Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 3/31/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Advises Firms to Improve Quality of Read-Across for REACH
Mar 31, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Catherine Cooney
Chemical manufacturers must develop more thorough, scientifically detailed arguments when writing read-across dossiers for upcoming REACH requirements, says the American Chemistry Council (ACC). -
(ACC Mentioned) Campbell to Remove BPA Chemical From its Cans by Mid
Mar 31, 2016 | State of the State Ks
By Glen Mclaughlin
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in the USA says BPA can leach into food from the epoxy resins used in cans, as well as food storage containers and water bottles. -
NGOs Urge Food Retailers to Phase Out BPA
Mar 31, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Six NGOs are calling on food retailers to eliminate bisphenol A (BPA) from all food packaging, and label all chemicals used in can liners, after testing almost 200 food can linings for the chemical. -
'Not Too Early' to Prepare for Reformed TSCA
Mar 31, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
It is not too early for companies and trade groups to start preparing their strategies under a reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), an expert panel told a chemical conference last week. And some companies, delegates heard, have already begun ramping up resources to take on expected challenges – and identifying strategies for taking advantage of new opportunities. -
Johnson & Johnson Has a Baby Powder Problem
Mar 31, 2016 | Bloomberg
By Susan Berfield, Jef Feeley, and Margaret Cronin Fisk
Jacqueline Fox worked in restaurant kitchens and school cafeterias, cleaned people’s houses, watched their kids, raised a son, and took in two foster children. She was careful about her appearance and liked to tend the garden in front of her home in Birmingham, Alabama. She had been treated for high blood pressure, arthritis, and diabetes, but, at 59, she was feeling pretty good. -
NGO Warns Against Use of Antimicrobial Hospital Furnishings
Mar 31, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
Hospitals buying furniture containing antimicrobials to reduce the risk of infections are following “unverified assumptions” about its efficacy, a report from NGO Health Care Without Harm (HCWH) has warned. -
OMB Launches Review of EPA's Formaldehyde Rule
Mar 31, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The White House Office of Management and Budget is weighing in on a final rule that would set long-delayed limits on formaldehyde emissions from wood products. -
Washington State Finds Alternative BFRs in Fish
Mar 31, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Washington State's Ecology Department has identified “alternative” brominated flame retardants in 89% of freshwater fish, sampled from rivers and lakes across the state. -
Apple Reaches Conflict Minerals ‘Milestone’
Mar 31, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Apple’s entire supply chain is now being audited for the use of “conflict minerals”, according to a company report. -
Levi’s Develops ‘Preferred Substances List’ for Suppliers
Mar 31, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Clothing company Levi Strauss is developing a list of ‘preferred substances’ – those safer for the environment and human health – for its suppliers. -
Echa Round-Up
Mar 31, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Echa has announced plans to send draft decisions on 32 substances to registrants, in the last week of April. They are taken from 48 evaluations carried out by member states in 2015. -
No Election-Year Compromise in Sight on Pa. Natural Gas Tax
Mar 31, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D) appears headed toward another round of conflict with the state Legislature over how to tax and regulate the natural gas industry. -
The Atlantic Isn’t Enough: It’s Time to End All New Offshore Drilling
Mar 31, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Miyoko Sakashita
There were celebrations this month with word that the Obama administration won’t be offering new offshore oil and gas leases off the Atlantic Coast. -
Former EPA Chiefs Defend Rule in Court Brief
Mar 31, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
Two former Republican-appointed U.S. EPA administrators are urging federal judges to uphold an Obama administration climate rule that's come under siege in court. -
3 Ways Low-Income Americans Can Benefit from the Clean Power Plan – If States do the Right Thing
Mar 31, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Diane Regas
When the price of goods and services jumps, it hurts low-income Americans – people who operate with the least in savings and the thinnest of margins – the most. -
Revised Monitoring Regs Take Effect in April
Mar 31, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Updated U.S. EPA air pollution monitoring regulations will take effect late next month, more than a year and a half after the agency initially rolled them out.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Advises Firms to Improve Quality of Read-Across for REACH
Mar 31, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Catherine Cooney
Chemical manufacturers must develop more thorough, scientifically detailed arguments when writing read-across dossiers for upcoming REACH requirements, says the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
Speaking last week at the GlobalChem conference in Washington, DC, ACC senior toxicologist Rick Becker said manufacturers that provided similarity arguments to the EPA in 2000 should reconsider how they set out read-across arguments in REACH registration dossiers.
Recent technology, such as toxicological genomics, and data streams, such as EPA’s high-throughput screening data, are now available and industry must consult these resources and include all relevant information, he said.
“We have new tools … to understand how a chemical acts and we can use that information to make a better science argument for read-across that will give us greater confidence in using that information, without then having to do the animal testing,” Mr Becker said.
Read-across was a key component of the EPA’s high production volume challenge programme that began in 2000, Mr Becker said. At that time, the agency allowed for groupings across chemical structures with less advanced justification. But “now that we have learned more about chemistry, biology and toxicology, I think the expectation is that industry will have to do a better job of demonstrating similarity for read-across,” he said.
Given the large number of substances that will have to be registered, under the third REACH deadline in 2018, it is probably not possible for industry to do all of the animal testing that would be needed to fill the data gaps, said Mr Becker. But “as long as we can establish enough confidence using this information, we see no reason why we shouldn’t use this approach.”
Industry should use the most recent analytical tools and data as part of any product stewardship effort, Mr Becker added. “We also have to challenge ourselves, from the standpoint of product stewardship. We have to rely on that information as an industry to make good decisions about product safety as well.”
Professor Terry Schultz, of the University of Tennessee, said industry has analysed a series of case studies of read-across applications for REACH, but the analysis didn’t provide clear patterns or illustrate why REACH regulators are accepting one set of chemicals for read-across and rejecting another.
It’s still difficult to know exactly what the regulators are looking for in a read-across REACH dossier, he said.
Last year Echa launched a read-across assessment framework (RAAF) to help experts evaluate consistently human health data for read-across and companies compiling REACH registration dossiers see the aspects of justifications that Echa considers to be crucial.
Later this year, it will be supplemented with information on mixtures and substances of unknown or variable composition (UVCBs).
https://chemicalwatch.com/46024/acc-advises-firms-to-improve-quality-of-read-across-for-reach
-
(ACC Mentioned) Campbell to Remove BPA Chemical From its Cans by Mid
Mar 31, 2016 | State of the State Ks
By Glen Mclaughlin
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in the USA says BPA can leach into food from the epoxy resins used in cans, as well as food storage containers and water bottles. According to the American Chemistry Council, the average American is exposed to 2.4 micrograms of BPA per day - far less than levels determined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to be safe. Environmental Defence counters that hundreds of studies have linked BPA to breast and prostate cancer, infertility, obesity, asthma and infertility. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it's unknown what effect BPA at low environmental exposures has on human health. Not only Campbell, this wave of abandoning BPA in their products has also hit other manufacturers like the producers of baby bottles. Nevertheless, the company, which is based in Camden, New Jersey, started studying in 2012 the different alternatives available for BPA. In most instances, Campbell is trying to replace BPA with acrylic and polyester options. Del Monte Foods, one of the nation's largest producers, distributors and marketers of premium quality, branded food products, announced plans for conversion to non-BPA packaging and an increase in non-GMO product offerings. Campbell's, in a company statement, said that part of what has delayed its transition to BPA-free cans for so long is the cost involved. Thus, acting on the feedback of its customers and as commitment to transparency, the company's cans are now lined with acrylic or polyester, which has been determined to be not only safe and approved by regulators but also cost effective and viable. "You don't have to buy everything in cans as much as you used to", she says. The conversion to non-BPA packaging and non-GMO ingredients mark the latest developments in Del Monte's Quality Journey, a multidimensional initiative encompassing product and packaging innovation, strategic partnerships, sustainability programs and improved farming practices. Del Monte has also made significant progress in offering non-GMO products. Research has indicated that BPA can seep into food and holds a possible risk of adverse health effects for those who consume the products. BPA is a synthetic estrogen and industrial compound often used in polycarbonate plastics to assist with hardening and keeps food from touching metal surfaces. "Canada's current regulatory system for BPA is one of the most stringent in the world".
http://stateofthestateks.com/2016/03/31/campbell-to-remove-bpa-chemical-from-its-cans-by-mid/
-
NGOs Urge Food Retailers to Phase Out BPA
Mar 31, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Six NGOs are calling on food retailers to eliminate bisphenol A (BPA) from all food packaging, and label all chemicals used in can liners, after testing almost 200 food can linings for the chemical.
In a report released yesterday, NGOs Breast Cancer Fund, Campaign for Healthier Solutions, Clean Production Action, Ecology Center, Environmental Defence, and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families say two out of three cans they tested have BPA in the lining.
Cans were purchased from major national food firms, including Campbell’s, Target, Walmart, Del Monte, General Mills and Kroger.
The NGOs say BPA is an endocrine disrupting chemical, and there is evidence it may contribute to a “host of harmful health effects including breast and prostate cancer, infertility, type-2 diabetes, obesity, asthma and attention deficit disorder”.
“Other studies have demonstrated the capacity of BPA to migrate into food and then into people, raising concerns about exposures to low, but biologically relevant, levels of BPA,” they say.
BPA has received significant attention recently from US state authorities and EU member states, with some adopting regulatory measures and others pushing for them.
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha), for example, has issued aproposed emergency regulation under Proposition 65, regarding exposure to BPA from canned and bottled foods and beverages.
In the EU, meanwhile, the French REACH competent authority plans to submit a proposal to Echa that BPA should be classified as an SVHC, on the grounds that it is an endocrine disruptor and carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic (CMR). Dutch national authorities have also been pushing for tougher EU-wide controls on the substance.
However, the US FDA concluded in 2014 that BPA is safe in the “current approved uses in food container and packaging”, while the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa), last year, concluded that current exposure levels pose no risk to human health.
The report calls on the US Congress to adopt “comprehensive legislation” to reform the FDA's “fatally flawed system” for reviewing and approving the safety of packaging material.
The NGOs say the use of BPA in food packaging was approved by the FDA under the petition-and-review process in the early 1960s, based on “limited data and the science at the time”.
“Substances in food and beverage packaging approved under this old process, using now-outdated science, are not subject to regular reevaluation, despite significant advances in food and chemical safety,” they say.
Dr Leon Bruner, chief science officer at the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), said: “The FDA had not found any information to prompt a revision of its safety assessment of BPA in food packaging. GMA agrees with FDA that there is no need for consumers to change their purchasing or consumption patterns."
The linings, he said, are of critical importance for consumer safety because they prevent interactions between the metal can and its food contents, over time, that eventually lead to corrosion and contamination of the food with dissolved metals and microorganisms. Therefore, “elimination of perfectly safe and effective can linings, containing BPA, would expose consumers to great risk.”
The report also identifies four alternatives to BPA, used in some tested cans: acrylic resins, oleoresin, polyester resins, and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) copolymers.
Multiple formulations of these compounds were found, but the report says there is “no way to determine the specific chemicals used or how they are produced”.
It also said “much more research is needed” to determine the safety of these compounds, and what may be migrating from the alternative can linings into food.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46026/ngos-urge-food-retailers-to-phase-out-bpa
-
'Not Too Early' to Prepare for Reformed TSCA
Mar 31, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
It is not too early for companies and trade groups to start preparing their strategies under a reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), an expert panel told a chemical conference last week. And some companies, delegates heard, have already begun ramping up resources to take on expected challenges – and identifying strategies for taking advantage of new opportunities.
Many key provisions remain undecided as negotiations to reconcile bills that passed the House and Senate continue. But panellists at industry conference GlobalChem agreed it is not too soon for companies to begin preparing.
Substance nomination
Both bills have provisions that would allow industry to nominate substances for the EPA to review. And Mark Duvall, a principal at law firm Beveridge & Diamond, said it is “not too early” for companies to begin considering making use of this provision.
With regard to why a company would initiate – and pay for – an EPA substance review, Mr Duvall said a manufacturer “can get a stamp of approval by the EPA that their chemical meets the safety standard [that it] is not likely to result in unreasonable risk.”
Also, he said, an EPA review would preempt the regulation of that substance at the state level, although the exact timing of such preemption differs in the House and Senate approaches.
"That's a big incentive if you've got a lot of confidence in your chemical, particularly if you've got rumblings at the state level that it might be appropriate to regulate your chemical.”
Mr Duvall said he knows of “at least two trade associations that are planning already on nominating chemicals” for the agency to review, because “otherwise, their chemicals may take decades to come up before EPA.”
Comment opportunities
According to Mr Duvall, if TSCA reform passes, manufacturers should brace themselves for a “flurry of rulemaking activities”, particularly if the final Bill takes the Senate bill’s implementation approach.
Under this, he said, formal rulemakings would be triggered for development of policies to implement the new sections of the law. Rulemaking would also take place for procedural rules related to risk assessment, safety determination, and the process for resetting the inventory.
“All of which, provides industry with opportunity to provide its ideas to EPA.”
“We all know that once the law is passed, our work is not done,” added Shaun Clancy, director of product stewardship at speciality chemicals firm Evonik. The implementing regulations will have a tremendous effect on the regulated community, he said, and Evonik is “going to want to be part of the process as those are getting developed”.
But he acknowledged this will “increase the need for exposure information to be generated beyond what we have today,” in order to execute this advocacy.
Preparing now
Mr Clancy said that, based on text in the Senate bill, Evonik has already begun to prepare for what may come under a reformed TSCA. These efforts have included the company:
going through its product line to identify PBTs, which are likely to receive increased focus;
looking at existing exposure data and identifying where it will probably need to develop more information;
preparing for an inventory reset by identifying which substances are active and inactive, or may become active again in the future; and
evaluating budgets in anticipation of increased fees.
Mr Duvall also suggested that manufacturers and processors:
gain an understanding of the TSCA work plan programme, as this process is the EPA’s “blueprint” for safety assessment, prioritisation, and risk management;
review the TSCA work plan chemicals, because “ those are likely to be the majority of the chemicals reviewed by EPA for the next several years”; and
decide if any active chemicals would require re-substantiation of a confidential business information (CBI) claim under an inventory reset.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46023/not-too-early-to-prepare-for-reformed-tsca
-
Johnson & Johnson Has a Baby Powder Problem
Mar 31, 2016 | Bloomberg
By Susan Berfield, Jef Feeley, and Margaret Cronin Fisk
Jacqueline Fox worked in restaurant kitchens and school cafeterias, cleaned people’s houses, watched their kids, raised a son, and took in two foster children. She was careful about her appearance and liked to tend the garden in front of her home in Birmingham, Alabama. She had been treated for high blood pressure, arthritis, and diabetes, but, at 59, she was feeling pretty good. In the spring of 2013, her poodle, Dexter, began acting strangely. He’d jump on her, he’d cry, he’d stay close by all day. Fox happened to watch a television program about a dog that sensed its owner was unwell. When she let Dexter sniff her, he whined even more.
A week later, Fox was diagnosed with advanced ovarian cancer. She had chemotherapy to shrink the tumors and surgery to remove her uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes, and part of her spleen and colon. In December of that year, she saw a commercial from an Alabama law firm, Beasley Allen, suggesting a connection between long-term use of Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder and ovarian cancer. Fox had been sprinkling Baby Powder made from talc on her underwear every day since she was a teen. “I was raised up on it,” she later said in a deposition. “They was to help you stay fresh and clean. … We ladies have to take care of ourselves.” It was as normal as using toothpaste or deodorant. “We both were a bit skeptical at first,” says her son, Marvin Salter, a mortgage banker in Jacksonville, Fla. “It has to be safe. It’s put on babies. It’s been around forever. Why haven’t we heard about any ill effects?”
Fox died from the cancer in October 2015. Four months later, a jury in St. Louis concluded that talcum powder contributed to the development of the disease and thatJohnson & Johnson was liable for negligence, conspiracy, and failure to warn women of the potential risk of using Baby Powder in the genital area. The verdict, decided by a 10-2 vote, included $10 million in compensatory damages and $62 million in punitive damages, more than Fox’s lawyers had recommended. Salter bowed his head and wept.
“People were using something they thought was perfectly safe,” he says. “And it isn’t. At least give people the choice. J&J didn’t give people a choice.” Among the most painful revelations, he says, was that in the 1990s, even as the company acknowledged concerns in the health community, it considered increasing its marketing efforts to black and Hispanic women, who were already buying the product in high numbers. Fox was black. The jury foreman, Krista Smith, says internal documents provided the most incriminating evidence: “It was really clear they were hiding something.” She wanted to award the Fox family even more. Imerys Talc America, the biggest talc supplier in the country and the sole source of the powder for J&J, was also named as a defendant. The company wasn’t found liable.
“Jury verdicts should not be confused with regulatory rulings or rigorous scientific findings,” Carol Goodrich, a spokeswoman for Johnson & Johnson Consumer, said in an e-mail. “The overwhelming body of scientific research and clinical evidence supports the safety of cosmetic talc.” The company says it will appeal the verdict. In a statement, Imerys said it’s “confident that its products are safe for use by its customers. Our confidence is supported by the consensus view of qualified scientific experts and regulatory agencies.”
Johnson & Johnson has spent more than $5 billion to resolve legal claims over its drugs and medical devices since 2013. That year, it agreed to pay $2.2 billion to settle criminal and civil probes into claims that it illegally marketed Risperdal, an antipsychotic drug, to children and the elderly; two other medicines were included in the settlement. It was one of the largest health fraud penalties in U.S. history. The company has also agreed to pay some $2.8 billion to resolve lawsuits about its artificial hips and $120 million for faulty vaginal-mesh inserts. In its 2015 annual report, J&J stated that more than 75,000 people had filed product liability claims, and that didn’t include the talc powder cases.
More than 1,000 women and their families are suing J&J and Imerys, claiming the companies have known of the association with ovarian cancer for years and failed to warn them. The next trial is scheduled to begin on April 11 in a St. Louis circuit court. “Whether or not the science indicates that Baby Powder is a cause of ovarian cancer, Johnson & Johnson has a very significant breach of trust,” says Julie Hennessy, a marketing professor at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management. “In trying to protect this one business, they’ve put the whole J&J brand at risk.”
Talc is the softest mineral on earth, able to absorb odors and moisture. It’s composed of magnesium, silicon, and oxygen and is mined, usually from deposits above ground, in more than a dozen countries. It’s used in eye shadow and blush and chewing gum, but mostly it’s used in ceramics, paint, paper, plastic, and rubber. China is the biggest source; Johnson & Johnson’s supply comes from the southern province of Guangxi.
Johnson & Johnson began selling Baby Powder more than 100 years ago, soon after the company was founded in New Brunswick, N.J. Among its first products were adhesives infused with pain relievers such as mustard seed, capsicum, quinine, and opium. When customers complained that removing the plasters left them with skin irritation, J&J’s scientific director sent them small containers of talc to help soothe any rashes. A few reported that the talc also seemed to ease diaper rash. In 1894 the company introduced Baby Powder, made of 99.8 percent talc and sold in a metal tin labeled “for toilet and nursery.”
The other 0.2 percent is a mix of fragrant oils. Smell is evocative, and this particular scent is mingled with powerful memories—a marketer’s dream. “It’s calming, nurturing. … It doesn’t grab your senses. It wafts,” Fred Tewell, a J&J executive, told the Associated Press in 2008. The company has said that in blind tests, the scent of Baby Powder is recognized more often than that of chocolate, coconut, or mothballs. From the early 1900s, J&J tried to persuade women to use the powder on themselves, too. Ads in 1913 included the tag line, “Best for Baby, Best for You.” By 1965, when Fox was 12 years old, ads featured a sultry woman sprinkling talc on her bare shoulder. No baby is in sight. “Want to feel cool, smooth and dry? It’s as easy as taking powder from a baby.” Two decades later, the company told the New York Times Magazine that 70 percent of its Baby Powder was used by adults. Sales of J&J’s talcum powder products came to about $374 million in 2014, according to Euromonitor. That’s not essential to a $70 billion company that makes most of its money selling medical devices and drugs. But without Baby Powder, J&J may not have developed Baby Oil or Baby Shampoo nor have a baby division worth some $2 billion. Baby Powder’s value to the company extends well beyond sales.
Forty-five years ago, British researchers analyzed 13 ovarian tumors and found talc particles “deeply embedded” in 10. The study, published in 1971, was the first to raise the possibility that talcum powder could pose a risk. In 1982 a study in the journalCancer by Daniel Cramer, an epidemiologist at Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, showed the first statistical link between genital talc use and ovarian cancer. Soon after, Cramer received a call from Bruce Semple, an executive at J&J. The two met in Boston. “Dr. Semple spent his time trying to convince me that talc use was a harmless habit, while I spent my time trying to persuade him to consider the possibility that my study could be correct and that women should be advised of this potential risk of talc,” Cramer, a paid expert and witness for the plaintiffs, said in a 2011 court filing. “I don’t think this was a question of money,” he says now. “I think it was pride of ownership. Baby Powder is a signature product for J&J.”
Baby Powder is considered a cosmetic, which doesn’t need to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration under the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The law is laid out in a 345-page document; only two pages are devoted to the safety of cosmetics. Congress is considering updating the law to give the FDA more authority to regulate products. “It shouldn’t be up to consumer groups or jurors to try to make decisions about toxic products,” says Stacy Malkan, co-founder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. J&J and many other big companies support the changes.
J&J does have a warning on Baby Powder, cautioning against inhalation. And the label notes that the powder is for external use only. Under pressure from consumers, activists, and impending California safety regulations, J&J has removed triclosan, formaldehyde, and other so-called chemicals of concern from its baby products in the past few years. In 2013, Samantha Lucas, a company spokeswoman, explained the shift to Scientific American: “We’ve been replying with evidence of the science that ensures safety. Now we have to go beyond science and be responsive to our consumers, because it’s really about their peace of mind.” If J&J applies this same thinking to Baby Powder, it has an alternative: It already sells Baby Powder made from cornstarch for about the same price. No study shows that cornstarch poses any potential risks; the American Cancer Society has been suggesting since 1999 that women consider it if they want to use genital powder. Some of J&J’s competitors, including Gold Bond, California Baby, and Burt’s Bees, sell baby powder made of cornstarch only.
Since Cramer’s article was published, an additional 20 epidemiological studies have found that long-term perineal talc use increases the risk of ovarian cancer by about 33 percent. Yet other research has found no association. These mixed results have been cited by many agencies and institutions—with the exception of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) at the World Health Organization—when they’ve looked at a potential link. Roberta Ness, former dean of the University of Texas School of Public Health and former president of the American Epidemiological Society, testified at the Fox trial as an expert witness for the family. She argued that several of the studies showing no link didn’t properly measure women’s exposure to talcum powder. Some asked women how many years they had used the powder; others asked how often they used it. Only five measured both. “What’s confused everyone in the past,” she said during the trial, is that “all these studies, they looked at just frequency or just duration, and they’re all over the map.” She went on to explain that “all of the studies that have actually measured frequency and duration … have all shown a statistically significant trend toward more exposure causing more disease.” Ness pointed out that the association between hormone therapy and breast cancer is statistically smaller than the reported association between talc and ovarian cancer, yet hormone therapy is considered to be a real risk.
She also said that not being able to prove how talc powder could contribute to cancer doesn’t relieve a company of the responsibility to warn women of the association. “We now have data that suggest there’s an association between the Zika virus and microcephaly,” she said. And even though scientists don’t know how the virus causes the disease, “people aren’t waiting. … People are out there saying, ‘Oh my gosh, be aware, this is trouble.’ ”
J&J and Imerys, the talc supplier, argue that the statistical associations between use of the powder and ovarian cancer are limited, weak, and based on unreliable data. They say a causal link isn’t biologically plausible, because there’s no proof that talc particles can move up through the reproductive tract or that once there they could cause cancer. And if there’s no causal connection, they say there’s no reason to add a warning to Baby Powder. “There are statistical correlations. You can always calculate correlations,” says Joshua Muscat, a professor of public health sciences at Penn State College of Medicine who serves as an expert consultant to J&J. “There hasn’t been a single scientific body that has considered talc to be a causal agent. Many don’t even consider talc to be a risk factor. To me, the science is black and white.”
The odds of a woman in the U.S. falling ill with ovarian cancer are 1 in 70. Talc use is associated with worse odds, 1 in 53, according to those epidemiological studies. The risks seem to be higher for invasive serous cancer, which Fox had. Ovarian cancer is among the most deadly cancers. Some 20,000 women are diagnosed each year, often after the disease has spread. The symptoms are easily dismissed as menstrual or abdominal discomfort. There’s no regular screening for ovarian cancer, no known causes, only risk factors, and some research suggests the malignancy may begin outside the ovaries, at the end of the fallopian tubes. More than 14,000 women die from the disease every year.
At the Fox trial, Ness did some harsh math for the jury. She claimed that Baby Powder use could contribute to some 2,500 women being diagnosed with ovarian cancer every year and 1,500 dying. The defense counsel, with great skepticism, called that figure “astonishing.” Ness also noted that although black women generally have lower odds than white women of getting ovarian cancer, a small study recently showed they’re more at risk of developing ovarian cancer when exposed to talc.
In the last months of her life, Fox answered questions from attorneys on both sides of the case. The audio of her deposition was played in the courtroom near the end of the three-week trial. When asked why she was suing J&J, she said, “To put out there that we as women got to take care of ourselves. This is a disease I didn’t ask for. But who am I? I just want to do right.”
The science may be limited, and it may be ambiguous. Many of the researchers involved, including Cramer, say more study is necessary. But the science wasn’t on trial in St. Louis; Johnson & Johnson was. “You don’t win with jurors on science. They don’t understand science, statistics, the design of studies,” says Erik Gordon, a professor at the School of Business and School of Law at the University of Michigan. “They do understand there was some evidence of a connection between talc and cancer, and J&J didn’t tell customers about it.”
Lawyers for Fox introduced documents from 1986 through 2004 that, however selective they may be, portray a company struggling to revive interest in a symbolically important product with no proven health benefits and some suspected health risks. A 1992 memo outlining “major opportunities and major obstacles” acknowledged that “negative publicity from the health community on talc (inhalation, dust, negative doctor endorsement, cancer linkage) continues.” The same memo included a recommendation to “investigate ethnic (African-American, Hispanic) opportunities to grow the franchise,” noting that these women accounted for a high proportion of sales. An added handwritten note says the company planned a print advertising campaign. Goodrich, the J&J spokeswoman, said in her e-mail that this was “simply part of the company’s efforts to appropriately understand who is using its products.” More than a decade later, a task force devoted to improving sales of Shower to Shower, a mix of talc and cornstarch marketed to women, concluded: “African American consumers in particular will be a good target with more of an emotional feeling and talk about reunions among friends, etc., team up with Ebony Magazine.” It suggested promotions in churches, beauty salons, and barbershops, and Patti LaBelle or Aretha Franklin as celebrity endorsers. Neither became a spokeswoman for the brand. It’s not clear how much of the rest of the plan was put into action, since the company had already been advertising to blacks.
It’s standard practice for companies to focus on their most committed customers. Airlines take care of business fliers; loyal shoppers get special deals at stores. “That’s probably what they were doing,” says Hennessy, the Kellogg marketing professor. “In today’s climate, though, that looks horrible. From the outside it looks like J&J is less concerned, not more concerned, about its most loyal users because of their ethnic origin.”
Baby Powder is a legacy brand in the black community. “Some people might say, ‘What’s wrong with companies recognizing women of color as important consumers?’ ” says Robin Means Coleman, a professor of communications studies and Afro-American Studies at the University of Michigan. “We do want that. But we do not want companies to market potentially carcinogenic products.”
Salter, Fox’s son, hadn’t been aware of the marketing documents until the trial. “When I heard about it, I was infuriated,” he says. “And so was the jury.”
In the 1990s a toxicologist named Alfred Wehner worked as an outside consultant for J&J. His official role was to help evaluate the research on ovarian cancer and talc and advise the company on its response. Unofficially, he was its scold. Wehner was on J&J’s side, but he was concerned that a cosmetics trade group (partly funded by the company) was mischaracterizing the scientific case for talc. “A true friend is not he who beguiles you with flattery but he who discloses to you your mistakes before your enemies discover them,” Wehner began a 1997 letter to Michael Chudkowski, J&J’s manager of preclinical toxicology. Wehner described statements on talc research from the group as inept, misleading, and outright false. Referring to a statement a few years earlier, he wrote: “At that time there had been about 9 studies (more by now) published in the open literature that did show a statistically significant association between hygienic talc use and ovarian cancer. Anybody who denies this risks that the talc industry will be perceived by the public like it perceives the cigarette industry: denying the obvious in the face of all evidence to the contrary.” He wanted the trade group to argue that the studies’ biological significance was questionable.
Cosmetic talc isn’t a big part of Imerys’s business. The company, formerly called Luzenac, primarily sells the mineral for industrial purposes. But until 2006, it also fought any suggestion that talc could be a potential carcinogen. In the late 1990s, according to a Luzenac memo introduced at the trial, executives visited the head of epidemiology at the University of California at Irvine for advice on how “to stop the rumor about Ovarian cancer.” One suggestion: Get “two or three experts from the club” to make the scientific case. “The club” could refer to independent scientists Luzenac had worked with before, but Fox’s lawyers argued for a more sinister interpretation—that these were scientists who would respond to industry pressure. They also suggested that Luzenac and J&J exerted influence over a government group. In 2000 scientists with the National Toxicology Program, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, voted 13-2 to list talc, used perineally, as a possible human carcinogen, according to Fox’s lawyers, but the companies persuaded the NTP to defer an official decision on the status of talc. A Luzenac executive, Richard Zazenski, wrote to a colleague afterward: “We, the talc industry, dodged a bullet in December, based entirely over the confusion of the definition issue.” He was referring to ambiguity over the composition of the talc studied because, until the early 1970s, some powder contained naturally occurring asbestos fibers. He also discussed a coming NTP review, saying, “Time to come up with more confusion!” Imerys declined to comment on the specifics of the trial, but one witness for the defense offered the possibility that Zazenski was joking. Goodrich, the J&J spokeswoman, said any suggestion by Fox’s lawyers of improper influence is “merely an unsubstantiated allegation.”
In 2006, the IARC, the WHO cancer agency, declared that perineal use of cosmetic-grade talc was possibly carcinogenic. It cited “a modest, but unusually consistent, excess in risk” and also noted that bias in the studies couldn’t be ruled out. Publicly, Luzenac and J&J tried to diminish the significance of the designation; red meat and coffee are also included in this group of possible carcinogens.
Before the year ended, however, Luzenac stopped backing studies to prove talc’s safety because the “horse has already left the barn,” wrote one executive, noting that cosmetic companies had also cut funding. One of their primary arguments for doing so, he said, was that there were already too many studies showing an association with ovarian cancer “to stem the tide of negative sentiment.” More important, Luzenac added a warning on the safety data sheet included with the 2,000-pound bags of talc it delivers to J&J: Perineal use of the powder is a possible risk factor for ovarian cancer.
Johnson & Johnson says it will continue to defend the safety of talc, and it does so on its website. There, in a section explaining its policies about ingredients, the company addresses concerns over formaldehyde, parabens, phthalates, and triclosan—chemicals with damaged reputations, and worse. In every case, J&J states that the chemicals haven’t been proven harmful or that they were used in small enough amounts to be safe, but the company decided to remove them from its productsanyway. “We understand that from your perspective, government regulations may not be your only consideration when it comes to the personal-care products you and your family use,” it says about parabens. For phthalates, the company says it recognizes that “the best way to keep your confidence was not to use it at all.”
Why not apply that same standard to talc? Goodrich said the company listens when consumers raise concerns about ingredients. But “few ingredients have the same demonstrated performance, mildness and safety profile as cosmetic talc.”
The first woman to sue Johnson & Johnson for not warning of the risks of talcum powder was Deane Berg, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2007. She says she turned down a $1.3 million out-of-court settlement because she didn’t want to sign a confidentiality clause. Her case went to trial in 2013 in a South Dakota federal court as she was in remission. The jury found J&J was negligent, but didn’t award Berg any damages.
After the Fox verdict, 17,000 people contacted her attorneys at Beasley Allen; the firm is looking into 2,000 of those, in addition to 5,000 potential claims it was already investigating. Its next case will be tried in the same St. Louis circuit court as Fox’s, which has a reputation for being sympathetic to plaintiffs. Gloria Ristesund’s trial is set for April. She used Baby Powder for 40 years and was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2011.
Among those waiting their turn is Tenesha Farrar, who was diagnosed with Stage 3 ovarian cancer in 2013 and is represented by the Lanier Law Firm. Farrar, who’s 40 and black, says she’d used Baby Powder and Shower to Shower (which J&J sold to Valeant in 2012) for the last two decades. “My grandmother and mother used it, and I learned from them,” she says. After hearing about the J&J marketing document, she began crying. “I can’t believe they singled us out.” Farrar had chemotherapy and a full hysterectomy. She had to take off five months from her work as a clerk in a dialysis clinic outside St. Louis. She lost her health insurance because she exceeded the policy limits and had to skip her last chemo treatment. She and her husband eventually filed for bankruptcy. She’s back at work now. “I have five children who depend on me,” she says. “I will never use another J&J product again.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-baby-powder-cancer-lawsuits/
-
NGO Warns Against Use of Antimicrobial Hospital Furnishings
Mar 31, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
Hospitals buying furniture containing antimicrobials to reduce the risk of infections are following “unverified assumptions” about its efficacy, a report from NGO Health Care Without Harm (HCWH) has warned.
Treating healthcare products with biocides is an increasingly popular practice, to help reduce the risk of healthcare-associated infections. But HCWH says research does not support antimicrobial furnishings as an effective way to tackle the problem.
“While antimicrobials in hospital furnishings may ultimately prove to be efficacious, currently the benefits, risks, tradeoffs, and costs associated with their use, are largely unknown,” says the report, Antimicrobials in hospital furnishings: do they help reduce healthcare-associated infections?
In January, a group of hospital systems pledged to reduce purchases of furnishings and furniture treated with antimicrobials, as part of a initiative supported by the NGOs, Practice Greenhealth and HCWH.
US healthcare provider Kaiser Permanente also prohibited the use of 15 antimicrobials in fabric, furniture and finishes, in any future building projects last year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46006/ngo-warns-against-use-of-antimicrobial-hospital-furnishings
-
OMB Launches Review of EPA's Formaldehyde Rule
Mar 31, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The White House Office of Management and Budget is weighing in on a final rule that would set long-delayed limits on formaldehyde emissions from wood products.
U.S. EPA sent the formaldehyde emission standards for composite wood products rule to the White House for review Monday, records show.
The rule is required under the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act, which Congress approved in 2010. Though the law required EPA to toughen the formaldehyde emissions standards by 2012, the agency has failed to meet the deadline.
Under the 2010 law, EPA is required to align federal standards with the California Air Resources Board's rules.
The agency first proposed the standards in 2013 but neglected to finalize them amid heavy industry opposition (E&ENews PM, May 29, 2013). It also proposed a second rule creating standards for a third-party certification program to ensure the products meet the new standards.
At the time, EPA said the plan would cost $72 million to $89 million per year but would save $20 million to $48 million per year in health costs.
EPA is now combining both proposals into one rule, the agency's notice said.
The agency plans to issue the final rule by May, according to its most recent regulatory agenda.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/03/31/stories/1060034888
-
Washington State Finds Alternative BFRs in Fish
Mar 31, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Washington State's Ecology Department has identified “alternative” brominated flame retardants in 89% of freshwater fish, sampled from rivers and lakes across the state.
Department scientists measured levels of the flame retardants (BFRs), alkylphenolic compounds, and hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) in fish samples collected in 2014. All of them contained PBDEs, which were also present at the highest concentrations, followed by alkylphenolic compounds, then HBCD and non-BDE flame retardants.
The alternative brominated flame retardants were brought in to replace polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), following their commercial phase-out.
The study detected four alternative BFRs: 1,2-Bis(2,4,6-tribromophenoxy)ethane (BTBPE), decabromodiphenylethane (DBDPE), hexabromobenzene (HBBz) and pentabromoethylbenzene (PBEB). In a number of studies, scientists have found significant levels of the first three in the environment.
The department will use the results to help prioritise chemicals, addressed through chemical action plans (CAPs). Its report calls for “exploratory monitoring” of additional halogenated flame retardants and recommends that DBDPE and BTBPE, together with nonylphenol ethoyxlates and octylphenol, should be included in its PBT list.
Average concentrations of the non-BDE flame retardants were two to three orders of magnitude lower than those of PBDE. Although HBBz was detected most frequently, DBDPE was present in the highest concentrations.
The flame retardant is used as a direct replacement for Deca-BDE, sharing a similar structure. The report describes the substance as behaving similarly to Deca-BDE in the environment, “exhibiting environmental persistence and long-range atmospheric transport characteristics”.
DBDPE, which is also known as 1,2-bis(pentabromophenyl) ethane, was subject to the REACH substance evaluation process, by the UK competent authority, and a decision was published in 2014. This asked the registrants to conduct further tests, including some for long-term toxicity testing on aquatic invertebrates and bioaccumulation in aquatic species.
The decision has been contested and an appeal lodged with Echa's Board of Appeal by three of the registrants - Albermarle, Chemical Inspection & Regulation Service Ltd and ICL-IP Europe.
Overall, fish from rivers receiving effluent fom wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) had higher PBDE levels. Meanwhile, levels of non-BDE flame retardants were highest in lakes receiving a mix of WWTP effluent and atmospheric deposition (Mayfield Lake) or atmospheric deposition alone (Pierre Lake).
Alkylphenolic compounds, including nonylphenol ethoxylates, were found in almost half of samples, with levels highest in urban lakes.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46013/washington-state-finds-alternative-bfrs-in-fish
-
Apple Reaches Conflict Minerals ‘Milestone’
Mar 31, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Apple’s entire supply chain is now being audited for the use of “conflict minerals”, according to a company report.
This was accomplished following five years of effort to trace the source of the tin, tungsten, tantalum or gold (3TG) used in its supply chain. Often referred to as conflict minerals, the mining of these materials can help fund armed groups in the conflict region of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
According to a supplier responsibility report issued by the tech giant, as of December 2015, 100% of the smelters and refiners in its supply chain are now participating in independent third-party conflict minerals audit programmes.
But the company says while this is “an important milestone”, they do not view it “as grounds to declare … products ‘conflict free’”.
“Participation in third party audit programmes alone is not enough”, it says. “Some smelters that have completed third-party audits have minerals that are supplied by mines allegedly involved with armed groups.” Therefore, it adds, ongoing engagement is critical.
Publicly-traded companies who use 3TG substances are required to investigate their supply chains. They must determine whether their products contain conflict minerals and report these findings to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This is pursuant to the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act.
The rule remains entangled in a lawsuit as to the constitutionality of requiring companies to declare their products “conflict-free” or not. However, the supply chain investigation and reporting requirements continue regardless.
Tech companies have long been credited as leaders in managing conflict minerals in the supply chain, according to several NGOs who review the Dodd-Frank reports. Intel recently announced that it will achieve its goal of conflict-free products in 2016. It will begin labelling its products as such in the second quarter of this year.
This year, the consultancy Assent ranked Apple’s 2014 report in the top 20 of the 1,267 company filings it reviewed, based on a metric of reporting requirements and best practices
But Apple says that more work is needed. It says it will be “furthering [its] partnerships with like-minded companies, engaging with key nongovernment and government parties, and working with third-party audit programme owners to achieve the ultimate objective of protecting human rights in the region.”
The company's priorities for 2016 include improving due diligence in the gold supply chain, and seeking resolution with authorities when its diligence turns up incidents.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46030/apple-reaches-conflict-minerals-milestone
-
Levi’s Develops ‘Preferred Substances List’ for Suppliers
Mar 31, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Clothing company Levi Strauss is developing a list of ‘preferred substances’ – those safer for the environment and human health – for its suppliers.
The list will be a result of the company’s Screened Chemistry Programme, which assesses the environmental and human health impact of chemicals used in the finishing process of its products.
The programme uses chemical screening tool GreenScreen, and the US EPA’s Safer Choices Programme, to determine which substances are better to use.
Both methodologies are based on chemical hazard assessment and look at a variety of human health and environmental endpoints.
“Our goal was to create a framework for screening chemicals against human health and environmental toxicity hazard endpoints, to identify best-in-class chemicals or better alternatives,” said Bart Sights, vice president of technical innovation.
Mr Sights told Chemical Watch that the two methodologies provide “visibility” of the chemical substances used by its suppliers and help to identify both approved and restricted chemicals for use in textiles finishing and raw materials.
“It allows us to make better choices on the chemicals used to make our products and have a dialogue with our chemical supplier on where improvements can be made,” he added.
Once the company’s screening programme is fully operational, it is intended that Levi’s suppliers will switch to using the preferred chemical list.
The company aims to encourage industry-wide uptake of chemical screening, by working with the ZDHC group, an industry initiative made up of apparel and retailer brands to achieve the goal of zero discharge of hazardous chemicals by 2020.
It has also committed to Greenpeace’s Detox campaign to eliminate all release of hazardous chemicals, throughout its supply chain, by 2020. Levi’s phased out perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), announcing its achievement in January.
Greenpeace’s Kirsten Brodde, project lead of the Detox My Fashion campaign, told Chemical Watch that Levi’s is among many brands working on screening programmes and “green chemistry” lists.
Another example is Nike, which in 2010 introduced a Sustainable Chemistry Guidance (SCG) section to its Restricted Substances List (RSL) that highlights “positive” chemistries. And Adidas is using Switzerland-based certification company, Bluesign’s chemical data management system, Bluefinder. With this, it says, suppliers select "best-in-class" chemicals included in the database.
Ms Brodde said: “We clearly acknowledge Levi’s work, as a Detox committed company, on the precaution and substitution of hazardous chemicals such as the entirety of PFCs."
https://chemicalwatch.com/45971/levis-develops-preferred-substances-list-for-suppliers
-
Mar 31, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Draft evaluations
Echa has announced plans to send draft decisions on 32 substances to registrants, in the last week of April. They are taken from 48 evaluations carried out by member states in 2015.
Registrants will have 30 days to consider and submit comments.
The registrants receiving a draft decision will be those with active, standard registrations for a substance on the date when the draft decision is first sent.
Of the remaining 16 cases:
14 substances needed no further data to conclude the substance evaluation; and
in two cases, the member state could not conclude the evaluation because information was missing. A compliance check process will be used to request the missing data. Meanwhile, the substance evaluation process has been suspended.
CLH consultation on epsilon-metofluthrin
The agency has launched an extra public consultation on the harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) for the carcinogenicity of epsilon-metofluthrin.
The proposal was originally submitted by the UK's Health and Safety Executive. It was subject to a public consultation that ended on 14 August 2015.
However, subsequently, a new study on chimeric mice was submitted to the agency. As results of this were not subjected to consultation, Echa says it would like to give the parties concerned a second opportunity to comment on this hazard class.
New comments should be submitted in writing by 13 April.
Submitted SVHC proposals
The agency has received the following SVHC proposal from Sweden:
dicyclohexyl phthalate1.
And from Germany:
7,7-trimethyl-3-(phenylmethylene)bicyclo[2.2.1]heptan-2-one;
benzo[def]chrysene (Benzo[a]pyrene); and
±)-1,7,7-trimethyl-3-[(4-methylphenyl)methylene]bicyclo[2.2.1]heptan-2-one.
Testing proposals
Echa has received a testing proposal for :
n,n''-propane-1,3-diylbis[N'-octadecylurea, with testing proposed for endpoints of sub-chronic toxicity (90-day) and oral reproductive toxicity (prenatal developmental toxicity).
The deadline for submitting information is 13 May.
Methods compendium
The agency has published a compendium of recommended analytical methods that inspectors can use to check compliance with REACH restrictions in Annex XVII.
The agency says the publication, which contains more than 100 methods, is also useful for companies facing inspections.
It will be used in the REACH-EN-FORCE 4 (REF-4) project, running throughout 2016. This is coordinated by Echa's Enforcement Forum, and sees enforcement authorities in 29 European countries inspecting restrictions of 14 substances. These may be found in products such as textiles, toys, jewellery, glues or brazing fillers.
Inspections will check company compliance with comply with REACH restrictions for:
benzene;
asbestos fibres;
cadmium and its compounds;
nickel and its compounds;
chloroform;
azocolourants and azodyes;
diphenylether, octabromo derivative (C12H2Br8O);
chromium VI compounds;toluene;
trichlorobenzene;
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs);
phthalates; and
lead and its compounds.
Workplace chemicals users guide
Echa has published a short guide for users of chemicals in the workplace. It advises on how to make the most of classification and labelling information received.
Infographic: improving communications in supply chains
The agency has created an interactive PDF where tools and templates, related to use maps and safety data sheets, can be accessed. This is equally relevant to registrants and downstream users, it says.
Use maps webinar
Echa is to hold a webinar on 15 June on the benefits of use maps to downstream users and registrants.
The agency says the maps provide a "harmonised way of describing how downstream users use chemicals".
Registrants can use this in their chemical safety assessments, and then give the conditions for safe use to downstream users in the exposure scenarios annexed to the safety data sheet.
It says the webinar is aimed at downstream user sector organisations and others interested in generating sector use maps.
Call for tenders: media monitoring
Echa has launched a call for tenders on media and social media monitoring and analysis services.
The deadline for submitting tenders is 10 May.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46018/echa-round-up
-
No Election-Year Compromise in Sight on Pa. Natural Gas Tax
Mar 31, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D) appears headed toward another round of conflict with the state Legislature over how to tax and regulate the natural gas industry.
It's essentially the same argument Wolf had with the Legislature since taking office last year. Taxing the gas industry is popular in Pennsylvania -- a poll by Franklin & Marshall College last week showed 73 percent of voters favor it -- but Republicans oppose the idea, and they widened their control of both the House and Senate in 2014.
And with an election looming in 2016, it could get tougher to find a compromise.
"The problem that the governor has is not just getting a severance tax but getting any tax in an election year," said Terry Madonna, director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin & Marshall. "At no time in modern Pennsylvania history has there been a general tax hike in an election year in which lawmakers were on the ballot."
Wolf spent his first year trying to get lawmakers to enact a severance tax on drillers in the Marcellus Shale and use the money to restore cuts to education made under his predecessor. The Legislature pushed back, passing a budget that not only excluded the drilling tax but also included far less money for education than Wolf proposed.
Wolf vetoed the first Republican-written budget at the end of June and used his line-item veto on a second proposal in January (EnergyWire, July 1, 2015; EnergyWire, Jan. 4).
Wolf conceded last week, saying he'd allow the remainder of the Republican budget to become law without his signature -- and without a gas tax. Wolf said he wanted to end the debate about the current-year budget and focus on writing a better budget in fiscal 2016-17.
Pennsylvania has become the second-biggest gas-producing state in the country, after Texas, in the last decade as new technology made it possible to drill into the Marcellus Shale formation.
When the boom started, Pennsylvania had no tax on gas production. Under former Republican Gov. Tom Corbett, the Legislature rejected the idea of a direct tax on gas production but imposed an annual impact fee on gas wells that's mostly dedicated to paying for road damage and other impacts of drilling regions.
Wolf took office last year arguing that Pennsylvania is the only major energy-producing state without a tax on production and said it would help solve the state's long-term structural deficit.
Republicans, however, said Pennsylvania already has a higher tax burden overall than other states and that the industry is paying a de facto tax through the impact fee. The gas industry has brought good-paying jobs, particularly to rural areas of the state.
Wolf has already included the tax as part of his budget for fiscal 2016-17. His latest proposal would impose a 6.5 percent levy on gas production, with offsets for the current fees that drillers pay (EnergyWire, Feb. 10).
That's a nonstarter for House Speaker Mike Turzai (R), a fervent ally of the gas industry who wants to find new uses for Pennsylvania's production.
The proposed tax is "onerous" and would create "a chilling effect, if not a de facto moratorium, on the natural gas industry in Pennsylvania," Turzai spokesman Jay Ostrich said last week.
Wolf may have an advantage in the dispute, because the Franklin & Marshall poll shows more people blame the Legislature than the governor for the budget impasse.
The Republican legislators' resistance to the gas tax shows they're out of step with the state, Jeff Sheridan, a spokesman for Wolf, said last week.
"Unfortunately, there are a lot of lawmakers on the Republican side who are beholden to special interests and who cave to special interests," Sheridan said. "And the oil and gas industry is a very vocal special interest."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/03/31/stories/1060034849
-
The Atlantic Isn’t Enough: It’s Time to End All New Offshore Drilling
Mar 31, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Miyoko Sakashita
There were celebrations this month with word that the Obama administration won’t be offering new offshore oil and gas leases off the Atlantic Coast.
Sure it’s worth celebrating but don’t pop the champagne just yet. If we’re going to truly begin tackling the climate crisis (and protect wildlife and coastal communities from oil spills) we need to halt all new offshore drilling, not just in the Atlantic but also the Arctic, Gulf of Mexico, and along the Pacific Coast.
Doing so would prevent the release of 61.5 billion tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, according to a study we recently commissioned, or the equivalent of driving 13 billion passenger vehicles for one year.
Obama should use his remaining time in office to do the right thing and ban oil and gas leasing in all federal waters, something the Center for Biological Diversity and more than 45 other groups sought in a legal petition filed today, an action he has the full legal and moral authority to take.
The petition is part of a growing national Keep It in the Ground campaign urging the president to halt all new fossil fuel leasing on public lands and offshore areas - a step that could keep up to 450 billion tons of carbon pollution from reaching the atmosphere.There’s a direct link between climate change and fossil fuel production on federal lands. Those leases last for decades, delaying a transition to the clean energy future the world needs. Offshore oil production also carries an unacceptably high risk for major oil spills like the Deepwater Horizon disaster, endangering vulnerable wildlife.
Federal regulation of offshore oil drilling is terribly lax, according to a recent U.S. Government Accountability Office report, which found that the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement still hasn’t learned the lessons of Deepwater Horizon and updated its enforcement procedures.
Meanwhile, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has just launched a series of public hearings of its new five-year offshore leasing program that seem designed to avoid meaningful public testimony and input. There are good arguments against new leases in the Arctic and Gulf, but officials must be willing to listen to them.Clearly, the bureaucracy isn’t up to this challenge, so Obama must be. The president has the authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to unilaterally remove 1 billion acres of federal offshore lands from consideration for new leases. And that’s what we’re asking him to do.
Scientists and indeed citizens around the world understand the depth and magnitude of the climate crisis, and the importance of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the goal set by world leaders in Paris in December. President Obama, with an executive order, has an opportunity to move us significantly closer to that goal. His legacy as a climate leader - and, more importantly, the legacy of our planet - depends on it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miyoko-sakashita/the-atlantic-isnt-enough-_b_9566254.html
-
Former EPA Chiefs Defend Rule in Court Brief
Mar 31, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
Two former Republican-appointed U.S. EPA administrators are urging federal judges to uphold an Obama administration climate rule that's come under siege in court.
William Ruckelshaus and William Reilly are submitting a brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today as "friends of the court" supporting EPA's Clean Power Plan, which aims to cut power plants' greenhouse gas emissions.
They both agree that "EPA's Clean Power Plan represents a lawful exercise of EPA's regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act to address the unprecedented challenge of global climate change," says the brief they plan to file with the court.
The two former EPA administrators are represented in the case by Harvard Law School professor Richard Lazarus.
"The Clean Power Plan represents the very kind of pollution control program" that the two former agency bosses "endorsed during their service at EPA," the brief adds. "The Plan is a pragmatic, flexible, and cost-effective pollution control program, which properly respects State sovereignty by affording States substantial authority and latitude to decide whether and how best to administer its provisions."
They said the rule also "falls well within the bounds of an Administrator's authority to embrace reasonable interpretations of broadly worded statutory language to address unforeseen problems without the need to resort to congressional amendment of current law."
Additional "friends of the court" briefs supporting EPA are also expected to be filed with the court this week.
A coalition of Democratic lawmakers announced they'll be filing a brief supporting EPA on behalf of more than 200 current and former members of Congress. That effort is being led by Reps. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) and Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/03/31/stories/1060034896
-
3 Ways Low-Income Americans Can Benefit from the Clean Power Plan – If States do the Right Thing
Mar 31, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Diane Regas
When the price of goods and services jumps, it hurts low-income Americans – people who operate with the least in savings and the thinnest of margins – the most.
So it will come as good news that low-income communities may actually stand to gain significant benefits from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan toreduce emissions from power plants, as long as states play their cards right.
In fact, when dirty power plants are replaced by clean energy, millions of Americans could benefit from lower power bills, better health and good jobs – and sometimes all of these at once. Here’s how.
1. Electric bills go down
The EPA estimates that average monthly bills will be lower in 2030 with the Clean Power Plan than without it.
Clean energy investments, driven by goals set for each state to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, are expected to save an average family nearly $85 on their average bill that year.
Household energy bills may drop, yet it is critical that companies deploy programs that are truly accessible to all customers – especially those in low-income communities.
To make sure electric bills would remain affordable for America’s most vulnerable communities, the Clean Power Plan offers forward-looking companies and states extra compliance credit for deploying energy efficiency investments early – and specifically so in low-income urban and rural areas.
The strategy also takes advantage of a real and growing market trend: the increasing affordability of renewable power.
Clean energy is becoming accessible to a wider spectrum of American households.
The price of solar has fallen 80 percent since 2008. Today, rooftop solar is being deployed in middle-class neighborhoods and, finally, in low-income neighborhoods nationwide.
Thanks to new financing models such as solar leasing and community solar programs, clean energy is becoming accessible to a wider spectrum of American households. We’ve seen on-bill financing work to bring energy efficiency torural electric co-ops in North Carolina, and it can and should work elsewhere.
Household budgets also benefit from incentives such as net metering, which creates long term benefits for all customersby crediting their bill any time they send surplus energy from their solar panels back to the grid. In Massachusetts, for example, public housing residents are expected to save $60 million from a net metering deal.
Utilities and regulators must take advantage of the opportunity to lower bills for the most vulnerable. The structure is in place, models are out there. Let’s make it happen.
2. Americans breathe cleaner air
Sulfur-dioxide and nitrogen-dioxide emissions from plant smokestacks cause a host of respiratory problems, including asthma. Mercury and other toxic heavy metals emitted by dirty power plants also threaten the health of people living near or downwind from such plants.
These health impacts are often felt more acutely by low-income communities. For example, Americans living within a three-mile radius of a power plant have a per-capita income $18,400, 15 percent lower than the U.S. average.
These communities stand to gain a lot from cleaner air and from the added benefits the Clean Power Plan offers when it protects Americans from a range of toxic pollutants, in addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The EPA estimates the law will provide at least $14 billion dollars in public health benefits by 2030. It will also avoid 3,600 premature deaths, 1,700 heart attacks and 90,000 asthma attacks each year.
3. New clean energy jobs boost employment, wages
In addition to energy savings and health protections, the Clean Power Plan will create tens of thousands of new jobs in the clean energy sector by 2040, the EPA says.
This is part of a broader trend. The solar industry employed nearly 209,000 Americans in 2015 after adding jobs 12 times faster than the nation as a whole did last year. Another 240,000 new solar jobs are expected to come online in 2016.
These jobs have been a boon for those who need them the most, including veterans and lower-income communities. These groups made up nearly one-third of solar industry workers, making wages that exceed what many of these workers have traditionally made, a 2014 Solar Foundation study found.
Meanwhile, America’s booming wind energy industry has brought thousands of new jobs to rural communities in statessuch as Texas, Colorado and Iowa. In 2015 alone, Texas wind jobs kept more than 17,000 people employed.
These industries will continue to thrive when states look for clean energy opportunities as a way to comply with the Clean Power Plan – and they should aim to bring all Americans with them.
This is how we can all enjoy the many benefits of a clean energy economy, one that looks very different from where we are today.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2016/03/31/3-ways-low-income-americans-can-benefit-clean-power-plan-if-states-do-right-thing
-
Revised Monitoring Regs Take Effect in April
Mar 31, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Updated U.S. EPA air pollution monitoring regulations will take effect late next month, more than a year and a half after the agency initially rolled them out.
The revisions, broadly intended to reduce the reporting burden on state, local and tribal air agencies, will apply to monitoring for the Clean Air Act's six "criteria" pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. They will take effect April 27, EPA officials said in a Federal Register notice this week, and are also aimed at addressing new monitoring technology and clarifying quality assurance requirements, according to an agency fact sheet.
EPA proposed the changes in September 2014 following the first wholesale review of air quality monitoring requirements since the mid-2000s (Greenwire, Sept. 11, 2014). They attracted three dozen comments, most of them from state and local air agencies, according to regulations.gov.
In its filing, the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) voiced support for the "overwhelming majority" of the proposed changes but suggested tweaks to the public inspection and comment requirements for the annual monitoring network plans, as well as to the rules regarding decommissioning of air quality monitors.
In an email this morning, NACAA Executive Director Bill Becker said the association had not had time to compare the final rule with its comments but should know more early next week.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/03/31/stories/1060034891
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested