Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 4/5
-
(ACC Mentioned) International Bottled Water Association Backs Curbside Recycling Partnership
Apr 4, 2016 | Associations Now
By Patrick Dehahn
The Recycling Partnership, which already has the backing of a number of corporations and trade groups in setting up local curbside recycling programs nationwide, has a new supporter: the primary trade group for the bottled-water industry. -
Reality Check: How the Senate TSCA Bill Would Make it Harder for EPA to Stop Products Containing Toxic Chemicals from Entering the United States – Including Chemicals that Are Already Poisoning Our Drinking Water
Apr 4, 2016 | NDRC
By Daniel Rosenberg
As the House and Senate try to reconcile their differing (and flawed) versions of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), evidence keeps mounting about why one particular Senate provision needs to be dropped. -
Legislators Hope to Prod Congress into Stronger Action on Toxins
Apr 4, 2016 | VT Digger
By Mike Polhamus
A lawmaker has proposed a resolution requesting that Congress reform federal toxin laws and preserve states’ ability to write their own toxin regulations. -
Markey Attacks Legislative Toe-Drag on TBB, Toxic Chemicals at IAFF Legcon 2016
Apr 4, 2016 | Examiner
By Tracey O'Neill
Massachusetts Sen. Edward Markey spoke on Monday at the International Association of Firefighters 2016 Legislative Convention held at the Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill. -
Women’s Chemical Exposure May Cost Europe more than $1 Billion
Apr 4, 2016 | Reuters
By Katheryn Doyle
n">Across the European Union, women’s reproductive health issues from exposure to chemicals that disrupt their hormones may cost the economy more than 1.4 billion euros, or nearly US$1.6 billion, according to a new analysis. -
Your Call: The Tangled Web of (And Giant Gaps In) U.S. Chemical Regulations
Apr 4, 2016 | KALW Radio
By Laura Flynn
On the April 4th edition of Your Call, we’re kicking off our week long series examining the toxic chemicals in our everyday lives. -
California Extends Consultation on Prop 65 Warning Reform
Apr 5, 2016 | Chemical Watch
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has extended the consultation period on its revised proposed reform of "clear and reasonable" warnings under Proposition 65. It will now end on 18 April. -
US EPA Stops Posting IRIS Consultations in Federal Register
Apr 4, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA will no longer post notices of public consultations on its draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessments in the Federal Register. -
Obama Administration Launches Interagency Look at NatGas Storage
Apr 4, 2016 | NGI's Shale Daily
By Richard Nemec
In the aftermath of a prolonged natural gas storage well leak in Southern California, the Obama administration on Friday launched a federal interagency task force to examine gas storage safety. -
Were Rules Violated in Amtrak Wreck that Killed Two Workers on the Tracks?
Apr 4, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Ashley Halsey III
Basic rules of railroading and federal regulations should have prevented the Amtrak derailment near Philadelphia on Sunday that killed two maintenance workers and injured 31 people aboard the train, those guidelines indicate. -
Global Warming Linked to Public Health Risks, White House Says
Apr 4, 2016 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
Global warming could lead to an increase in allergies and asthma, deaths by extreme heat and the proliferation of insect-borne diseases such as the West Nile virus, according to a scientific report released Monday by the White House. -
N.Y. Budget Increases Environmental Protection Funding
Apr 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
New York will provide some $323 million in new funding this year for programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve water quality and other environmental initiatives, under a budget bill (S. 6408) expected to be signed shortly by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D).
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) International Bottled Water Association Backs Curbside Recycling Partnership
Apr 4, 2016 | Associations Now
By Patrick Dehahn
The Recycling Partnership, which already has the backing of a number of corporations and trade groups in setting up local curbside recycling programs nationwide, has a new supporter: the primary trade group for the bottled-water industry.An association closely associated with water and plastics is doubling down on recycling. The International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) recently announced that it would offer financial support to The Recycling Partnership, an industry coalition focused on curbside recycling efforts.
“The bottled water industry is actively working to build partnerships that will help increase recycling efforts, and the reliable, scalable results that the Recycling Partnership delivers are hitting the mark for us,” Chris Hogan, vice president of communications at IBWA, said in a statement.
The Recycling Partnership was quick to welcome the 640-member IBWA with open arms.
“IBWA unifies the bottled water industry in much the same way that we unify the recycling industry, making them great strategy partners for squeezing every last drop of goodness out of our work,” Keefe Harrison, the Recycling Partnership’s executive director, said in a media announcement.
IBWA is one of many sponsors of the Recycling Partnership, in both the association and corporate sector, including the Consumer Technology Association, the American Chemistry Council, Coca-Cola, Heineken USA, and Procter & Gamble.
“It’s a pretty simple equation,” Harrison said about the organization’s hope for more support. “More funding partners equals more resources, which directly equates to the recovery of more high-quality recyclable material.”FUTURE GROWTH
The Recycling Partnership, formerly the Curbside Value Partnership, focuses on building and strengthening local recycling programs; last year alone it donated $11 million for new recycling infrastructure, providing funds for 165,000 recycling carts and helping 1.2 million households nationwide recycle.
Plastic water bottles show up often in those recycling bins, and IBWA’s Hogan wants to ensure this trend continues.
“The recycling rate for single-serve PET plastic bottled water containers has more than doubled in the last 10 years, and they are the most frequently recycled PET beverage containers in curbside recycling programs,” Hogan said in the media announcement. “As an industry, we are always looking for ways to strengthen existing programs and help to expand recycling efforts ever further.”
http://associationsnow.com/2016/04/international-bottled-water-association-backs-curbside-recycling-partnership/
-
Apr 4, 2016 | NDRC
By Daniel Rosenberg
As the House and Senate try to reconcile their differing (and flawed) versions of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), evidence keeps mounting about why one particular Senate provision needs to be dropped. The Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Coalition, of which NRDC is a part, has made clear (here) what changes it feels are needed in the two bills. But I want to focus today on additional evidence of why it's so dangerous that the Senate bill limits EPA's authority to protect the public from chemicals in imported products. I wrote about this provision previously here, but I think it is timely to revisit, to illustrate more directly what the chemical industry is up to, and what is at stake for the health of the American public.
To briefly recap: Under current law, if EPA is concerned about the safety of a chemical, the agency can require companies to provide notice of potential new uses of that chemical before a company can start to manufacture or import the chemical, either in bulk form or as part of a product (called an "article" in the law). Such notice requirements are one of the few legal tools EPA has to protect the public from problematic new chemicals uses and products. These notice requirements are called "Significant New Use Rules," or SNURs, and they give EPA an opportunity to learn about a potential new use of a substance before it occurs and consider whether some restriction is warranted to protect the public.
Congress granted EPA broad authority to impose these notice requirements when TSCA was enacted in 1976. Over the past 40 years, EPA has used that authority sparingly. Indeed, at the suggestion of the chemical manufacturers, EPA instituted a policy of generally not requiring notice if a chemical was going to enter the country as part of a product (as opposed to in bulk form for processing in the U.S.). However, EPA has always retained the authority to require notice of new uses of chemicals of concern in products, and, in the last several years, has exercised that authority – or proposed to do so -- on a handful of occasions. In particular, EPA has sought to require notice of potential new uses of chemicals the Agency has identified as top priorities for potential regulatory action, including:Benzidine Dyes – benzidine is a known human carcinogen;Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) – a flame retardant ingredient linked to hormone disruption, aquatic toxicity and a possible reproductive toxin (also a PBT);Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs) – another group of flame retardants that are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic;Toluene Diisocyanate (TDI) and related compounds – dermal and inhalation sensitizers that can cause asthma and lung damage; andMercury – you've probably heard of this one, a potent neurotoxin.
The Senate TSCA bill would weaken EPA's notice authority to make it more to industry's liking. It increases the burden of proof EPA has to meet to issue a notice requirement. Under the bill, EPA would need to demonstrate that use of a chemical of concern in any product would likely lead to exposure that causes concern [be likely to harm the public] --before EPA has any idea about a particular potential use of a chemical or what product(s) it might be used in. Now, EPA just needs to have reason to be concerned about possible new uses of a chemical to require a notice. Under the Senate bill, EPA would have to be able to show that each specific possible new use could lead to a level of exposure that "warrants notification," and to predict any hypothetical use that might someday occur. In essence, the industry is converting a straight-forward notice requirement into a mandate that EPA use a "crystal ball," to predict each future uses of toxic chemicals and how each one might harm the public. And of course, industry is likely to challenge EPA's predictions in court.
Arguably, the greatest flaw of the Toxic Substances Control Act to begin with is that for most actions it places the burden on EPA to prove that a chemical poses harm (or will pose harm) rather than placing the burden on the chemical manufacturers to demonstrate that their products are safe – unlike the laws that govern pesticides and pharmaceuticals. Under the current language of TSCA, EPA's burden before requiring notice of a new use is fairly low; which is why it is one of the few provisions of TSCA that has proven to be somewhat effective. The Senate's new notice provision would make the fundamental problem of TSCA even worse by needlessly raising the burden of proof on EPA.
Now we have a new illustration of how bad this could be. EPA is in the middle of an effort now to ratchet down on a high-priority chemical that is both ubiquitous and unsafe, in part by issuing a Significant New Use Notice requirement for new uses of the chemical in products. And the new Senate provision will likely short-circuit EPA's effort. In recent weeks there have been several news stories on the poisoning of communities' drinking water with perfluorinated chemicals – commonly known for their "non-stick" properties such as in rainproof outdoor gear and in "Teflon" non-stick pans. Several stories have recounted how an entire community in West Virginia had its drinking water polluted from a DuPont factory producing the chemicals, and the ongoing class action litigation resulting from that toxic legacy. See for example the multi-part coverage of reporter Sharon Lerner at The Intercept website, and a profile of the lawyer who took the case on behalf of citizens by Nathaniel Rich in the New York Times Magazine. Even more recently, pollution of drinking water supplies from perfluorinated chemicals (in this case perfluorooctanoic acid or PFOA) in Hoosick Falls, New York and Bennington, Vermont has led to orders not to drink the water. The problem is not limited to West Virginia, New York, and Vermont. According to a report by the Environmental Working Group, since 2013, EPA has found water contaminated with PFOA in 94 water systems in 27 States, and Lerner and other reportershave identified perfluorinated chemicals in drinking water systems in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Colorado and Michigan (including the Flint River). Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) just recently granted a petition from NRDC and several other groups to withdraw its approval to use perfluorinated chemicals in food packaging – such as sandwich wrappers and pizza boxes -- where it has been found to leach into the food supply.
And EPA itself has been somewhat active in this area (though it has dragged its feet on setting a health-protective drinking water standard under the Safe Drinking Water Act). In January 2015, EPA proposed a Significant New Use Rule for "Long-Chain Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFCs)" which are comprised of two sub-categories, Long-Chain Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonate (PFAS) and Long-Chain Perfluoroalkyl Caboxylate (PFAC). These chemicals – which include PFOA, the substance polluting drinking water across the U.S. -- are persistent in the environment, bioaccumulative (meaning they build up in our bodies and the food chain) and toxic – also known as "PBT."
Some of the PFCs, including PFOA, have been associated with potential harm to fetal development, male reproductive systems, pre- and-post natal brain development and cancer. And, as a result of their widespread use, release into the environment, and persistence and bioaccumulative properties, human exposure is widespread. As the Environmental Defense Fund noted in its comments supporting EPA's SNUR, "PFCs are also routinely detected in human biomonitoring studies: four selected PFCs analyzed in the NHANES 2003-2004 study were detected in 98% of individuals sampled. Further, PFC chemicals are found in breastmilk and umbilical cord blood, indicating a strong likelihood of early life exposure."
EPA's proposed Significant New Use Rule would require that companies intending to manufacture PFC chemicals in the U.S., or to import them into the U.S. – including in products – give EPA notice of their potential new use(s) so that EPA can evaluate whether they pose a risk to human health or the environment warranting some form of restriction. For the past year, EPA has been reviewing comments on its proposed rule mostly from individual companies, and industries (often represented by trade associations or law firms). Some industry comments on EPA's proposed Significant New Use Rule for perfluorinated chemicals argue on the one hand that industry carefully checks every component of their products for safety, but on the other, says that industry isn't able to trace new uses of PFCs in their operations.
For example, the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) states: "[A]dvanced semiconductor manufacturing depends on the use of chemicals that are selected because of their unique chemical and physical properties and functional attributes….These chemicals are carefully integrated into advanced manufacturing equipment and processes and have significant interdependence with other process steps. The process of manufacturing semiconductors involves hundreds of carefully controlled steps in which tools apply specific chemicals – in exactly the right amount, in exactly the right place, at exactly the right time." But SIA also disclosed that in response to a SIA-conducted survey of semiconductor equipment manufacturers and other suppliers "most responded that they do not know if the LCPFAC chemical substances are present because of the complexity of the supply chain."
The Global Automakers and the Auto Alliance state: "By the time it is incorporated into a finished automobile, [each] part will have undergone intensive efficacy testing and will have been assessed for compliance with state, federal and international safety standards and environmental regulations." But they also state that, because there are so many parts and components in a car, supplied by a global supply chain, the proposed notice requirement for new uses of chemicals in their products is too burdensome and should be dropped by EPA. It is a particular version of "too big to fail": these toxic chemicals could be anywhere (or everywhere) so we can't possibly account for them or be held responsible for doing so.
That is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it suggests that many companies do not have a full grasp of which chemicals are in the products that they are selling in the U.S., including products that we bring into our homes. That lack of knowledge is increasingly alarming as evidence continues to mount that it is exactly such products, frequently imported, that for many people are the major sources of exposure to toxic chemicals of concern – including carpets, furniture, building materials, electronics, cleaning supplies, toys, mattresses, baby products, clothing, and other objects that literally surround us in our daily lives (not just at home, but at work, school, and even in our cars).
Second, the industry's general failure to know what chemicals are in the supply chain and in their products is under challenge – the ground is shifting at the state level, in Europe (under its "REACH" regulation), and in the marketplace in the U.S. – as customers want to know, and will increasingly demand to know – what chemicals are contained in products.
Third, if the industries themselves are saying that they don't know which chemicals are in their own products, how can EPA be expected to predict future uses in consumer products, and the likelihood of exposure from each use, with even less information than the product-makers themselves?! Yet that's exactly the burden the Senate bill would impose on EPA. It requires EPA to make an "affirmative finding" about the potential for exposure to a chemical on an article-by-article basis – including in articles and for uses that EPA has no reason to anticipate. This will either tie EPA up in knots trying to comply, or, more likely -- and surely industry's preference -- it will scare away EPA from even attempting to apply notice requirements to uses of chemicals in products at all.
Aren't these the kind of constraints EPA faces under every other aspect of TSCA, and wasn't removing such barriers the whole point of "reform" in the first place? And if the EPA doesn't accurately guess all the potential new uses, or is unable to get over the newly erected hurdle that this bill seeks to impose, then more products containing Long-Chain PFCs will continue to flow into the U.S. with no advance notice to EPA, and no opportunity to halt or even limit their uses. The Senate provision will be the opposite of "reform" – it will make it harder for EPA to keep track of and prevent exposures to PFCs – and other dangerous chemicals – that are already causing problems all over the country.
The truth is that the industry authors (and supporters) of this provision know that it is designed to prevent EPA from successfully requiring the kind of reporting EPA is now seeking for Long-Chain PFCs, and other problematic chemicals that threaten our health. The Senate provision is a direct industry response to EPA's recent efforts to do a better job of informing and protecting the public from a set of the chemicals the Agency has identified as some of its top concerns.
EPA has made clear that it thinks PFCs are dangerous and require regulation. Here is part of what EPA had to say about the health risks posed by long-chain PFCs in its 2009 Action Plan:
Long-chain PFCs are a concern for children's health. Studies in laboratory animals have demonstrated developmental toxicity, including neonatal mortality. Children's exposures are greater than adults due to increased intakes of food, water, and air per pound of body weight, as well as child-specific exposure pathways such as breast milk consumption, mouthing and ingestion of non-food items, and increased contact with the floor. Biomonitoring studies have found PFCs in cord blood and breast milk, and have reported that children have higher levels of some PFCs compared to adults. Thus, given the pervasive exposure to PFCs, the persistence of PFCs in the environment, and studies finding deleterious health effects, EPA will examine potential risks to fetuses and children. [Note that EPA's analysis of the PFCs was based in part on animal studies, not unvalidated models and test methods that have not been proven to be the equivalent to (let alone better than) the animal based studies. The Senate bill also tries to make it harder to conduct animal studies.]
And here is some of what EPA had to say about the exposure to PFCs in its 2009 Action Plan:
Manufacturing releases [of PFOA and PFOS] are known to have contaminated local drinking water supplies in the immediate vicinity of some industrial plants, leading to localized elevated blood levels. [read the Sharon Lerner and NYT Magazine articles linked-to above for an illustration of the monumental human pain and suffering that is hidden in that one sentence of EPA's report] The widespread presence of PFOA and PFOS precursors in human blood samples nationwide suggest other pathways of exposure, possibly including long range air transport, and the release of PFOA and PFOS from treated articles. [emphasis added] ...
Children are particularly susceptible to exposure from inhalation of PFC off-gassing from carpet and carpet protectants during their earliest years when they are lying, crawling, and spending large amounts of time playing on the carpet… Consumers and children may also be exposed to PFCs in apparel, home textiles, thread sealant tape, floor wax, contact paper and paper coatings. Some of these articles such as paper coatings for foods cannot be ruled out for the ingestion exposure pathways for children and adults depending upon how the PFCs in the paper contacts the food and subsequently humans… Rainwater containing PFCs may contribute PFCs to vegetables and fruits in home gardens, crops grown on commercial crop lands, drinking water reservoirs, and surface waters from which drinking water is withdrawn.
Since EPA's Action Plan was released, it has taken some steps to limit use and exposure in the U.S. In 2013, EPA issued a Significant New Use Rule for perfluorinated substances that applied specifically to use in carpets – so that now EPA will get notice of any proposed new uses of PFCs in that particular product. The current proposed Significant New Use Rule, which will impose the same notice requirement to PFCs in any other product, is the next step necessary to ensure the public is protected from exposure to these toxic substances not just from one new product, but from any new product. Meanwhile, eight companies that manufacture PFCs agreed to voluntarily stop manufacturing them in the U.S., -- phasing production out over a ten-year period -- with DuPont having just ended its domestic production of PFOA in December 2015.
The manufacture of perfluorinated chemicals in the U.S. has come to an end, but their ongoing use in products has not. As comments in response to EPA's proposed Significant New Use Rule make clear, there are hundreds of ongoing uses for these chemicals that will continue to enter the U.S. The Significant New Use Rule seeks to at least partially stem the flood of perfluorinated chemicals by requiring notice of potential new uses. Importantly, that includes new uses of perfluorinated chemicals that are not even on the TSCA Inventory. EPA's current regulations allow a new chemical that is not on the TSCA Inventory, and has not undergone Pre-Manufacture review as a new chemical, to be imported into the United States in products ("articles"). So the only thing potentially stopping new, untested, and unexamined perfluorinated chemicals (or any other such chemical) from being manufactured and put into common household products in another country and shipped to the United States is the authority of EPA to get notice of the potential use of that chemical via a Significant New Use rule.
The SNUR provision in the Senate bill needs to be removed. There's nothing sacrosanct about the Senate bill and this provision. Indeed, it was added relatively late in the process with little or no discussion.
EPA itself has not always helped. Defenders of the provision sometimes say, "EPA says this provision is fine, it doesn't change their current practice." In the first place, whatever EPA officials might have said behind the scenes over the past year to Members of Congress, EPA has raised concerns about the provision in its official correspondence. In a recent letter to the House and Senate members most directly involved in the TSCA issue, EPA stated that the Senate provision could "make it harder for EPA to require notification for uses not currently foreseen" and "Even for currently envisioned uses it may generate litigation over an EPA finding that the potential for exposure through an article or category of articles is 'reasonable.'" Prior to that statement from the EPA, apparently some EPA officials had been saying first, that the provision didn't change their current authority, and when that analysis didn't hold water, shifted to the argument that the provision would not change EPA's "current practice." That is also wrong, but more importantly, even if it were true, it wouldn't be relevant to the discussion because the statutory scope of EPA's authority should not be reduced to whatever EPA is choosing to do at a particular point in time. The point of law is not to codify the weakest EPA interpretations of what needs to be done to protect the public.
In any event, whatever EPA previously thought about the provision, the chemical industry clearly believes it is imposing new legal limits on the agency – they aren't trying to ratify EPA's current practice on requiring notice of potential use of chemicals in products, they are trying to shut it down. And what matters most is not what current EPA officials think but how future Administrations and courts will interpret the new statutory language. And the words clearly change the policy.
Rumor has it that this provision is something that Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma -- Chair of the Senate Environment Committee – now says he "must have" as part of the negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate bills (apparently it is not the only thing he "must have" he also "must have" the changes that would make it harder for EPA to review new chemicals for safety that I previously wrote about here). Is there any Member of Congress willing to say that we, the public, must NOT have this provision that will make us less safe? Will a Member of Congress go to the mat to protect the border security of our country from toxic chemicals?
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/daniel-rosenberg/reality-check-how-senate-tsca-bill-would-make-it-harder-epa-stop-products
-
Legislators Hope to Prod Congress into Stronger Action on Toxins
Apr 4, 2016 | VT Digger
By Mike Polhamus
A lawmaker has proposed a resolution requesting that Congress reform federal toxin laws and preserve states’ ability to write their own toxin regulations.
Advocates say the move is needed to prevent incidents like the contamination of well water in some southwestern Vermont communities by perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA.
Manufacturers say they, too, want federal toxin laws revamped, but as a way to establish a uniform regulatory environment across the country.
“What we want to see is that the companies who are manufacturing and putting into communities new chemicals be required to test them and be able to unequivocally state they won’t hurt the environment or people,” said David Deen, D-Westminster, chair of the House Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources Committee.
Every member of Deen’s committee has co-sponsored the resolution, as has the entire Bennington delegation.
The bill urges Congress to strengthen the law under which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulates toxic chemicals, called the Toxic Substances Control Act. Congress is considering two pieces of legislation to revise that law, but Deen’s resolution asks federal lawmakers to go beyond what either of those proposes.
What Deen hopes to see isn’t realistic, said the vice president of Associated Industries of Vermont, William Driscoll.
The toxicity of a chemical matters less than the way in which it’s used, Driscoll said. A cellphone presents little danger to its users, but toxins exist in the phone that would pose a threat if it were lit on fire, he said. All manner of harmful chemicals benefit people when used properly, Driscoll said.
Moreover, strong incentives motivate manufacturers to avoid releasing harmful products, he said.
“The idea that manufacturers want to go out and put out dangerous products — there are requirements, and there are practices, for logical reasons, for manufacturers to work to ensure their products and the ingredients to their products aren’t going to harm customers,” Driscoll said.
But incidents like the contamination of wells in North Bennington and a public water system in Pownal prove that reform is needed, said Vermont Conservation Voters political director Lauren Hierl.
The federal government doesn’t regulate chemicals such as PFOA, Hierl said. Its release has been traced to the former Chemfab factory in North Bennington.
Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act in 1976, and since then the EPA has used its authority to regulate only five substances. The agency should test chemicals before allowing their release into the environment, Hierl said, but instead the agency wouldn’t test even the small number that it has until after they were already known to be dangerous.
And a court case in the 1990s set a precedent that prevents the EPA from regulating even substances whose harms are well-established, Hierl said. The judge in that case found that the economic harms associated with regulation of asbestos outweighed the carcinogenic mineral’s health harms, she said.
In the absence of federal regulation, Deen said, states must act.
“If they can’t get it together to enact meaningful reform, then I’m building an agenda to start taking action here in Vermont next year,” he said. “It really should be a federal responsibility, but short of a federal responsibility I think Vermonters have a right to protect themselves.”
This is precisely the approach manufacturers hope to prevent, Driscoll said.
Manufacturing is made more costly when states enact their own toxic substance controls, he said. Manufacturers are pushing to reform the federal Toxic Substances Control Act as a way to make regulations uniform across all the states, and in the process to prevent states from enacting their own regulations, he said.
“We would be concerned about a final TSCA bill that would allow states to set their own regulatory requirements,” Driscoll said.
Both bills before Congress contain provisions that would prohibit states from establishing new regulations for chemicals, Hierl said.
Deen said that’s unacceptable. “They haven’t done squat since 1976, we’re being overrun, and now they want to pre-empt us?” he said of Congress.
Both congressional bills have been in committees for months, but signs indicate lawmakers are likely to reach a “milestone within weeks,” said Andy Igrejas, national campaign director for Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, an advocacy coalition.
Vermont’s Sen. Patrick Leahy is asking his colleagues to help strengthen the bills’ language, Deen said. Deen said he’s optimistic that Leahy’s stature in Congress, combined with the resolution he’s put before the Legislature, will have an effect.
“If (Leahy) doesn’t hit a responsive chord, I hope he makes that known prior to Election Day in November, and people can evaluate what their legislators did or did not do to protect them from toxic chemicals,” Deen said.
https://vtdigger.org/2016/04/04/legislators-hope-to-prod-congress-into-stronger-action-on-toxins/
-
Markey Attacks Legislative Toe-Drag on TBB, Toxic Chemicals at IAFF Legcon 2016
Apr 4, 2016 | Examiner
By Tracey O'Neill
Massachusetts Sen. Edward Markey spoke on Monday at the International Association of Firefighters 2016 Legislative Convention held at the Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill.
Making quick mention of his Commonwealth counterpart and union sweetheart Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Markey assured the membership that the two Massachusetts legislators would fight just as hard as their predecessors the late Sen. Ted Kennedy and current Secretary of State John Kerry to protect their first responders.
“I’m here to talk to you about toxics, and I’m not talking about Donald Trump’s rally speeches,” Markey quipped. “I’m talking about the Toxic Substances Control Act which is also probably a good name for Ted Cruz’s Super PAC these days.”
Chemical and toxin exposure not a joking matter for the fire service, Markey turned serious.
Making allusion to the difficulties of partisan blockades and lack of collaboration between the country’s political parties, he noted
“The last Congress was the least productive in the history of our country.”
Although the future of President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee remained unclear and the Flint Michigan water crisis unsolved, the senior senator said there was light in the knowledge that the legislature had passed measures aimed at combatting the country’s opioid crisis.
“Amidst this rancor, there are bright spots,” Markey said. “Last month the Senate passed bi-partisan, comprehensive legislation to combat the opioid crisis; a battle that you are waging on the front lines every day, in your communities back home.”
He also gave nod to the importance of creating a firefighter’s cancer registry, and current legislation to do so before the House.
Ticking off legislation aimed at making the work and lives of first responders more safe, he informed the membership that the Senate had passed legislation to improve the safety of natural gas distribution lines in protecting the nation’s first responders.
The “Securing America’s Future Energy: Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety (SAFE PIPES) Act, included three Markey amendments to strengthen America’s natural gas pipelines, passed by the full Senate on March 3.
Turning his focus to the antiquated Toxic Substances Control Act, he said, “This is one in which there is a glimmer of bi-partisan hopefulness. And that is the high probability that Congress will enact a comprehensive reform of the Toxic Substances Control act in the next few weeks.”
“This year Congress has the opportunity to pass a chemical safety reform bill to overhaul the Nation’s broken TSCA Act of 1976. The nearly 40 year-old Toxic Substances Control Act is the last of the major environmental laws of the 1960’s and 1970’s that has never been rewritten,” he said. “Not withstanding how much we have learned over the years about the impact these toxic substances can have on the health of people who are exposed.”
Noting firefighters’ risk exposure to the flame retardant TBB, a known carcinogen, and its predecessor PBDE, now under regulation, Markey blasted EPA for allowing TBB and other chemicals to be used before safety determinants were vetted.
The proposed Senate legislation requires the EPA to do more before a new chemical can be manufactured. The bill increases transparency and requires confidential information to be shared with medical personnel and first responders. The corresponding House legislation does not, says Markey. In fact the House legislation encourages less transparency.
“Sometimes federal regulators don’t do enough to protect people. And sometimes companies lie about the risks their chemicals cause, which means the federal regulators don’t have the information they need to do their jobs,” Markey said.
Markey and the Senate wanted an avenue for recourse and damages for those harmed by exposure to toxic chemicals. The House legislation, he said, called for an immediate dismissal of any and all lawsuits by and for those harmed.
Markey sits as the senior Democrat on the senate subcommittee of jurisdiction.
http://www.examiner.com/article/markey-attacks-legislative-toe-drag-on-tbb-toxic-chemicals-at-iaff-legcon-2016
-
Women’s Chemical Exposure May Cost Europe more than $1 Billion
Apr 4, 2016 | Reuters
By Katheryn Doyle
n">Across the European Union, women’s reproductive health issues from exposure to chemicals that disrupt their hormones may cost the economy more than 1.4 billion euros, or nearly US$1.6 billion, according to a new analysis.
So-called endocrine disrupting chemicals upset the body’s hormone balance. They can have adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune effects in both humans and wildlife, according to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
Exposure to these chemicals - found in plastic bottles, metal food cans, detergents, flame retardants and cosmetics - has been tied to a wide array of diseases, including autism, diabetes and obesity, said senior author Dr. Leonardo Trasande of the New York University School of Medicine in New York City.
Trasande and colleagues looked at the cost of exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals in terms of two diseases of the uterus: endometriosis and uterine fibroids.
In endometriosis, which affects up to one in 10 women, abnormal growth of uterine tissue causes pain and disability.
Uterine fibroids, most common for women in their 40s and 50s, are benign tumors that can cause heavy and painful periods and pain during sex.
The researchers combined data from 12 European studies that measured diphenyldichloroethene (DDE) exposure in women with fibroids. They also looked at adult phthalate exposure and endometriosis.
To estimate women’s levels of these chemicals, they used findings from two earlier studies in Europe – one that analyzed DDE levels in women ages 15 to 54, and another that looked at urinary phthalate concentrations in women ages 20 to 24.
Their cost estimates for treating fibroids came from national databases in England, Germany and France. The data on costs of treating endometriosis came from Belgium.
They attributed 56,000 cases of fibroids to DDE exposure among European women in 2010, amounting to 163 million euros in economic and healthcare costs, or US$185 million.
For endometriosis, the additional 145,000 cases attributed to phthalates may have cost 1.25 billion euros or $1.42 billion U.S., the researchers reported in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.
The strength of the evidence used to develop these estimates was low, however, and the toxicological evidence linking the chemicals to each outcome was only moderate.
Babies in the womb are particularly vulnerable to endocrine disrupting chemicals, although that was not part of this analysis, said Dr. Niels E. Skakkebaek, who studies these chemicals at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark.
Policymakers should be doing more to remove the chemicals from circulation, he told Reuters Health by email.
“There’s still a substantial amount of uncertainly but ultimately this provides some context for active policymaking in the EU,” Trasande told Reuters Health by phone.
“The analysis was based in Europe but so far as we know for data from the CDC, exposure is similar if not greater in the U.S. . . . and costs are likely to be on the same order of magnitude or even greater,” he said.
The results support ongoing efforts to update the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, which addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals in the U.S., but it severely outdated, Trasande said.
“Future research is clearly needed to understand the effects of these chemicals,” he said.
“It is extremely difficult to avoid exposure,” said Elizabeth E. Hatch, professor of epidemiology at Boston University School of Public Health, who was not part of the new analysis.
One can limit exposure by trying to eat mostly organic or locally grown food, by not eating canned foods, and by limiting use of cosmetics or lotions or looking for products that are less harmful, Hatch told Reuters Health by email.
The research team did not estimate the expense of replacing endocrine disrupting chemicals with safer alternatives, but other studies have suggested it would be on the order of billions of dollars, so the net cost of making changes would be small, Trasande said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-uterus-chemicals-idUSKCN0X11Z3
-
Your Call: The Tangled Web of (And Giant Gaps In) U.S. Chemical Regulations
Apr 4, 2016 | KALW Radio
By Laura Flynn
On the April 4th edition of Your Call, we’re kicking off our week long series examining the toxic chemicals in our everyday lives.
There are more than 80,000 chemicals in the U.S. that haven’t been tested adequately for their health and environmental effects according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. Companies don’t have to disclose the chemicals they use in their products, claiming trade secret protections. What’s being done to close these loopholes and ensure these chemicals are safe? It's Your Call with Rose Aguilar and you.
Guests:
Sharon Lerner, investigative reporter for The Intercept
Daniel Rosenberg, senior attorney at Natural Resources Defense Council
Web Resources:
The Intercept: A Chemical Shell Game
The Intercept: New Teflon Toxin Causes Cancer in Lab Animals
Natural Resources Defense Council: Toxic Chemicals
New York Times: Chemicals Permitted in the U.S. but Banned in the E.U.
Center for Responsive Politics: Toxic Substances Control Act
http://kalw.org/post/your-call-tangled-web-and-giant-gaps-us-chemical-regulations#stream/0
-
California Extends Consultation on Prop 65 Warning Reform
Apr 5, 2016 | Chemical Watch
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has extended the consultation period on its revised proposed reform of "clear and reasonable" warnings under Proposition 65. It will now end on 18 April.
The proposed changes are intended to further the "right to know" provisions under the regulation.
Oehha says it has granted the seven-day extension following a request for additional time from the California Chamber of Commerce.
CalChamber spearheaded the submission of comments on behalf of more than 200 industry groups to Oehha’s previous iteration of the proposal.
When responding to the earlier draft, the industry coalition said it was "very concerned about several aspects of the proposal and their likelihood to result in compliance difficulties, increased frivolous litigation and consumer confusion".
https://chemicalwatch.com/46066/california-extends-consultation-on-prop-65-warning-reform
-
US EPA Stops Posting IRIS Consultations in Federal Register
Apr 4, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA will no longer post notices of public consultations on its draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessments in the Federal Register.
All future notices will be on the system's website.
The agency has also announced the following dates for this year's IRIS public science meetings:10 May;29-30 June;7-8 September; and26-27 October.
-
Obama Administration Launches Interagency Look at NatGas Storage
Apr 4, 2016 | NGI's Shale Daily
By Richard Nemec
In the aftermath of a prolonged natural gas storage well leak in Southern California, the Obama administration on Friday launched a federal interagency task force to examine gas storage safety.
The multi-agency effort will be headed jointly by Franklin Orr, undersecretary for science and energy in the Department of Energy (DOE), and Marie Therese Dominguez, administrator of the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). Technical experts from five other agencies, including FERC, will be involved.
Shortly after the leak at Southern California Gas Co.'s Aliso Canyon storage facility was sealed in mid-February (see Daily GPI, Feb. 18), Orr and Dominguez visited the 3,600-acre site in the far northern end of Los Angeles, and it reinforced the "magnitude and gravity" of the situation, they said in a blog post Friday.
They said it is "very concerning" that the Aliso Canyon leak happened, took four months to fix and disrupted thousands of nearby residents.
Orr said that DOE will hold workshops with industry, state and local leaders and other stakeholders to support the development of best practices on well integrity and proper response plans. An effort in that regard was launched last month by California state officials.
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said the city supports the task force and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the nation's largest municipal utility, will work with DOE "to reduce the city's dependency on natural gas in the future."
Sierra Club representative Jessica Eckdish praised the latest move by the federal agencies, noting that the task force is "well-equipped to uncover the answers needed to protect communities and our climate from the dangers of deadly methane pollution."
Eckdish praised the task force's potential near-term impacts on making gas storage safer, but said "fossil fuels can never be made safe," and that ultimately the nation needs to transition to renewable energy sources.
Orr and Dominguez said the interagency task force will publish the results of its workshops and other work later this year as a means of helping companies and states avoid incidents like the leak at the 86 Bcf-capacity Aliso Canyon facility, which is now closed pending a thorough assessment of all of its 115 storage wells (see Daily GPI, March 29).
In the wake of the Aliso Canyon incident, federal officials have urged companies around the nation to inspect storage wells as soon as possible, and PHMSA recently issued an advisory bulletin encouraging operators to review and implement American Petroleum Institute and Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission recommended practices. PHMSA also has said it will enact "regulatory actions" to beef up gas storage facility safety.
"We view this work as critical because natural gas is a relatively clean fuel that provides heat to millions of American homes and is expected to provide a third of our nation's total electric power generation this year," Orr and Dominguez said.
The interagency task force will get technical assistance from the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Interior, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/105937-obama-administration-launches-interagency-look-at-natgas-storage
-
Were Rules Violated in Amtrak Wreck that Killed Two Workers on the Tracks?
Apr 4, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Ashley Halsey III
Basic rules of railroading and federal regulations should have prevented the Amtrak derailment near Philadelphia on Sunday that killed two maintenance workers and injured 31 people aboard the train, those guidelines indicate.
Just what went wrong that caused a southbound Amtrak train to collide with a backhoe doing work on the track is the province of investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Railroad Administration.
But in the 212 years since the steam locomotive was invented, railroads have established rules to keep trains from running down their own maintenance workers. Those rules have been cemented with federal regulation and law.
Among them:
• Workers are required to perform as teams, with one member keeping watch for approaching trains.
• Work crews are to notify a dispatcher when they prepare to undertake a task on the rail bed.
• Work crews can trip a red signal — halting an approaching train — by cutting off a low electrical current in the rail. (The track carries a simple electrical circuit that determines when there is no train on the track. That, in turn, controls the relevant signals that would allow an oncoming train to continue its progress.)
Even as they examined a data recorder and video from cameras aboard the train, investigators on Monday scrutinized whether the work crew followed those procedures.
Another mechanism that could have prevented Sunday’s crash is called positive train control, or PTC. Amtrak announced that its PTC system was fully operative on its tracks in the Northeast Corridor in December, seven months after a derailment in Philadelphia that the automatic braking system could have prevented. The May 12 wreck killed eight people and injured more than 200.
[Life-saving technology has been turned on for Amtrak trains in the northeast.]
Amtrak confirmed Monday that the system was active and installed on the train involved in Sunday’s collision. But while the technology may have been working at the scene of Sunday’s crash, unless the PTC system was notified that workers were on the track, it would not have stopped the train, railroad experts said.
One of the dead workers was described by officials as the operator of a backhoe working on the rail bed. The other was said to be the worker’s supervisor. It was unclear whether there were other members of the work crew as the daily Amtrak Palmetto train bound for Washington and then on to Savannah, Ga., came barreling down the tracks.
The train departed Philadelphia’s 30th Street Station about 18 minutes earlier and had a straight run of more than two miles before it reached the site where it collided with the backhoe.
The FRA’s regulations on railroad work sites are unequivocal about being on the lookout for approaching trains.
“Watchmen/lookouts assigned to provide train approach warning shall devote full attention to detecting the approach of trains and communicating a warning thereof, and shall not be assigned any other duties while functioning as watchmen/lookouts,” Regulation 214.329 says.
It adds that workers should receive a warning “not less than 15 seconds” before a train passes the work location. And it says that all workers must maintain a position that allows them to hear that warning.
Another regulation requires work parties to orally or in writing notify the train dispatcher of the planned work zone. “The train dispatcher or control operator shall not permit the movement of trains or other on-track equipment onto the working limits . . . until the roadway worker . . . has reported clear of the track,” FRA Regulation 214.323 says.
Work crews also are permitted to shut off the electrical current running through the rail, an action “that precludes passage of trains or engines” into the work zone.
That rule stipulates that no one is permitted to allow trains back into the work area “until receiving permission to do so from the roadway worker who established the working limits.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/were-rules-violated-in-amtrak-wreck-that-killed-two-workers-on-the-tracks/2016/04/04/245885e8-fa79-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html
-
Global Warming Linked to Public Health Risks, White House Says
Apr 4, 2016 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
Global warming could lead to an increase in allergies and asthma, deaths by extreme heat and the proliferation of insect-borne diseases such as the West Nile virus, according to a scientific report released Monday by the White House.
The conclusions of the report on the health effects of climate change in the United States are not new. But Obama administration health officials, including Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, the surgeon general, said the study, which was reviewed by the National Academies of Science, offered the strongest evidence to date that links climate change to health risks.
A number of scientific reports have suggested that a warming planet may exacerbate certain health problems. Even so, scientists have cautioned that no connections had been proved, given the multitude of variables that influence health.
“The scientific information in this report adds considerably to what was known before,” said John P. Holdren, President Obama‘s top scientific adviser, in a briefing Monday morning.
The release of the report, titled “The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment,” was timed to coincide with National Public Health Week, and with public relations efforts to bolster support for the Obama administration’s embattled climate changepolicies.
Twenty-nine states and several major business groups have legally challenged Mr. Obama’s signature effort on climate change, an Environmental Protection Agency regulation to curb greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants. The Supreme Court in February stepped in to block the rule while the legal challenge winds its way through the judicial system.
The regulation, known as the Clean Power Plan, is at the heart of Mr. Obama’s pledge under the Paris Agreement, the first global accord committing every country to address climate change.
The United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, has invited world leaders to New York on April 22, Earth Day, to formally sign the deal, but some climate diplomats fear that with the United States plan in legal limbo, other countries may hesitate. Last week, Mr. Obama and President Xi Jinping of China pledged that their two countries would sign the deal onEarth Day in a bid to bring other countries to the table.
“This report adds considerably to the impetus on the Clean Power Plan and the agreement reached in Paris,” Dr. Holdren said.
The report was developed over three years by about 100 experts in climate change science and public health in eight government agencies, including the E.P.A., Department of Health and Human Services, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/us/politics/climate-change-health-risks.html?_r=0
-
N.Y. Budget Increases Environmental Protection Funding
Apr 5, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
New York will provide some $323 million in new funding this year for programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve water quality and other environmental initiatives, under a budget bill (S. 6408) expected to be signed shortly by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D).
Cuomo, in an April 4 statement, said the state's Environmental Protection Fund will receive the highest level of funding in the state's history, $300 million in the 2016-17 fiscal year.
The bill, which was delivered to the governor April 1, will create a new program to provide $2,000 rebates to consumers who purchase zero-emission and plug-in electric hybrid vehicles. Local governments will receive rebates of up to $250,000 for developing clean vehicle infrastructure and between $750 and $5,000 per vehicle for the purchase of electric vehicles.
The programs are expected to help the state achieve its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050 and putting 800,000 zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2025, according to Environmental Advocates of New York.
Climate Change Account Created
The clean vehicle program will be funded by a new $14 million Climate Change Account within the Environmental Protection Fund.
The budget also includes an additional $200 million for a grant program created last year to provide local governments with funding to upgrade drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.
Environmental groups applauded the additional funding, but they criticized the budget for a provision that would transfer $30 million of the proceeds received from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative from the New York Energy Research and Development Authority to the state Urban Development Corp.
The funding will be used to provide property tax relief to communities that are facing the closure or mothballing of fossil fuel power plants.
RGGI ‘Raid.'
“This RGGI raid is a job killer,” Peter Iwanowicz, executive director of Environmental Advocates of New York, told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
“The program has put thousands of people to work in the clean energy sector and helps working families lower energy bills,” he said. “The budget takes jobs money to cover tax losses. These communities need support, but it should not have come out of RGGI, which could have helped put people back to work.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=86344144&vname=dennotallissues&fn=86344144&jd=86344144
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested