz said. President Barack Obama's climate plan wants to dramatically reduce emissions across the entire energy system, from production to distribution, he said.
‘More Must Be Done.'
Earlier in the day, Moniz and Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Administrator Marie Therese Dominguez met with Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), Rep. Steve Knight (R-Calif.), State Sen. Fran Pavley (D), Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and other state and local officials.
Garcetti said the meetings with Moniz and others “were productive.”
“The leak has been temporarily stopped, but more must be done,” Garcetti said. The damage that has been done must be addressed and public safety ensured, he said.
Sherman, a resident of the Porter Ranch community downwind of the gas field, said tough federal regulation of gas storage fields is needed. Current rules require only rudimentary testing, he said.
“Also, the costs of this leak must not be passed on to ratepayers,” Sherman said.
The SoCalGas facility, the fifth largest natural gas storage field in the nation, serves the entire Los Angeles basin.
On Feb. 11, the utility said it had temporarily stopped the flow of the leak from a damaged well (29 DEN A-13, 2/12/16).
A permanent cap should be in place within days, but state regulators but must confirm the leak has stopped before the more than 6,500 residents SoCalGas has temporarily relocated can return to their homes.
As of Feb. 13, an estimated 5.4 billion cubic feet of natural gas had escaped from the damaged well, according to the California Air Resources Board.
Holes in Safety Net
The standards CARB and South Coast Air Quality Management District announced Feb. 16 set thresholds for methane, mercaptans, benzene and hydrogen sulfide for Porter Ranch and other surrounding areas that must be met over a period of consecutive days before residents will be allowed to return to their homes.
“This will help assure residents that the massive leak from the Aliso Canyon gas storage facility is no longer affecting air quality in their community,” Barry Wallerstein, executive officer of the South Coast air district, said in a written statement.
The Aliso Canyon leak has revealed gaping holes in the U.S. regulatory safety net, Anna Geismar of the Environmental Defense Fund said in a Feb. 17 written statement.
“Nationwide, there are approximately 400 underground methane storage areas that are subject to little to no federal regulations,” she said. It's national problem that needs a national coordinated solution, and the Department of Energy is well positioned to lead a multi-agency review of gas storage facilities to evaluate what is needed from an operations and regulation standpoint, Geismar said.
-
EPA Proposes 12 Nonattainment Areas for Sulfur Standards
Feb 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency will propose designating 12 areas in eight states as not achieving 2010 federal air quality standards for sulfur dioxide.
The EPA's proposal would designate Alton township and Williamson County in Illinois; Jefferson County and Posey County in Indiana; parts of Desoto Parish in Louisiana; Anne Arundel and Baltimore counties in Maryland; St. Clair County in Michigan; Franklin County in Missouri; Muskogee County in Oklahoma; and Freestone-Anderson counties, Rusk-Greg-Panola counties and Titus County in Texas to the list of areas not meeting the national ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide, according to letters to states released Feb. 17.
The Sierra Club, which had sued the EPA over delays in the designation process, praised the EPA's proposal, but staff attorney Zach Fabish told Bloomberg BNA that the agency should take a second look at other areas with elevated sulfur dioxide concentrations, including portions of Indiana and Illinois.
“While we think the EPA got a number of areas right … there are a number of other areas that our analysis indicates EPA should be taking another look,” Fabish said.
The EPA said it intends to complete the proposed designations by July 2. Once the nonattainment designations are finalized, the states will be required to submit plans to the EPA detailing the steps they will take to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, which predominantly comes from coal and oil combustion, and eventually come into compliance with the federal standards.
The EPA in 2013 designated 29 areas in 16 states as being in nonattainment with the 2010 primary, one-hour national ambient air quality standard for sulfur dioxide of 75 parts per billion.
Limits of Air Monitoring
The agency delayed action on the rest of the country due to inadequate air monitoring. The agency, under a court-approved consent decree with the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, agreed to take a phased approach to making attainment designations for the rest of the country (Sierra Club v. McCarthy, N.D. Cal., No. 13-cv-3953, consent decree approved 3/2/15).
The latest round of proposed designations cover areas that show violations based on three years of monitoring data or have stationary sources that emitted more than 16,000 tons of sulfur dioxide in 2012 or emitted more than 2,600 tons of sulfur dioxide and had an average emissions rate above 0.45 pounds of sulfur dioxide per 1 million British thermal units of heat input in 2012. The EPA sent states letters in 2015 advising them of areas that could be designated as nonattainment of the 2010 sulfur dioxide standards (51 DEN A-3, 3/17/15).
The EPA will address additional nonattainment area designations further reviews scheduled for 2017 and 2020.
EPA Modeling Work Praised
While the Sierra Club believes the EPA should designate additional areas as not meeting the sulfur dioxide standards, Fabish praised the agency's use of computer modeling for the current crop of proposed nonattainment designations.
From 1,500 sulfur dioxide monitors in the 1980s, the number of monitors has fallen to approximately 500 currently, Fabish said. That could impair the EPA's ability to determine which areas are exposed to elevated sulfur dioxide concentrations without the additional computer modeling, which the agency has done in this instance, he said.
“The number of monitors out there shrunk,” Fabish said. “It was inadequate 30 years ago. It's definitely inadequate now.”
The EPA will accept comments on the proposed nonattainment designations for 30 days after they are published in the Federal Register. Comment can be made at http://www.regulations.gov and should reference Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464.
-
EPA Downgrades Several States' SO2 NAAQS Attainment Designations
Feb 18, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is proposing to downgrade several states' designations for attaining the agency's 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), in many cases rejecting state suggestions to designate their areas as meeting the standard and instead given the areas a “nonattainment” or “unclassifiable” status.
States are eager to avoid nonattainment designations, which require them to develop state implementation plans showing the strict SO2 air pollution measures they will impose to comply with the NAAQS. Areas in nonattainment face tougher emissions control mandates, including stricter air permit conditions for industrial facilities.
EPA's SO2 designations are years behind schedule, with the agency having designated only a small portion of the country so far, prompting environmental groups and others to sue the agency seeking designation of all areas. Under a settlement with environmentalists, EPA has until the end of 2020 to complete designations, allowing states time to set up a new air quality monitoring network needed to measure compliance with the standard.
States, meanwhile, are still challenging the schedule agreed with environmental groups as unlawfully slow, seeking to force EPA to issue either attainment designations or “unclassifiable” designations, which also avoid the requirement to install pollution controls, pending future re-designation. The state's challenge, in Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council v. Regina McCarthy, is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
In recent letters to states, EPA issues its response to the states' recommendations for which areas should be classed as attaining the 2010 one-hour SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), in another round of area designations being conducted on the court-mandated schedule under the consent decree with environmentalists.
Under the settlement agreement schedule, EPA must finalize designation of the areas in question by July 2. These are areas that either have newly monitored violations of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS since the first wave of designations, or which contain stationary sources that had not been announced as of March 2, 2015, for retirement and that according to the EPA’s Air Markets Database emitted in 2012 either more than 16,000 tons of SO2 or more than 2,600 tons of SO2 with an annual average emission rate of at least 0.45 pounds of SO2 per one million British thermal units.
Downgraded Designations
In the new list of proposed nonattainment designations released Feb. 17, EPA has in several instances downgraded states' recommended attainment status for areas within their jurisdiction.
In one example, EPA has downgraded the status of Marion, IL, from the the state's recommended designation of attainment to nonattainment. EPA does the same for Jefferson County and Posey County, IN, and De Soto Parish, LA. In many areas, EPA has downgraded states' recommended “attainment” designations to “unclassifiable.”
In total, the agency is designating 31 areas in 24 states unclassifiable/attainment, 23 as just “unclassifiable,” and 12 as “nonattainment.” Areas labeled “unclassifiable/attainment” are treated as in “attainment,” EPA says.
This compares to states' recommendations of 55 areas as either “attainment” or “unclassifiable/attainment,” three areas in attainment, and eight as just “unclassifiable.” Areas labeled “unclassifiable/attainment” lack the data supporting attainment designations, but are nonetheless assumed to meet the SO2 standard.
Environmentalists issued a mixed response to the agency's designations. Sierra Club in Feb. 17 statements welcomed the agency's designations of areas in Maryland and Missouri as nonattainment, stressing the need for continued clean-up of emissions from coal-fired power plants.
However, the group in a third statement also said EPA had “overlooked major potential hotbeds of [SO2] pollution in Illinois when it failed to designate several areas 'non-attainment' despite detailed modeling data that show added protection is needed to protect communities in these areas.” The areas in question are Massac, Jasper and Williamson Counties in southern Illinois. EPA will issue a Federal Register notice in the near future which will open a 30-day public comment period on the designations, the agency says.
-
Green Group Threatens Suit Over Ozone Rule Implementation
Feb 17, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
The Center for Biological Diversity is warning of a possible lawsuit over U.S. EPA's plans to give Washington, D.C., and 18 other areas around the county more time to meet the 2008 standard for ground-level ozone.
"The Clean Air Act saves lives, protects wildlife and clears up smoggy skies, but only when polluters are forced to clean up their act," Jonathan Evans, environmental health legal director for the Arizona-based group, said in a news release announcing the "notice of intent to sue letter" sent last week to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. While the group would prefer to avoid litigation, the letter said that "we will have to file a complaint" if the agency does not come into compliance within 60 days.
In issuing the 2008 ambient air quality standard for ozone of 75 parts per billion, EPA regulators originally gave states an attainment deadline of last July. But in an August proposed rule, the agency acknowledged that 19 areas had failed to meet that timetable (Greenwire, Aug. 26, 2015).
In its proposal, which has not been made final, EPA said it would give eight of those areas -- including the District of Columbia, Cleveland and Houston metro regions -- a one-year extension. The remaining 11 would be downgraded from "marginal nonattainment" to "moderate nonattainment," a step that carried more pollution cleanup requirements.
Among the areas in the latter category are San Diego County in California, Atlanta and the New York City metro area. Under the proposal, they would have to meet the 2008 standard by July 2018. The comments since received from state and business groups have been largely supportive, although Connecticut's air management chief objected last September that EPA is failing to address the "root cause" of that state's nonattainment problem: ozone wafting in from other states.
In a separate letter, an attorney for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards Implementation Coalition, which represents trade groups and companies affected by ozone regulations, noted that EPA finished up implementation rules for the 2008 benchmark only last March. Given that EPA was then proposing to revise the ozone standard -- a proposal that has since been made final -- "states face overlapping and complex implementation challenges," wrote the attorney, Joseph Stanko.
"For these reasons," Stanko added, "we believe that states should be given as much time as available to implement the 2008 NAAQS."
-
EPA Didn't Enforce Flint Drinking Water Violations: CRS
Feb 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The Environmental Protection Agency did not use its authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act to enforce violations against the public water utility in Flint, Mich., despite being aware of the elevated lead levels in the city's tap water, according to a Congressional Research Service report.
Released Feb. 17, the report said Section 1414 of the Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes the EPA to notify the state and the public water system when it learns of a drinking water violation, and to allow the water utility to come into compliance. But if after 30 days the violation continues, and the state hasn't taken any action, then the EPA “must” take enforcement action against the public utility, the report, Lead in Flint, Michigan's Drinking Water: Federal Regulatory Role, said.
States have first-line enforcement responsibilities to compel public water systems to comply with drinking water regulations, the report said.
The CRS report said the EPA didn't use its emergency powers under Section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act until Jan. 26 when water contamination in Flint had become a full blown public health crisis.
The emergency powers provision authorizes EPA to take actions to protect human health when a drinking water contaminant “may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons” when a state and local authorities haven't acted.
EPA Took Too Long to Respond
The EPA issued its emergency order nine months after becoming aware that lead levels in the city's tap water had risen to dangerous levels, a result of the decision by the state-appointed emergency manager to switch its water supply to nearby Flint River without ensuring that erosion controls were in place. The order came four months after a Hurley Medical Center study found elevated lead levels in blood samples taken from six-year-old children in Flint.
The House in a near-unanimous vote approved H.R. 4470, which would require public water utilities to notify customers, the state and the EPA if it exceeds the lead action level, and require the EPA to notify the public if the system or state has not done so within 24 hours after the agency receives that notification. The bill also would require the EPA to develop a strategic plan for improving information sharing and public communication (28 DEN A-2, 2/11/16).
The CRS identified regulatory implementation, monitoring protocols, compliance, oversight issues and the lead regulation itself as contributing factors in the failure to effectively prevent, identify and respond to high lead levels in Flint's drinking water.
Brent Fewell, attorney and founder of the Earth & Water Group, a legal and strategic advisory firm, told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 17 that the EPA could have used its emergency powers earlier than it did (20 DEN A-1, 2/1/16).
Fewell said the EPA's response was delayed in part because it didn't find out from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality until April 2015 that the city wasn't using corrosion controls.
“Had EPA taken immediate emergency action at that point, it still would have taken several more months for the treatment to stop or slow the leaching,” said Fewell, who served as the EPA deputy assistant administrator for water under President George W. Bush.
Meanwhile, several Democrats including the ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent a letter to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention asking whether more resources are needed to accurately detect whether children are ingesting dangerous levels of lead.
The agency's Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program provides funding to 29 states, including Michigan, the District of Columbia, and five cities for lead poisoning prevention and surveillance activities, which help with identifying high risk areas and implementing interventions as needed. Program funding has been cut nearly in half since fiscal year 2011 when it received about $30 million.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested