Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 4/11
-
(ACC Mentioned) No Joke: Prop 65 Warnings Site Launches To Industry Group's Dismay
Apr 8, 2016 | The Rose Sheet
Designed to provide consumers with supplemental detail about the Prop 65 warnings they encounter, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's new Warnings website launched quietly April 1. The American Chemistry Council says the site is riddled with inaccuracies and in need of contextual information to ensure that consumers are better informed and not further confused or needlessly alarmed. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Seeks Additional Help Under US-Canada GHS Workplan
Apr 11, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Sylvia Palmer
Industry has stressed the need for guidance to facilitate hazard communication compliance, and urged the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) and Health Canada to address variances between their regulations. -
(ACC Mentioned) A Voice for Chemistry in Congress
Apr 11, 2016 |
By Susan B. Butts
I like to practice what I preach. As chair of the Committee on Chemistry & Public Affairs (CCPA), I have often encouraged ACS members to visit policymakers in Washington and in their home districts, and to contact their legislators through the Act4Chemistry Legislative Action Network (www.act4chemistry.org). -
REACH ‘One Substance’ Principle to Be Enforced
Apr 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) warned companies April 8 that their REACH registration dossiers will be subject to scrutiny if they have been submitted outside of joint substance registrations, as required under the REACH “one substance, one registration” principle. -
Still in the Dark on TTIP: Trade Agreement with the European Union Is a Black Box
Apr 8, 2016 | Union of Concerned Scientists
By Celia Wexler
Negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) have been concluded. Citizens now have access to the 30-chapter agreement that is several thousand pages long. -
Every Little Bit Hurts: EPA Ignores Chemical Exposures, Putting our Health at Risk
Apr 8, 2016 | NRDC
By Veena Singla
Last night my partner, who is attempting to cut back on his excessive chocolate consumption, tried to convince me that the chocolate he ate at work earlier in the day "didn't count" and that he should be allowed to eat one more chocolate bunny. -
How Does PFOA Get into the Water?
Apr 9, 2016 | WPTZ
By Jennifer Sheahen
After hundreds of tests, there is still one concern: figuring out the extent of water contamination from the cancer causing chemical PFOA. -
While We All Fixate on Glyphosate, Monsanto Prepares its Next GM Trick: RNA Pesticides
Apr 11, 2016 | Ecologist
By JP Sottile
Is Monsanto 'evil'? Just pop that question into Google and you'll find out quickly why Monsanto ranks near the top of every 'most hated company' list. -
Companies with Commercial Biofuels and Biobased Chemicals -- Get Ready For CDR
Apr 8, 2016 | The National Law Review
By Kathleen M. Roberts
In less than two months, renewable fuel and biobased chemical companies that have successfully moved from research and development to commercialization will be required to respond to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) -
Niosh Publishes Nano Workplace Safety Guide for SMEs
Apr 11, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Niosh) has published guidance to help small to medium sized businesses (SMEs) design successful nanotechnology workforce safety programmes. -
NGOs File Suit Against FDA Over Perchlorate Petition
Apr 11, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Six NGOs have sued the US FDA over its failure to act on a 2014 petition to ban perchlorate in food packaging. -
California Further Extends Prop 65 Warning Consultation
Apr 11, 2016 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has extended for the second time its consultation on its revised proposed reform to "clear and reasonable" warning provisions under Proposition 65. -
Report: Federal Law Lets Oil and Gas Companies Hide Data on Chemicals
Apr 11, 2016 | Public News Service
By Suzanne Potter
Montana has about 4,400 oil wells and 6,700 gas wells – and a >new report says companies are hiding basic data on the chemicals they use – under the guise of confidentiality – and it's completely legal. -
Report: Potentially Dangerous Fracking Chemicals Used in California
Apr 11, 2016 | Public News Service
By Suzanne Potter
California has almost 50,000 oil wells and more than 4,100 gas wells – and a new report says federal law allows companies to use chemicals for drilling and fracking with virtually no health testing and then use confidentiality claims to hide basic information on what's being injected. -
Can Liberals Frack?
Apr 11, 2016 | The New York Times
By Gary Sernovitz
AS the Democratic presidential campaign comes to New York, the candidates are competing to dance on the grave of fracking, even though the oil and gas extraction technique of hydraulic fracturing has been banned in the state since 2014. -
How Clinton Will Rebuff Sanders on ‘Fracking’
Apr 8, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Gary Sargent
In the high stakes battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in New York, one issue that may play a big role is hydraulic fracturing — or “fracking” — which has been banned by New York governor Andrew Cuomo, amid an activist movement in the state that has succeeded in building opposition to the practice. -
Hopes Fade in Congress for Energy Reform
Apr 10, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry and Timothy Cama
Hopes are fading that Congress can pass a broad energy bill before the year ends. -
Public Comment Period for Gas Transmission Rule Begins
Apr 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A proposed rule setting new regulations for natural gas pipelines by the Transportation Department's Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration was formally published April 8 in the Federal Register (81 Fed. Reg. 20,722 ), kicking off a 60-day comment period that ends June 7. -
Keystone Oil Pipeline Leaks 17,000 Gallons
Apr 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A spokesman for the South Dakota Environment and Natural Resources Department told Bloomberg BNA April 8 that a leak in the Keystone I pipeline has spilled an estimated 16,800 gallons of oil near Freeman in southeastern South Dakota. -
SEPTA to Begin PTC Roll Out Mid April
Apr 8, 2016 | RT&S
By Mischa Wanek-Libman
SEPTA will begin to implement PTC on the Warminster Regional Rail Line beginning with the first scheduled train on Monday, April 18. -
Old, New Fights Expected at Bicameral Energy and Water Markups
Apr 11, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss and Tiffany Stecker
The prospects for President Obama's request to double clean energy spending over five years will become clearer this week, as House and Senate appropriators unveil their fiscal 2017 spending bills that fund the Department of Energy. -
Admin Critics Move Against Ozone Standard
Apr 11, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
Condemnation thundered down from the highest precincts of Capitol Hill last October when U.S. EPA tightened the air quality standard for ozone. But only now, more than six months later, are lawmakers taking a tangible first step toward challenging the new benchmark.
Congressional Hearings - There are no hearings to report at this time.
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
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) No Joke: Prop 65 Warnings Site Launches To Industry Group's Dismay
Apr 8, 2016 | The Rose Sheet
Executive Summary
Designed to provide consumers with supplemental detail about the Prop 65 warnings they encounter, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's new Warnings website launched quietly April 1. The American Chemistry Council says the site is riddled with inaccuracies and in need of contextual information to ensure that consumers are better informed and not further confused or needlessly alarmed.
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's proposed Proposition 65 Warnings website became a reality April 1, drawing a critical same-day release from the American Chemistry Council, which characterized it – sardonically or hopefully – as an April Fools' Day joke.
ACC notes that the site launched without fanfare or warning and despite strong industry objections. Making the surprise more jarring is the "incomplete and limited information" the site contains, the trade group says.
From ACC's perspective, richer context is needed to ensure that consumers are informed about Prop 65 warnings rather than further misled or needlessly alarmed.
The site is intended to provide consumers with additional information on chemicals subject to Prop 65 warnings, consistent with the program's "right to know" objectives.
"Visiting this website regularly will help you learn about these chemicals and how you can reduce your exposure to them," OEHHA says on the site's homepage, noting that content will be updated frequently.
However, ACC says the site already contains "serious misinformation."
"Bottom line, the public is shortchanged when information is posted that is incomplete, inaccurate and not properly placed into context. 'Right to Know' should also mean 'Right to Understand,'" the American Chemistry Council asserts.
Currently, Californians encounter a dizzying array of Prop 65 warnings on product labels and signage at point of sale (as well as in restaurants, parking garages and other public places) indicating that this product or that "contains a chemical known to the State of California" to cause cancer or birth defects/reproductive harm.
What they do with that information, and the extent to which it provides for informed purchasing decisions, have always been matters of debate and stakeholder controversy.
Industry opposition to the Prop 65 program, which revolves around a lengthening list of more than 800 substances that OEHHA deems carcinogenic or reprotoxic, has been overt since its inception in 1986. The scientific basis for listings is questioned routinely, as is the authority of sources on which OEHHA relies for expertise.
Vitriol has only grown as an increasing number of businesses have fallen victim to what they see as shakedowns by so-called "bounty hunters," which have turned the statute's private-enforcement mechanism into a lucrative moneymaking scheme.
Industry's reception of the new consumer-facing website has not been any warmer.
ACC – whose membership includes major chemical suppliers, pharmaceutical companies and Procter & Gamble Co.'s Chemicals division – says it supports consumers' access to important safety information, but OEHHA's website falls short of the mark or, worse, threatens to exacerbate an already confused situation.
In an April 7 blog post, the trade group takes issue specifically with certain fact sheets available on the site.
For example, "a spot check of information presented in one of the formaldehyde fact sheets is a cancer claim that contradicts current scientific evidence," ACC says.
OEHHA's Formaldehyde fact sheet features the warning symbol the agency has proposed for inclusion in Prop 65 warnings – "a black exclamation point in a yellow equilateral triangle with a bold black outline" ("OEHHA Redrafts Prop 65 Rule To Better Inform Public, Curtail 'Over-Warning'" — "The Rose Sheet,"Dec. 4, 2015). Within the same field, OEHHA states: Formaldehyde (gas) is on the Proposition 65 list as a chemical that causes cancer. Exposure to formaldehyde can cause leukemia and cancers of the nose, throat and sinuses.
According to the agency, formaldehyde releases into the air from various sources, including some furniture, composite wood products, building materials and consumer products such as hair-smoothing formulas.
ACC contests that "numerous scientific studies show that levels of formaldehyde normally found in homes and offices do not pose a risk. It is also important to note that formaldehyde occurs naturally in the environment, is produced by the human body and highly efficient biological mechanisms in the body ensure that normal, everyday exposures do not pose a risk. This makes us wonder about the correctness of other materials developed by OEHHA for the site."
OEHHA to date has urged consumers to contact the businesses behind warnings for information on "what chemicals are present, and at what levels, as well as how exposure to them may occur," but the new website may now be consumers' first-line resource for understanding the warnings they encounter.
Also noteworthy is a "Most Viewed Chemicals" bank on the site's homepage, which contains Aloe vera, non-decolorized whole leaf extract.
The listing was subject to controversy last year when OEHHA initially identified the substance of concern as Aloe vera, whole leaf extract, an overly broad designation that threatened to expose large numbers of cosmetics firms to unwarranted Prop 65 litigation ("Clarified Prop 65 Aloe Vera Listing Largely Resolves Cosmetic Concerns" — "The Rose Sheet," Dec. 9, 2015).
Considering the challenges faced in properly restricting the listing, the wide use of Aloe vera derivatives in cosmetics and consumers' loose familiarity with the plant name, a note on OEHHA's site regarding the narrowness of the listing and/or specifying that not all Aloe vera ingredients are implicated could be useful.
However, little detail is offered other than the reason for its listing: cancer.
OEHHA Said What?
ACC's frustration seems to reflect in part communication breakdowns between industry and OEHHA, or a perceived disregard on OEHHA's part for industry's concerns.
"During the public discussion of the proposed P65 Warnings Website, many, including ACC, urged OEHHA to ensure that information posted to the site would not further confuse consumers and to note that the mere presence of a Proposition 65 listed substance in consumer products does not represent a health risk. As OEHHA itself has often said, a Proposition 65 listing has nothing to do with product safety," ACC says.
If OEHHA has acknowledged as much in closed-door forums, there appears to be some disagreement between the persona the agency assumes with industry stakeholders and its communications to consumers.
In the Frequently Asked Questions section of its primary website, OEHHA addresses the question of whether a product is safe if it carries a Prop 65 warning.
"The purpose of Prop 65 is to notify consumers that they are being exposed to chemicals that are known to cause cancer and/or reproductive toxicity. Consumers can decide on their own if they want to purchase or use the product," it says.
While the agency notes that "a Proposition 65 warning does not necessarily mean a product is in violation of any product-safety standards or requirements," it stops short of granting that products carrying a warning may well be safe for consumer use.
OEHHA is bound to large degree by the directives and core assumptions of the overarching legislation, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, which provides the basis for casting chemicals with hazardous traits – often in isolated animal studies – as chemicals "known to the state" to cause cancer or reproductive harm.
The agency does note on its "Proposition 65 in Plain Language" page that its visibility into businesses' specific warnings is limited and that consumers should contact the business itself for information on "what chemicals are present, and at what levels, as well as how exposure to them may occur."
But consumers may now look to the Prop 65 Warnings website as the authoritative, first-line resource for understanding the warnings they encounter.
ACC Pushes 'Right To Understand'
That is precisely what ACC opposed in its April 2015 comments on OEHHA's notice of proposed rulemaking for the website initiative, issued in January of last year.
The trade group sought to have the proposal shelved, arguing that the website "puts the California government in the untenable position of appearing to be the authority for consumers with questions about safety, instead of the product manufacturers themselves."
ACC's position is that ample resources already exist for consumers seeking chemical safety information, including from federal agencies such as FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency. "This kind of balanced, robust, risk-based information is useful for consumers because the information is put into the proper context," an ACC spokesperson noted in an April 8 email.
The private sector also has its share of credible sources for consumers with medical questions related to chemical exposure, the rep said, citing WebMD, the Mayo Clinic and the American Cancer Society as examples.
In its comments last year, ACC anticipated that the Prop 65 Warnings website as described would leave consumers with even more questions, if not convinced that their use of products bearing warnings would inevitably lead to one of the threatened health outcomes.
"OEHHA never indicates that it will offer useful, accurate information to consumers – risk-based information, benefits information and alternatives information. For that matter, its focus remains on single, discrete chemicals instead of on the often highly complex compounds and formulations that are consumer products. This is not how consumers should make decisions to use or consume products," ACC argued.
"To answer questions like – is coffee good for me? is red wine good for me? if so, how much? – consumers need to know more than that the product happens to contain a chemical listed on Proposition 65."
"Consumers must look for other sites that explain how products are regulated for safety, what the safety standard is and whether the product meets it. Frankly, this information should be included on OEHHA’s site," an ACC rep said, while noting that the website's limitations are a product of the statute itself.
ACC contends that by omitting crucial information about exposure levels and other factors that contribute to risk analysis, OEHHA's site is inherently misleading.
"Consumers must look for other sites that explain how products are regulated for safety, what the safety standard is and whether the product meets it. Frankly, this information should be included on OEHHA’s site," the rep said.
According to the trade organization, OEHHA should completely overhaul the website to include information that is risk-based and contextual, with consideration given to how products are used and the benefits they provide.
At the same time, ACC recognizes that the website's current shortcomings are "embedded" in the Prop 65 statute itself – i.e., their limitations and failings are mutual.
"Proposition 65 requires a warning before exposure to a listed chemical and was never designed to be a comprehensive, risk-based, product safety statute," the spokesperson noted. "It’s ironic that the administration of a self-styled 'right to know' statute results in critical information being withheld from the public – but that’s the outcome."
Site Traffic Likely To Increase Sharply
A parallel initiative from OEHHA that remains under consideration would increase traffic flow to the new website and reinforce its status as consumers' go-to resource for Prop 65 chemical safety information.
To clarify Prop 65 warnings, the agency has proposed updated wording that would require manufacturers to identify at least one specific chemical of concern in their products to which consumers may be exposed and include a link to the Prop 65 Warnings website ("OEHHA's Updated Prop 65 Draft Reg Still Problematic – Industry Groups" — "The Rose Sheet," Feb. 11, 2016).
Given that the site's exposure is likely to grow significantly under such a model, it is critical that OEHHA take appropriate measures to ensure that information is accurate and balanced, ACC suggests.
"We strongly encourage OEHHA to incorporate more transparency and vetting of information before it finalizes and posts information about chemicals and product safety," the group says.
ACC is hopeful that OEHHA will afford greater opportunity going forward for product makers to review information it intends to publish to the site and offer corrections or additional information as appropriate.
However, the agency to date has discouraged businesses from providing supplemental information in conjunction with Prop 65 warnings, which bodes ill for the prospect of their having input on website content.
"Bottom line, the public is shortchanged when information is posted that is incomplete, inaccurate and not properly placed into context. 'Right to Know' should also mean 'Right to Understand,'" ACC concludes on its blog.
https://www.pharmamedtechbi.com/publications/the-rose-sheet/37/15/no-joke-prop-65-warnings-site-launches-to-industry-groups-dismay
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Seeks Additional Help Under US-Canada GHS Workplan
Apr 11, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Sylvia Palmer
Industry has stressed the need for guidance to facilitate hazard communication compliance, and urged the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) and Health Canada to address variances between their regulations.
This is in comments submitted to the US-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council's (RCC’s) draft 2016-17 workplan for workplace chemicals.
The workplan outlines next steps in the regulatory partnership between the agencies, to minimise hazard communication differences. These include developing guidance for stakeholders, coordinating common positions and participating in the UN GHS Sub-committee, and maintaining alignment on GHS implementation.
Guidance for GHS implementation
Industry's need for specific guidance, to assist with interpretation and implementation of the modernised GHS, is repeated in several comments.
Cheryl Fougère, director of government relations and policy at the Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association, indicates that “to date, only two standalone Health Canada guidance documents, on concentration ranges and generic chemical identities, have been completed with no requests for input by stakeholders.”
Other respondents agreed that Canadian guidance is needed to help compliance with the country's regulations.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) recommends the agencies consider developing three levels of guidance materials:for those who classify substances/products, and develop safety data sheets (SDSs) and labelling;for those users needing clarifications on the US Hazard Communication Standard (HCS 2012); andto address variances in implementation between the US and Canada.
More effort to address variances
Industry stakeholders urged the agencies to work jointly to identify and address existing regulatory differences and in guidance development. This harmonisation will help to prevent “inconsistent interpretation of legislative intent and the creation of additional variances”, says Jacques Cerf, a consultant to the Chemical Industry Association of Canada.
Dave Saucier, vice president, regulatory and government affairs of Responsible Distribution Canada, “encourages both governments to continue to work diligently to identify, reduce and avoid variances, through continued and ongoing collaboration that includes stakeholders.”
The American Coatings Association and the Canadian Paints and Coatings Association also say a joint approach is needed in developing guidance. “Until such guidance is issued, variances will prevent the flow of products with single labels and SDS between the US and Canada,” they say.
Misaligned CBI approaches
Industry groups remain troubled by differences in confidential business information (CBI) approaches. Canada’s requirement to process a claim for CBI exemption, prior to importing, may result in product delays to the Canadian market, says Alexa Burr, director of regulatory and technical affairs at the ACC. “The prohibitive cost may prevent some companies from exporting to Canada,” she adds.
Suzanne B Hartigan, director, science policy & regulatory affairs at the International Fragrance Association North America, points out that Osha does not require manufacturers to seek approval of trade secrecy claims.
“By contrast, the Canadian system of trade secrecy is much more demanding, uncertain and costly,” she says.
Looking to the future
The US and Canadian coating groups indicate that “noticeably absent” from the workplan is a policy statement that Osha and Health Canada will commit to fully align classification, labelling and SDS requirements, as well as timing of the implementation of future GHS revisions.
The workplan was made available for public comment, following a webinar hosted by Health Canada and Osha on 3 March. The goal is to have it ready for final release at the end of June.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46398/industry-seeks-additional-help-under-us-canada-ghs-workplan
-
(ACC Mentioned) A Voice for Chemistry in Congress
Apr 11, 2016 |
By Susan B. Butts
I like to practice what I preach. As chair of the Committee on Chemistry & Public Affairs (CCPA), I have often encouraged ACS members to visit policymakers in Washington and in their home districts, and to contact their legislators through the Act4Chemistry Legislative Action Network (www.act4chemistry.org). So last summer, I made an appointment to meet with my Congressman, John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), whose district includes Midland, Mich., home to both Dow . . ....The kickoff event will be hosted by ACS, the American Chemistry Council, and the National Association of Chemical Distributors.
For full story: http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i15/voice-chemistry-Congress.html?type=paidArticleContent
-
REACH ‘One Substance’ Principle to Be Enforced
Apr 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) warned companies April 8 that their REACH registration dossiers will be subject to scrutiny if they have been submitted outside of joint substance registrations, as required under the REACH “one substance, one registration” principle.
The ECHA announcement follows a March 15 decision from the agency's Board of Appeal, which found that ECHA was wrong to automatically assign REACH registration numbers after an initial completeness check to submitters of dossiers that might be of low quality, or that are not part of joint registrations for the same substance (52 DEN A-17, 3/17/16).
ECHA said that implementing the Board of Appeal's decision “means that approximately 700 individual registrations submitted under the REACH regulation will be reopened,” representing “1.5 percent of all registrations.”
ECHA said it would also “recheck the completeness of the dossiers in its database” in order to “verify that the information provided is meaningful.”
Registrants with dossiers that fail the retroactive checks would be given a “reasonable amount of time” to bring their dossiers into compliance with REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals), and to join joint submissions if necessary, ECHA said.
Registrants that fail to do so would see their registration numbers canceled, and they “will lose market access,” ECHA said.
Complaint of Free-Riding
According to the Board of Appeal decision, an initial ECHA screening of registration dossiers was failing to ensure that the “one substance, one registration” principle was adhered to, and was checking only that required information fields within REACH submissions were filled in with some information, and not that the information provided was sufficient to comply with REACH.
Under the principle, companies that produce or import the same substance are supposed to file a joint registration so that data on the substance is shared and tests are not duplicated.
The system was potentially allowing registrants that submitted poor quality dossiers to obtain REACH registration numbers—and therefore access to the European Union market—while not contributing to the costs of assembling data for joint registrations, the Board of Appeal said.
The complaint to the Board of Appeal was brought by a German company that said a Bulgarian company was, in effect, avoiding the costs of preparing a REACH registration dossier for charcoal by not joining the joint registration for the substance, and by submitting an inadequate dossier.
ECHA said April 8 that it would start the new program of registration dossier checks by examining individual dossiers for charcoal, and would “make sure that they become part of the existing joint submission.”
Companies that might be affected by the dossier checks should “proactively update their registrations as soon as possible if needed,” ECHA said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=86642037&vname=dennotallissues&fn=86642037&jd=86642037
-
Still in the Dark on TTIP: Trade Agreement with the European Union Is a Black Box
Apr 8, 2016 | Union of Concerned Scientists
By Celia Wexler
Negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) have been concluded. Citizens now have access to the 30-chapter agreement that is several thousand pages long. The TPP has been opposed by four major presidential candidates, and faces criticism in Congress. Nevertheless, it is likely that the trade deal will get a vote sometime this year.
But waiting in the wings, and still being negotiated largely in secret is another, equally important, trade deal: the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The agreement, between the U.S. and the 28-nation European Union, has been formally discussed through 12 rounds of negotiations, with another round scheduled for some time this month. Both sides would like to conclude this treaty by the end of 2016.
Because Congress has approved fast-track legislation last year, TTIP also would get an expedited up-or-down vote by Congress, with no chance for amending the treaty. The fast-track law covers trade deals that extend into the next administration, over a period as long as six years.
Here’s my greatest fear about the TTIP: It will pressure regulators on both sides of the Atlantic to settle for the least restrictive public health and safety rules.
Millions of European and American activists share my concerns. Particularly on the EU side of the Atlantic, there has been spirited public opposition to the TTIP. In part, that’s because the EU has publicly disclosed the text of its proposals.
Unfortunately, the US Trade Representative still refuses to publicly disclose U.S. proposals on TTIP, a state of affairs that has drawn the criticism of members of Congress and activists. It also has greatly reduced the level of concern among the general public, who have been largely left out of the discussion.
What we have learned about some of these proposals is incomplete but disquieting. The TTIP may open the door to “mutual recognition” of a variety of products, including drugs, medical devices and chemicals, so that if they meet the standards of the US or the EU, the products won’t have to be approved by the other side’s regulators.
The EU’s proposals on regulatory cooperation could export some aspects of rule-making in the US that often delay and weaken rules. For example, business interests might get more influence over the regulatory process and regulators might have to prove that regulations did not have a harmful impact on the economy by increasing the cost of compliance for businesses.
And while both the US and the EU are alike in many ways, in some ways, they are far different. Take the regulation of chemicals. The EU has the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals regimen, or REACH, a stringent systemthat uses the precautionary principle. Chemicals can’t be sold until they are proven to be safe. In the US under the existing Toxic Substances Control Act, chemicals are assumed to be harmless unless the EPA can demonstrate they should be regulated.
In an ideal world, REACH would apply to both countries under TTIP. What many chemical reformers fear is that the opposite will happen—that REACH will be jeopardized by the agreement, and that chemical companies will take advantage of our more lax regulatory assessments and opt to be initially approved in the U.S. and then be automatically accepted in the EU.
The US continues to be the gold standard when it comes to drug and device approvals. Will TTIP make it easier for US companies to bypass FDA scrutiny if their products are approved by the EU?
Another, more imminent, threat is that the EU’s recent push to make clinical trial data more transparent could be halted if the TTIP enforces strict confidential business information rules. This transparency is crucial to public health and safety.
There also is concern that TTIP’s proposals on regulatory cooperation may impede the ability of state governments to impose strict restrictions when federal regulators fail to act, whether it is food safety, labeling of toxic chemicals, or a ban on certain materials.
The EU has pushed for regulatory cooperation that goes beyond discussions between U.S. and EU regulators, and potentially involves more oversight of state regulations. States have been the drivers of science-informed aggressive regulation. If their actions have to be monitored or assessed by a federal regulator or by an extra-national regulatory cooperation council, that would delay and discourage these crucial public protections.
Investor State Dispute Settlement also is on the table. Despite the fact that the U.S. and the EU have sophisticated legal systems that could accommodate any type of litigation brought by foreign corporations, business interests continue to push for an extra-national tribunal to hear their disputes.
ISDS permits a foreign corporation that believes it has been treated unfairly by a nation through its federal, state or local policies, to sue for damages for harm to its profits before an international three-person tribunal, generally composed of trade lawyers.
There has been massive resistance to ISDS, including protests by well over 100,000 people in Germany alone. They are concerned that ISDS could jeopardize food safety and environmental standards if foreign companies challenged protective European policies. Germany, for example, was hit by a major ISDS lawsuit when it decided to phase out it reliance on nuclear energy after the disaster at Fukushima. The Swedish nuclear company Vattenfall sued Germany for $4.7 billion Euros in damages.
The EU has tried to mollify this opposition by proposing an alternative to a three-person tribunal: an international trade court to hear such cases. But the U.S. is resisting this proposal, and many critics, including the 16,000-member German Association of Judges, strongly oppose it. German judges are concerned that a permanent court, comprised of judges who must be trade experts, would not be independent enough from corporate influence. They also argue that foreign corporations do not need a separate tribunal, when they can sue in domestic courts.
Secrecy means that citizens in this country are deprived of the information they need to influence these negotiations in any meaningful way. It means that even our elected representatives cannot engage in meaningful dialogue about this crucial trade deal with their constituents.
TTIP may not be as bad as hundreds of thousands of activists fear. But the problem is that we won’t know until it is too late to do much about it. We can ask Congress to reject the trade deal, but we will not have the ability to influence it as it is being negotiated. That’s a losing proposition for everyone.
http://blog.ucsusa.org/celia-wexler/still-in-the-dark-on-ttip-trade-agreement-with-the-european-union-is-a-black-box
-
Every Little Bit Hurts: EPA Ignores Chemical Exposures, Putting our Health at Risk
Apr 8, 2016 | NRDC
By Veena Singla
Last night my partner, who is attempting to cut back on his excessive chocolate consumption, tried to convince me that the chocolate he ate at work earlier in the day "didn't count" and that he should be allowed to eat one more chocolate bunny. I didn't buy it and ate the bunny instead (and it was delicious). I won that debate because common sense tells us that it doesn't matter where it came from—each piece of chocolate adds up, so he reached his quota whether he ate the chocolate at work or at home.
You'd think the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could follow the same logic. But somehow, the simple fact that each little piece counts seems elusive time after time in their chemical safety assessments. And their accounting is much more consequential for our health than one extra chocolate bunny after dinner (or lunch).
That's because EPA determines the health risks we face from a chemical based in part on how much of that chemical gets into our bodies. Less chemical means less risk. So if lots of "little pieces" are missing from EPA's addition, that means their final sum will be too small—and maybe in a big way.
EPA's taking a look right now at the risks of 3 different "clusters" of flame retardant chemicals—like a family, these clusters are groups of related chemicals. The jumble of letters and long chemical names probably don't mean much to you, but if you're using a computer, sitting on a couch or padded chair, or inside a building right now, you're almost certainly breathing in or touching one or more of these very chemicals, shown in the table.
EPA decided to tackle these chemicals because they stand out with serious health concerns and widespread human exposure—they contaminate the bodies of practically every man, woman and child in the country. They are ubiquitous in the products we use every day and they migrate out of these products into the air and dust of our homes, offices and schools. A flame retardant chemical enters our bodies when we breathe it in, accidentally get dust in our mouths, absorb it through our skin from contaminated air and dust, and ingest contaminated food and water. This is called the "aggregate exposure" for a chemical—it's the total amount that gets into us through all the different routes.
But EPA is proposing to not look at this total exposure for their safety evaluations. For example, in the TBBPA evaluation, they account for one of the five routes (dust), and account for just one tiny part of another—food, for which they only consider fish.
EPA's justification for not adding in exposures from other foods is a particular head-scratcher—they state that those would be the "purview of other federal agencies." The flame retardants are present in food and will enter our bodies when we eat contaminated food. These exposures will contribute to our total exposure regardless of which agency is responsible and therefore need to be considered.
Leaving out the inhalation pathway of exposure seems particularly problematic for the cluster of TCEP and related chemicals. The title of a recent study (Schreder, et al 2016) says why: "Inhalation a significant exposure route for chlorinated organophosphate flame retardants." (Chlorinated organophosphate flame retardants means the cluster of TCEP and related chemicals.)
We commented on these weaknesses, and many others, in the extensive technical comments (pdf) we submitted to EPA last year, in collaboration with Earthjustice and Washington Toxics Coalition.
EPA needs to account for known exposures using available data, models, or estimates as needed. When not enough data are available to make quantitative estimates, defaults can be used to account for the missing information, as the National Academy of Sciences has recommended. EPA has established some scientifically based default assumptions that are used when information about toxicity is missing or unreliable. For example, if the only available toxicity data is from adult animals, adjustments are made to account for the potential increased susceptibility of humans compared to animals, and the higher susceptibility of children compared to adults. The numerical value of these standard default factors is typically 3-fold or 10-fold, depending on the degree of missing information, and the judgment of the agency. Similar default values should be developed to account for missing exposure information.
The analysis in these assessments serves as the foundation for decisions that will affect every single person. We can't make good decisions based on incomplete information, and we shouldn't draw conclusions about the safety of a chemical without accounting for the reality of how (and how much) people are being exposed in the real world. EPA's determinations will be even more important with reforms being proposed to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that would limit the opportunity of states to take protective actions—so it's more critical than ever that EPA get this right. Read more about TSCA, these flame retardant risk assessments, and the troubling pattern we found of companies using "confidential business information" claims to conceal basic information about these chemicals on Earthjustice attorney Eve Gartner's blog here.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/veena-singla/every-little-bit-hurts-epa-ignores-chemical-exposures-putting-our-health-risk
-
How Does PFOA Get into the Water?
Apr 9, 2016 | WPTZ
By Jennifer Sheahen
After hundreds of tests, there is still one concern: figuring out the extent of water contamination from the cancer causing chemical PFOA.
So far, 232 water supplies have been sampled for PFOA in North Bennington alone, and another 150 private drinking wells will soon be tested. Those numbers don't include samples in Pownal, or tests planned at 11 other sites, mostly in Chittenden County.
Senior hydrogeologist and groundwater specialist Miles Waite is taking a closer look at this emerging chemical.
PFOA is most notably used in Teflon but also in many other everyday products.
“It's in Scotchgard, in stain-resistant fabrics, it's in ski waxes, it's in flame retardants, it's on the lining of microwave popcorn bags. So it's been used in a lot of materials,” Waite said.
How did this toxic chemical find its way into some of southern Vermont’s groundwater?
“From the stacks of companies that produce or use it, there is atmospheric fallout. Small particles of PFOA settle on the earth, then rainwater comes, and because PFOA is so readily dissolvable, the rain percolates it and it eventually gets down into the water,” Waite said.
The epicenter of testing in North Bennington and Pownel is near former manufacturing plants. The hydrogeologist explains that even though the plants closed years ago the chemical can linger for decades. Not only in water systems but in also in the body.
“It gets into the blood and it stays in the blood in your system. It can, I think, bio-accumulate too. So, it’s not like you would excrete it. I think it stays in your body…and that's where you get the health effects,” Waite said.
As the testing starts in and around Chittenden County, he said there is a chance PFOA could be found.
“Geez, now that we're looking at parts per trillion, we are looking at microscopic levels, we might find that it's everywhere. I'm curious to see testing in Chittenden County, away from Bennington, (and) whether we might find it there just because it sticks in the environment for so long and it can migrate from the source. So we might find it,” Waite said.
He also said the PFOA test is very specialized and the state does not require it be tested for in public water systems or personal wells.
Soil test results from North Bennington are expected to be released in the next week or two. Waite said when it comes to soil the standards and health risks are much lower.
http://www.wptz.com/news/how-does-pfoa-get-into-the-water/38935246
-
While We All Fixate on Glyphosate, Monsanto Prepares its Next GM Trick: RNA Pesticides
Apr 11, 2016 | Ecologist
By JP Sottile
Is Monsanto 'evil'? Just pop that question into Google and you'll find out quickly why Monsanto ranks near the top of every 'most hated company' list.
And ask any news editor ... the name 'Monsanto' is guaranteed clickbait that reels in readers by the bushel. It's probably why you are reading this right now.
Perhaps you, like many anti-GMO farmers, environmental watchdogs and consumer advocates, see Monsanto as the embodiment of everything that's wrong with corporate America.
Its name is synonymous with unbridled greed, indifference to the environment, bipartisan cronyism and a demonstrated willingness to steamroll the little guy.
To wit, Monsanto wields a three-decade-old Supreme Court patent ruling like a scythe as it cuts down farmers who dare to save seeds for the next planting season. It has alsobeaten back challenges from organic farmers who fell victim to 'genetic drift' when Monsanto's patented crops cross-pollinated with their non-GMO neighbours and therefore rendered them unsellable.
Monsanto acts like a corporate Borg, methodically amalgamating conventional farmers while also quietly eliminating their organic competition through the sheer ubiquity of its patented pollen. With 90% of soybean, corn and cotton acreage in the United States now planted with genetically modified (GM) seeds - and with other common food crops quickly following suit - noncompliant farmers are quite literally surrounded.
The rise of Monsanto
Interestingly enough, Monsanto spent decades as a fairly typical industrial chemical company, producing PCBs, DDT and even Agent Orange. But it pivoted away from its chemical business - which it oddly calls 'former Monsanto' - in the mid-1970s.
Luckily for the new Monsanto, Congress recently inserted a paragraph into a pending revamp of the Toxic Substances Control Act. It shields the new Monsanto from "hundreds of millions" of dollars in lingering liability from the PCBs made by the former Monsanto.
Today's Monsanto took shape when its patented formula for glyphosate hit the market in 1974. Sold under the name 'Roundup,' glyphosate demonstrated an uncanny ability to kill every plant it touched - an ability that eventually transformed Monsanto into a globe-spanning, gene-patenting agrochemical empire worth $47 billion.
Monsanto also became a consumer market titan as millions of weekend warriors strapped on their 'sharpshooter' spray nozzles to do battle with the dreaded weeds they simply don't have the patience to pull or the willingness to mulch.
Monsanto's perennial 'Wild Western-style' ad campaign sells convenience with the sound of ricocheting bullets and the kind of satisfied look that only comes with shooting first and not asking questions later. Roundup is the United States' 'second most widely used' lawn and garden poison.
Roundup products populate the best-seller list on Amazon. And it's used by gardeners around the world, bureaucracies seeking weed-free parks and, of course, farmers running on the agrochemical treadmill.
Monsanto's globe-spanning agrochemical business model came together in 1982 when it developed the first engineered plant cell and, quite presciently, it acquired the Jacob Hartz Seed Company and its soybean seed empire. Monsanto ultimately launched Roundup Ready soybeans in 1996. Those glyphosate-resistant soybeans literally killed the competition.
They also sparked an industry-wide race to modify crop seeds. By 2013, Monsanto controlled 90% of the United States' soybean seed market. It's now the world's largest seed company and it's one of six titanic agrochemical companies that together control 75% of the world's agricultural inputs (seeds, plant material, fertilizers and pesticides).
That catalysing role is why Monsanto - but not DuPont, Dow, BASF or Syngenta - became the face of agrochemical evil. The 'new' Monsanto is a mega-monopolizing, life-patenting, food-controlling colossus many have rechristened 'Monsatan.'
That dark image wasn't helped by its recent push to get the comically named Safe and Accurate Food Labelling (SAFE) Act through Congress. Opponents shrewdly renamed it the 'Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act' because it would've nullified state-level GMO labelling laws in favour of a national, 'voluntary' labelling standard. Perhaps it's not surprising that the SAFE/DARK Act failed in an election year.
The public simply isn't on board the GMO train
A Pew Research Centre survey found that 57% of Americans think "GM foods are generally unsafe to eat." And a survey by Consumer Reports found "more than 70% of Americans say they don't want genetically modified organisms in their food." But Monsanto keeps pushing GM food through the approval process in spite of widespread public revulsion and vitriol.
Understanding this 'Monsanto Mania,' as journalist Lee Allen aptly termed it, is a zero-sum game. Allen points out that Monsanto's status as hero or villain depends on "who's wielding the paintbrush." More to the point, "Those who work for the multinational giant feel they're the good guys, wearers of white hats - delivering agricultural products that support farmers all around the world."
Bill Nye echoed their enthusiasm after his infamous 'Come to Monsanto' moment. Despite years of scepticism, the beloved Science Guy now believes GM crops hold the promise of safely meeting the growing demand for food in a rapidly changing climate.
He joins 88% of scientists recently surveyed by the Pew Research Centre who believe "GM foods are generally safe to eat." There is actual hard science that seems to support their comfort, including a much-cited 'trillion meal study' based on 29 years of animals 'safely' eating GM feed.
However, a defiant article published last year in a peer-reviewed journal points out that there is no epidemiological data to support the 'trillion meal' hypothesis nor do most studies even gather the type of toxicological data needed to properly assess risk. And it bluntly states that there is no scientific consensus on GMO safety outside of an "internal circle of stakeholders." As a key influencer, Bill Nye is now one of those stakeholders.
The Science Guy spoke about his conversion in Monsanto's experimental greenhouse after it gave him the tools to assemble his own genetically engineered 'foster grand-plants' in its high-tech laboratory. Let's face it, if you're a scientist it must be intoxicating to go into a lab and cook up a whole new form of life. Nye sure thought so. And so do the other stakeholders who benefit from practicing Monsanto's patented brand of science.
Who is Monsanto, anyway?
Monsanto certainly has its fair share of faceless 'suits'. They are the lawyers, lobbyists, salespeople and business-schooled bottom-liners who make such easy targets for critics of corporate greed.
The company's board of directors certainly is a target-rich environment with a former CEO of Peabody Energy, a professor of economics, a former president of McDonald's, the CFO of Procter & Gamble, a retired CEO of Sara Lee Corporation and, just for kicks, a retired CEO of Lockheed Martin among its members.
Additionally, just four of Monsanto's 12 executives have science degrees, but of those four, two also happen to be Monsanto's biggest wigs. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Hugh Grant has a degree in molecular biology and an annual compensation package worth nearly $12 million.
Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer Dr. Robert T. Fraley holds a Ph.D. in microbiology and biochemistry, received the National Medal of Technology from President Bill Clinton in 1999 and received the World Food Prize in 2013. He earns a tidy $3.4 million for his efforts.
In fact, Fraley was literally present at the creation of the first GM plant cell in a Belgian laboratory in 1982. Now, as Monsanto's lead scientist, he directs a staff of 5,000 researchers who earn an average of $96,638 per year. So, who are these well-paid scientists who do the gene-altering, chemical-concocting work that makes Monsanto go?
Well, you are cordially invited to meet them on Monsanto's well-designed website. As it happily points out, Monsanto employs "a diverse group of thinkers with one common goal: helping to make a balanced meal accessible." Sounds great, right? Monsanto even has aYouTube page brimming with professionally produced videos and, if you're curious, you can find out why Laura - a geneticist and mom - works at Monsanto.
As Laura quite earnestly points out, she and her fellow scientists just want to "improve the seeds that the farmers are planting." Oddly enough, Laura fails to mention that the seeds need to be 'improved' because the plants will die if they're not genetically altered to withstand Monsanto's flagship product - Roundup.
Monsanto and the money-making industry
And therein lies the rub. Monsanto's scientists are not engineering seeds that generateextra seeds so farmers can expand planting during the next season or even eat during times of famine. That would certainly help African farmers who lack seeds, and assistIndian farmers struggling to afford Monsanto's seed monopoly.
Instead, the company developed a 'Terminator gene' that rendered offspring seeds infertile. Monsanto says it will never commercialize this "genetic use restriction technology," which is good news. The bad news is that Monsanto can afford to keep that ace in the hole so long as its patents are enforced and farmers keep buying its pricey, patented seeds - and the herbicide those seeds are built upon.
What's more, Monsanto's 'white hats' in the white coats are not working on 'open-source' drought-resistant crops for cash-starved farmers in poor nations. They are not working on 'open-source' technologies to increase yields for a growing global population. No, they get paid to produce proprietary products for a profit-making company that ruthlessly enforces its monopoly.
They can argue that this is 'science' and 'progress.' And they might point out that science is expensive. Patents help pay for the innovations that will 'feed the world.' Sadly, their science isn't really about true 'sustainability.' It's about sustaining an otherwise unsustainable agrochemical model that denudes soil, poisons water and stokes counter-evolutionary responses from Mother Nature.
It's not 'pure science.' It's a business model. Frankly, Monsanto's 'innovations' wouldn't be needed if its scientists weren't perfecting poison and playing poker with evolution. And now they're doubling down with a sci-fi-sounding surfactant that could literally change life with one simple spray.
Resistance is (almost) futile
Monsanto is upgrading the Borg. It's called the 'BioDirect' initiative and it will eliminate costly resistance to glyphosate, eradicate vexingly resilient insects with biopesticides and even modify the genetic code of a plant by simply spritzing it with an RNA-infusedsurfactant spray.
The technology is called 'RNA interference' (RNAi) and it heralds a brave new world of profitability for agrochemical corporations. It also opens a Pandora's Box full of as-yet unanswered ethical questions about genetic drift, patenting plants on the fly and, most ominously, whether RNAi can, should or will be weaponized like another Monsanto product - Agent Orange.
RNAi technology hijacks DNA's messenger system - the ribonucleic acid (RNA) that carries out DNA's instructions. In effect, RNAi sends human-made messages that can, in turn, alter or kill its target by scrambling cellular functions, turning off organs, dropping resistance to a herbicide (glyphosate) or altering the DNA's command system to produce an artificial gene expression.
BioDirect is an end run around the DNA-altering process Monsanto used to create Roundup Ready crops and 'Bt' corn and cotton. Bt-infused crops have the Bacillus thuringiensis toxin built directly into the plant. That toxic protein kills hungry insects. But, like Roundup-doused weeds, insects are developing resistance to Bt crops.
Whether it's lice in Texas, bacteria in India or super-weeds choking American farms, resistance to human-made poison is literally a textbook response by Mother Nature. Now this predictable evolutionary response is casting a pall over the agribusiness model.
The Union of Concerned Scientists pointed out that the super-weed 'plague' overshadows"60 million acres of U.S. cropland" and is "wreaking environmental havoc, driving up farmers' costs and prompting them to resort to more toxic weed-killers." Even worse, scientists at the International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds found "467 unique cases of herbicide resistant weeds globally" and that weeds evolved resistance to "160 different herbicides" in "86 crops in 66 countries."
So here's the upshot: Using poison causes the farmers using the poison to have to buy ever-more toxic poison to deal with the resistance caused by the use of poison. Go figure. Of course, Monsanto's scientists assured the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) in1993 that glyphosate posed a "low risk for weed resistance."
RNAi and the unknown
Now, instead of conceding and working with nature, they are counterattacking with RNAi technology. Why? Because sales are flagging. The market is literally oversaturated with glyphosate. And Monsanto wants to extend the life and profitability of Roundup byknocking out resistance at the cellular level.
As a result, we face the unknown consequences of introducing a tidal wave of RNA into ecosystems that are not adapted to a sudden influx of genetic messages. Just think about that for a minute. Antonio Regalado pointed out in MIT Technology Review, "RNA may be natural ... but introducing large amounts of targeted RNA molecules into the environment is not."
The USDA and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have already signed off on RNAi apples engineered by a Canadian company and although Monsanto is still awaiting approval, a 2014 statement by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicates that their RNAi may already be baked into your cake:
"Indications are that the majority, if not all, orally administered [RNAi] ... is degraded by the acid environment of the stomach and the action of pancreatic RNases." (RNases are enzymes that dismantle RNA molecules).
The EPA believes this should "lessen the probability" that RNAi will survive digestion and trigger responses in the consumer eating the material. The EPA does note, however, that"questions remain" about the survival of RNAi past the acid and enzymes in the human gut, but claims that "a number of reports" indicate it is unlikely, including "a paper co-authored by Monsanto researchers."
With Monsanto's scientists pushing favourable papers at the EPA and with farmers who are supportive of agrochemical options clamouring for new GMO herbicide technology, it sure seems like resistance to their solution to glyphosate resistance is futile.
A killer business model
How does the 'Great Monsatan' persist in spite of widespread antipathy in Europe, Africa,India, South America and the United States? The simple fact is that Monsanto's power is based on transactions. Monsanto's model relies on transactions with industrial-scale agribusinesses running on a treadmill of petrochemical-based fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides and herbicides.
Its de facto monopoly forces farmers around the world into transactions as they struggle to compete with industrial-scale farming, super-weeds and seed scarcity. Monsantonegotiates transactions with political players in both parties who, in turn, drive regulatory agencies like a giant corporate-government combine that harvests short-term profits - future fallowness be damned.
There is the key transaction with convenience-minded consumers who've helped make Roundup weed killer quite literally a household name. It's a subtle psychological 'buy-in' that gets a little herbicide on everybody's hands. And then there are the transactions with Monsanto's own scientists who make a killing off of the killing.
And Big Agrochemical - much like Big Oil and Big Tobacco - actively purchases consensus by funding academic studies, public interest groups, high-profile 'experts,' key influencersand media outlets.
Crucial are the 'independent' scientists and academics who tout the whiz-bang wonders of GMOs, while also enjoying Monsanto's largess. It's a practice Monsanto employed in the 1980s when it was under fire for the toxic, mutagenic effects of Agent Orange.
It took four decades for the World Health Organization (WHO) to list glyphosate as a 'probable' carcinogen. Interestingly enough, the EPA listed glyphosate as a possible carcinogen from 1985 to 1991. But that was reversed - some believe 'mysteriously' - when the science was called into question. Now Monsanto's multimillionaire CEO Hugh Grant predictably questions the WHO's science. And finally the FDA has been spurred intotesting for glyphosate in food.
It shouldn't be hard to find glyphosate
Glyphosate has shown up in nearly everything, including: German beers, German dairy cows, actual Germans, French panty liners and tampons, a shocking number of American waterways, 75% of air and rain samples in Mississippi and, quite predictably, in 'high levels' on 70% of genetically modified soy.
As Douglas Main reported in Newsweek, humans have used enough glyphosate "to spray nearly half a pound of Roundup on every cultivated acre of land in the world."
Meanwhile, as the debate rages over genetically modified food, the real issue is whether or not the next best move after drenching the planet in pesticides, fungicides andherbicides is to then start pumping out RNAi bio-pesticides and spraying RNAi messages onto plants. But that's a debate we're not having.
Sadly, this non-debate reflects a casual willingness to use poison that ultimately drives the entire agrochemical model. Monsanto is banking on the farmers who escalate their war on their own fields and on the trigger-happy consumers who don't realize that convenience is their true enemy.
Most importantly of all, Monsanto's power comes from the scientists who should know better than to relentlessly challenge Mother Nature to an evolutionary showdown.
It's a no-win situation - unless, of course, you're one of Monsanto's well-paid stakeholders.
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987530/while_we_all_fixate_on_glyphosate_monsanto_prepares_its_next_gm_trick_rna_pesticides.html
-
Companies with Commercial Biofuels and Biobased Chemicals -- Get Ready For CDR
Apr 8, 2016 | The National Law Review
By Kathleen M. Roberts
In less than two months, renewable fuel and biobased chemical companies that have successfully moved from research and development to commercialization will be required to respond to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This may come as a surprise to some biobased chemicals companies that are under the misperception that they are not regulated under TSCA. This is simply wrong. Unless otherwise regulated as a pesticide, food, food additive, drug, cosmetic, or nuclear material, biobased chemicals used for a commercial purpose, including fuels regulated under the Renewable Fuel Standard program, are subject to the rules and requirements under TSCA. Companies that do not comply are subject to enforcement actions and significant fines of up to $37,500 per violation, per day.
The reporting window for the 2016 CDR is June 1, 2016, to September 30, 2016. CDR reporting includes detailed information on volumes of chemicals produced, imported, used on site, and exported. It also requires information on amounts and functions for downstream uses in industrial, commercial and consumer applications. CDR reporting is further complicated with numerous potential exemptions that must be carefully analyzed for applicability.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/companies-commercial-biofuels-and-biobased-chemicals-get-ready-cdr
-
Niosh Publishes Nano Workplace Safety Guide for SMEs
Apr 11, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Niosh) has published guidance to help small to medium sized businesses (SMEs) design successful nanotechnology workforce safety programmes.
The guide – designed to serve as a roadmap – outlines the steps necessary for creating and following an effective risk management plan. It says these are via a hierarchy of controls:elimination of the hazard;substitution of the hazard;engineering controls;administrative controls; andpersonal protective equipment.
The guide adds the control methods higher on the list are considered more effective and protective.
Building a safety program to protect the nanotechnology workforce: a guide for small to medium-sized enterprises is available on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46395/niosh-publishes-nano-workplace-safety-guide-for-smes
-
NGOs File Suit Against FDA Over Perchlorate Petition
Apr 11, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Six NGOs have sued the US FDA over its failure to act on a 2014 petition to ban perchlorate in food packaging.
The petition, brought by nine NGOs, called for the agency to:revoke its 2005 approval of “threshold of regulation” (TOR), which allows up to 1.2% sodium perchlorate monohydrate in dry food packaging;prohibit the use of perchlorate as a conductivity enhancer in the manufacture of antistatic agents, used in food contact articles; andremove potassium perchlorate as an allowed additive in sealing gaskets for food containers.
According to the complaint, the Food Act requires the FDA to grant or deny a food additive petition within 180 days, in this case by 29 June 2015.
The petitioners have asked the court to “find that FDA has unlawfully withheld action on the petition, and to compel it to issue a final order deciding [it]”.
The six organisations that filed suit are:Breast Cancer Fund;Center for Environmental Health;Center for Food Safety;Center for Science in the Public Interest;Environmental Working Group; andNatural Resources Defense Council.
In the 2014 petition, the organisations said FDA action was necessary, due to “the well-recognised toxicity of perchlorate, its widespread presence in food and in the bodies of virtually all Americans, and the likelihood that the dietary exposure may cause permanent damage to a foetus’ or infant’s brain, by irreversibly altering its development.”
The NGOs’ petition for a writ of mandamus was filed on 31 March.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46399/ngos-file-suit-against-fda-over-perchlorate-petition
-
California Further Extends Prop 65 Warning Consultation
Apr 11, 2016 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has extended for the second time its consultation on its revised proposed reform to "clear and reasonable" warning provisions under Proposition 65.
Comments will be accepted until 26 April.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46390/california-further-extends-prop-65-warning-consultation
-
Report: Federal Law Lets Oil and Gas Companies Hide Data on Chemicals
Apr 11, 2016 | Public News Service
By Suzanne Potter
Montana has about 4,400 oil wells and 6,700 gas wells – and a >new report says companies are hiding basic data on the chemicals they use – under the guise of confidentiality – and it's completely legal.
The report, by the nonprofit advocacy group the Partnership for Policy Integrity, says EPA records show that the agency often expresses concern about the health effects of certain chemicals used in drilling and fracking, but still allows their manufacture and use and does not make the testing data public in the vast majority of cases.
Dusty Horwitt, senior counsel with the Partnership for Policy Integrity, blames deficiencies in the federal Toxic Substances Control Act.
"The law was passed in 1976 and allows chemicals to be reviewed by EPA with no requirement that there be any health testing on these chemicals before they're manufactured and used commercially," he points out.
The report says companies can claim as confidential the chemicals' name, the expected production volume and how people might be exposed to them, which makes it hard to determine where they are being used.
The EPA says exposure can have toxic effects on the kidneys, liver and brain.
Oil and gas companies say they comply with the law and are within their rights to claim proprietary information as confidential.
Horwitt says current EPA testing fails to take the real risks of fracking into account.
"The agency generally assumes that the chemicals never leak, spill, migrate underground or get into the air,” he states. “And those assumptions fly in the face of information documented about oil and gas drilling operations."
Congress is considering two bills to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act. But Horwitt says neither bill requires public disclosure of data on the chemicals or the health tests.
http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2016-04-11/energy-policy/report-federal-law-lets-oil-and-gas-companies-hide-data-on-chemicals/a51336-1
-
Report: Potentially Dangerous Fracking Chemicals Used in California
Apr 11, 2016 | Public News Service
By Suzanne Potter
California has almost 50,000 oil wells and more than 4,100 gas wells – and a new report says federal law allows companies to use chemicals for drilling and fracking with virtually no health testing and then use confidentiality claims to hide basic information on what's being injected.
The report, by the nonprofit advocacy group the Partnership for Policy Integrity, reviewed EPA records and found that health information was made public in only two of 99 cases.
Dusty Horwitt, senior counsel with the Partnership for Policy Integrity, says the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act is too lax.
"Companies can claim the chemicals' name confidential, same thing with the expected production volume, how people might be exposed to the chemical,” he states. “And that prevents people from identifying in some cases where the chemicals are used."
The EPA has expressed concern about many of these chemicals, saying exposure can cause skin and eye irritation and be toxic to the brain, liver and kidneys.
Oil and gas companies say they comply with the law and are within their rights to claim proprietary information as confidential.
Horwitt says the EPA tests don't take into account the possibilityof leaks or spills, and adds that researchers found that two of the chemicals of concern have been used in .
"We think it's important that someone from the state of California or an independent researcher go to these well sites and make sure that these chemicals aren't migrating into groundwater or otherwise getting out into the environment where they can come into contact with people," he states.
Two bills are making their way through Congress that improve the rules on confidentiality and make it easier for the EPA to request more health tests.
But Horwitt notes that the bills still don't require public disclosure of information about the chemicals or the health testing.
California does have a fracking disclosure registry called FracFocus, but companies' participation in it is voluntary.http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2016-04-11/energy-policy/report-potentially-dangerous-fracking-chemicals-used-in-california/a51333-1
-
Apr 11, 2016 | The New York Times
By Gary Sernovitz
AS the Democratic presidential campaign comes to New York, the candidates are competing to dance on the grave of fracking, even though the oil and gas extraction technique of hydraulic fracturing has been banned in the state since 2014. The anti-fracking rhetoric seems to be rooted in the assumption that liberalism is as inherently antithetical to fracking as it is, say, to the Defense of Marriage Act — or monarchy. That assumption, however, does a disservice to liberals’ claims to be on the side of empiricism and climate science.
I can already hear the derisive howls at my being able to make that claim objectively: I am a “fracker,” an executive at an investment firm that funds oil and gas shale development, someone whose own economic interest would be crushed by a national ban on fracking. But my job has also provided me with palpable, irreplaceable encounters with the environmental, economic and global impact of fracking and the shale revolution, in places like Midland, Tex., and Mount Morris, Pa.
Nothing I have seen as a professional has shaken my politics as a person: I remain a classic New York City liberal, whose opinions my friends in Midland see as evidence of either perverse disregard for my own self-interest or pitiable softheadedness.
But I find liberalism and fracking to be completely compatible. This opinion was once relatively common, whether in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s (later disavowed) 2009 assertion that shale gas was President Obama’s “most obvious first step toward saving our planet” to the president’s own State of the Union address in 2012, which praised domestic oil and gas production — whose renaissance has been enabled by fracking — as part of an “all-out, all-of-the-above strategy” on energy.
The American shale revolution has advanced three causes dear to most liberals’ hearts. First, fracking has allowed America to lead the world in carbon-emissions reduction. Natural gas emits half the carbon dioxide of coal to generate the same amount of electricity, and the unleashing of gas from shale reservoirs has led in the last decade to a 40 percent rise in gas production in the United States and a 70 percent fall in prices.
This has spurred major displacement of coal in electricity generation. From 2007 to 2014, largely as a result of plummeting coal use, the United States reduced its annual emissions of carbon dioxide by 556 million metric tons — nearly four times the next highest country. By my math, if coal returned to its pre-shale revolution market share, our carbon emissions would grow by 5 percent, spewing 285 million more tons of CO2 — a Poland or Taiwan’s worth — into the atmosphere annually.
Second, fracking fights poverty and reduces inequality. In the United States, personal expenditures on energy dropped 16 percent in 2015 because of falling oil and gas prices. Lower energy prices are even more important in poorer nations, where consumers spend a higher percentage of gross domestic product on energy than richer ones. Lower fossil fuel prices are joining plummeting renewable costs in providing cheap energy to the world on all fronts, easing the growth of electricity and clean water in places that desperately need it.
Third, a spike in oil and gas prices would put hundreds of billions of dollars in the pockets of the rulers of petrostates. Life in countries like Russia, Angola and Iran reads like a list of everything liberals hate: political corruption and oppression, authoritarian leaders and abominable records on women’s, gay and minority rights. A ban on fracking is not just about whether to drill in New York State, but also about the oil-fueled power of a Middle Eastern king to resist domestic reform and how that power can be checked by rising American oil and gas production.
Of course, fracking has local and global costs. For communities where shale development occurs, there is the risk of an accident in every part of the oil and gas extraction process and an increasing number of small earthquakes from shale-related wastewater disposal. But the magnitude of local environmental incidents is often exaggerated by fracking’s opponents, who don’t put the incidents into the context of the 85,000 horizontal shale wells drilled in the United States.
Fracking’s opponents often blithely dismiss any contrary evidence, like the conclusion of the landmark June 2015 Environmental Protection Agency study that found that while fracking activities had led to a small number of water contamination incidents, they “have not led to widespread, systemic impacts to drinking water resources in the United States.” There is also something undemocratic in the idea that Washington, rather than the affected communities, can better balance the drawbacks of shale drilling with its economic benefits.
Opponents of fracking highlight two other objections. First, they claim that it has been fully proved that methane leakage from natural gas extraction and distribution offsets the climate benefits of gas over coal. But there has been no such proof. We are still in the early stages of studying this issue, with the E.P.A. and the Environmental Defense Fund leading the charge, and we can straightforwardly accomplish greater methane capture with new regulations that appeal to the self-interest of an industry in the business, after all, of selling methane.
The other anti-fracking argument is an indisputable one: Fracking has extended the era of cheap fossil fuels, which puts the planet in peril. But a ban on fracking will not lead to a world suddenly powered by the wind and the sun.
More widespread and economically competitive renewables and scientific breakthroughs in energy storage will one day lead to a world powered by renewables. This is the tradeoff: Banning fracking would almost certainly contribute to runaway oil and gas prices that could force a faster shift away from fossil fuels; banning fracking would also immediately increase the use of coal.
Liberals can sincerely differ on whether a near-term increase in carbon emissions is worth the long-term scarcity of oil and gas. These aren’t easy questions. You don’t have to support fracking to be a liberal, but you are not a shill for the fossil fuel industry if you do.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/11/opinion/can-liberals-frack.html?_r=0
-
How Clinton Will Rebuff Sanders on ‘Fracking’
Apr 8, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Gary Sargent
In the high stakes battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in New York, one issue that may play a big role is hydraulic fracturing — or “fracking” — which has been banned by New York governor Andrew Cuomo, amid an activist movement in the state that has succeeded in building opposition to the practice.
The Sanders campaign has telegraphed that they hope to put Clinton on the defensive over the issue in their push for an upset in the April 19th primary, which would shock political observers and constitute a blow to the former New York Senator.
But Clinton may be able to complicate the Sanders camp’s hopes of gaining traction on the issue in the state — by aligning herself firmly with Governor Cuomo’s fracking ban. This argument is a big deal — environmentalists see the New York primary as yet another chance to shed light on the practice and to continue pushing politicians to prioritize opposition to it, and by extension, to prioritize climate and energy issues.
In a statement sent my way, Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon confirmed that she supports Cuomo’s ban:
“As she has said repeatedly, she does not believe fracking should take place where states and local communities oppose it. Consistent with that, she supports Governor Cuomo’s ban on fracking in New York State.”
Sanders has argued for a total ban on fracking, which is the practice of releasing natural gas and oil from rock formations through high pressure injections of water and chemicals. Governor Cuomo banned fracking out of health and safety considerations, a major victory for the environmental moment. Sanders’s campaign has signaled it will use this against Clinton in the battle for New York. As one Sanders adviser puts it: “Fracking is something New York state has outlawed, and there’s a big difference between Hillary and Bernie.”
But Clinton, by aligning herself with New York’s fracking ban, may be able to minimize the political importance of that difference.
To be sure, there still is a legitimate, meaningful difference between the two candidates on the issue. At the Dem debate in Michigan on March 6th, Sanders declared his total opposition to fracking. Clinton said that she opposes fracking in certain conditions — where states or localities are against it, where it is causing damage, or where there isn’t full transparency into what chemicals are being used. She argued for stricter regulation where it is happening, adding: “by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place.”
As Chris Mooney has explained, the two candidates differ in that Clinton’s position is more nuanced, in the sense that she does not want to override local officials in some situations, while Sanders does. It’s a debate that will unfold on the center left for years to come, and one that will become increasingly important in the argument over our energy future.
Clinton’s support for Cuomo’s fracking ban is consistent with that broader position, and does not translate into support for Sanders’s position. Nonetheless, even environmental activists who support an outright ban see value in her confirmation of firm support for the New York ban.
“It’s certainly significant to hear that she backs the New York State fracking ban,” Lindsay Meiman, a spokesperson for the environmental advocacy group 350 Action, tells me. Meiman added that activists would continue pushing Clinton to take still harder stands on climate, and that the movement’s goal was a president who is unequivocally committed to “keeping fossil fuels in the ground.” But she added: “Overall, we’ve seen movement from Clinton on climate. That’s significant.”
This issue is very likely to come up at the New York debate on April 14th. Sanders will likely again declare his total opposition to fracking, and he and his campaign may continue to prod her on the issue in coming days, with Sanders perhaps challenging her on the stump to join him in backing a total fracking ban. Clinton — at the debate and elsewhere — will undoubtedly declare her support for the state’s ban. Sanders will try to make Clinton’s refusal to support a total federal ban stick.
But that could prove challenging, now that their political battle is unfolding in New York — that is, in a state where there is an existing fracking ban that she backs. She supports a concrete anti-fracking policy in force in the state where the two candidates are competing for votes. So Sanders will have to argue that New York voters should oppose her because she does not support a national ban, even though she supports the ban in their state.
The fact that both candidates oppose fracking in the state is itself a victory for the long range environmental movement.
“Whenever powerful elected officials or those seeking elected office support a ban on fracking anywhere, it shows that the power of the science and the facts are on the side of banning fracking anywhere and everywhere,” Seth Gladstone, a spokesman for Food and Water Watch, a national environmental group that advocates against fracking, told me. “We’re seeing in New York and elsewhere throughout this political season that the anti-fracking movement has grown into a real force. The politics has caught up with the science.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/04/08/how-clinton-will-rebuff-sanders-on-fracking/
-
Hopes Fade in Congress for Energy Reform
Apr 10, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry and Timothy Cama
Hopes are fading that Congress can pass a broad energy bill before the year ends.
Leaders of energy committees in the House and Senate made it a top priority this session to pass the first major energy overhaul since 2007.
By setting their sights low and avoiding hot-button issues that could sink bipartisan action, they thought it was possible to get a bill through an often-dysfunctional Congress, even in an election year.
Now, with a little less than three months before Congress will effectively halt work for the year and adjourn for political conventions and campaigning, their legislation is on life support.
Here’s how hopes for an energy bill in 2016 fizzled.
A hopeful start
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and her panel's ranking Democrat, Sen.Maria Cantwell (Wash.) huddled as early as 2014 to begin their work.
They were determined to update energy policy to account for industry changes including the growth of renewables and new domestic oil and natural gas production.
The House went first. Last summer, a House Energy Committee subpanel unanimously approved a watered-down energy reform bill. But as the Senate debated other pieces of legislation, House members got restless, Upton said.
Determined to get something to the floor and win over Republicans, GOP leaders packed the bill with red-meat conservative provisions that turned off Democrats.
The bill passed committee with mostly Republican support. It came to the floor in December, securing only nine Democratic votes and garnering a veto threat from the White House.
“When Chairman Upton and I first talked about energy legislation, I was encouraged that we would be working together to develop a consensus, bipartisan bill,” ranking member Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said at the time.
“Unfortunately, that effort fell apart ... The House is taking up a backward-looking piece of energy legislation at a time we need to move forward.”
Flint becomes an issue
Murkowski and Cantwell decided last year to press ahead with the long, difficult process of writing a broad energy bill. They knew the Senate’s reputation for dysfunction and gridlock, and that the upcoming election would complicate matters.
But the leaders thought if they avoided contentious issues like offshore drilling and renewable energy tax credits, they could overcome the odds and pass a bill.
Momentum grew at the end of 2015, when a series of bipartisan measures — a tax bill, government funding, and transportation reauthorization — moved through Congress. That raised hopes energy legislation could be next.
The 300-page energy bill passed out of the Senate committee on an 18-4 vote. But the lead contamination crisis with Flint, Mich.’s, drinking water took the national spotlight in January just as the energy bill came to the floor.
Democrats saw the bill as an effective vehicle to get much-needed money to the city. Michigan’s senators asked to attach Flint aid to the bill, and the entire Democratic caucus blocked debate on a version of the bill that didn't include the package.
Republicans balked at writing a “blank check” for the city, so the two parties agreed in February on a smaller aid package for all cities experiencing water contamination issues. The package is separate from the energy bill but their fates are tied together.
A bipartisan group of senators has been working to smooth out the agreement, but political issues remain.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is blocking the Flint package, worried about how the government will make the aid payments. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), meanwhile, is looking to prevent a potential GOP amendment on offshore drilling he thinks would lead to drilling off Florida’s coast.
Lee’s office said they sent a new Flint offer to negotiators on Monday, but wouldn’t say what was in it. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) said there has been limited progress over Lee's hold.
Asked if he still has his hold, Nelson smiled and said, “Of course I do.”
Without agreement on those two issues, the energy package won't come back to the floor.
Frustration builds
Senate Energy Committee members of both parties have shown frustration that the broad reform bill has stalled.
“This is a bill that passed with tremendous bipartisan support out of committee, has tremendous support, and it would be a shame if obstructionist tactics lead it its collapse,” Sen. Cory Gardner(R-Colo.) said this week. “It’s shameful. Do your job.”
“Time kills deals,” said Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.).
"Time is not on our side," he added. "I hope some of this gets resolved, so there’s always hope."
Cantwell said the bill could be the next one on the floor, though she acknowledged supporters have said that for weeks.
“It’s a shame, there’s so much important energy policy," she said. "Hopefully our colleagues that are holding it up will stop doing that.”
Industry supporters also aren’t sure there is enough political will — or time on the calendar — to get something done.
The Chamber of Commerce has thrown its support behind the Senate bill, but Christopher Guith, a senior vice president at its Institute for
21st Century Energy, said his hope something might get done is fading.
“Are there things in this bill that are so important that needs to get passed this Congress? That’s really what the ultimate question is,” said Guith. “I can certainly say that from our perspective, yes there are. But you look at 535 members of Congress … it’s difficult to see that path right this second.”
Public attention to energy policy has faded as issues like national security dominate the campaign, Guith said, sapping the political pressure to act.
The bills also don’t have the broad support from outside groups lawmakers hoped for, and some influential groups on both sides have come out against the bill.
The Heritage Foundation objects to many of the main provisions in both chambers’ bills. Nick Loras, a Heritage energy economist, said the bills go too far in favoring specific industries or creating new government programs.
The Sierra Club is particularly bothered by the House bill.
“It is truly the parade of horribles,” said Radha Adhar, the group’s policy representative. “None of the truly bipartisan, consensus provisions that both sides of the aisle agreed on, including the environmental community, were really included in the House bill."
Murkowski this week said the Senate needs to move quickly to pass the bill, before lawmakers move to 2017 appropriations bills.
“There is a schedule that the leader would like to keep, and I concur with him,” she said. “But if we’ve got a consent agreement that allows for a very limited time and we can just move right through ... I’d like to do that.”
Upton isn't giving up on getting something to the White House this year. If the Senate gets its bill done, he said, the House is ready to work.
“At the end of the day, I think we’re going to get a bill that the president is going to sign,” he said. “And to me, it’s not worth the exercise if he’s not going to sign it.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/275675-hopes-fade-in-congress-for-energy-reform
-
Public Comment Period for Gas Transmission Rule Begins
Apr 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A proposed rule setting new regulations for natural gas pipelines by the Transportation Department's Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration was formally published April 8 in the Federal Register (81 Fed. Reg. 20,722 ), kicking off a 60-day comment period that ends June 7. Groups representing affected companies such as Spectra Energy Corp., Williams Co. and Pacific Gas and Electric have requested the comment period be doubled to 120 days citing the length and complexity of the rule (RIN 2137-AE72). The proposal sets new testing requirements for pipelines built before 1970 and ends an exemption on regulation currently in place for most pipes used in the mid-stream production process known as “gathering lines,” among other safety regulations. The proposed rule is available at http://src.bna.com/d0p.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=86642043&vname=dennotallissues&fn=86642043&jd=86642043
-
Keystone Oil Pipeline Leaks 17,000 Gallons
Apr 11, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A spokesman for the South Dakota Environment and Natural Resources Department told Bloomberg BNA April 8 that a leak in the Keystone I pipeline has spilled an estimated 16,800 gallons of oil near Freeman in southeastern South Dakota. Brian Walsh, environmental scientist for the department, said a hole on a weld appears to have caused the leak, which was discovered April 2. He said the pipeline's owner, TransCanada, has begun cleanup of the spill site and is hauling away contaminated soil and water. The company has been working at the site 24 hours a day since discovering the leak, he said, but it is unknown how long the cleanup will take. He said DENR has the authority to levy fines or take other enforcement actions over spills, but nothing has yet been determined. Paul Seamans of Dakota Rural Action, an environmental group based in Brookings, S.D., said his group has asked the State Legislature for stronger safety requirements for pipelines for years. Even with the spill, he said he does not expect pipeline legislation or regulations to materialize. The state prides itself on its business climate, he said, and that has made it less than progressive when it comes to environmental protections. TransCanada officials were unavailable for comment.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=86642039&vname=dennotallissues&fn=86642039&jd=86642039
-
SEPTA to Begin PTC Roll Out Mid April
Apr 8, 2016 | RT&S
By Mischa Wanek-Libman
SEPTA will begin to implement PTC on the Warminster Regional Rail Line beginning with the first scheduled train on Monday, April 18.
"SEPTA has a strong commitment to safety and the introduction of the Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System (ACSES) as a PTC compliant system on our Regional Rail network is an important milestone in our on-going efforts on behalf of our customers, employees, and neighbors," the transit authority said in an update. "We are the first commuter railroad operation in the country to implement ACSES and an important part of our PTC rollout program will be continuing to work cooperatively with Amtrak regarding the operations of our trains, under ACSES, on [its] PTC equipped lines."
SEPTA says getting to this point has taken an extensive and intensive period of testing to ensure that every aspect of the system meets the guidelines established by the FRA and the transit authority's own reliability requirements for the safety system.
Shuttle buses will run in place of Warminster Line trains on Sunday, April 17 in order for SEPTA to conduct a final round of checks and testing of the PTC system and rail equipment.
http://www.rtands.com/index.php/cs/septa-to-begin-ptc-roll-out-mid-april.html?channel=
-
Old, New Fights Expected at Bicameral Energy and Water Markups
Apr 11, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss and Tiffany Stecker
The prospects for President Obama's request to double clean energy spending over five years will become clearer this week, as House and Senate appropriators unveil their fiscal 2017 spending bills that fund the Department of Energy.
The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee will mark up its bill Wednesday afternoon, continuing the tradition of moving early on legislation that is widely popular because it funds DOE's nuclear weapons programs and federal laboratories. The measure also funds the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which pays for water projects nationwide.
The Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee will also take up its version of the bill Wednesday, where they will also announce the discretionary spending caps known as 302(b) allocations, followed by a full committee markup Thursday.
The bill in recent years has become increasingly controversial amid partisan friction over the administration's climate agenda, Yucca Mountain and the Army Corps' controversial joint proposal with U.S. EPA to delineate which streams, wetlands and waterways receive automatic protection under the Clean Water Act.
The usual tussling over the division of funds between renewable and traditional energy programs will be exacerbated this year by the Mission Innovation proposal, which would double clean energy over five years and has been championed by Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, who recently brought Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates to Capitol Hill to help sell the plan.
While Moniz and House Energy and Water Subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) get along well, Simpson last month signaled the push faces an uphill fight in the lower chamber (E&ENews PM, March 1).
In the Senate, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the chairman of the upper chamber's Appropriations subcommittee, has long called for more investment in energy research, but he too echoed Simpson's concerns. And Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the ranking member on the Senate subcommittee, told Moniz that budget pressures will make fulfilling the request a "most difficult task" (E&E Daily, March 10).
That's in part because the budget calls for $32.5 billion for DOE programs, a 9 percent increase over the current fiscal year's enacted level (Greenwire, Feb. 9).
Also facing a tough slog is the administration's push to include mandatory funding for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E, which would come on top of a goal to triple the agency's overall budget.
Jockeying has already begun on another perennial fight -- the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. The House has repeatedly included additional funding for the project, which the administration has been attempting to shutter for years.
Those additional funds haven't made it into law because of the clout of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, but the Nevada Democrat's retirement at the end of the year has Yucca backers looking to wait out the clock on his tenure (E&E Daily, April 6).
The Yucca impasse has also stalled efforts by Moniz -- supported by Alexander, Feinstein and other key senators -- to establish a pilot program for moving spent nuclear fuel from power plants and into temporary storage facilities. On the Senate side, both appropriators have signaled they'll try again this year, although Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) -- a leading opponent of the plan unless it is accompanied by more funds to keep Yucca on the table -- said last month the underlying dynamic appears unchanged (E&E Daily, March 2).
And an eleventh-hour White House request to start selling off crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to modernize the aging facility may encounter speed bumps, as well. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who strongly supports the idea, last week suggested it may have been premature to request the funds because DOE has not yet completed a long-awaited review of the SPR's needs. However, the department says the plan will be released in the coming weeks, which may assuage appropriators' concerns (Greenwire, April 8).
Waging a WOTUS war
Alexander said last month that he would push for a "clean" spending bill without policy riders.
But given election year dynamics, it's uncertain whether lawmakers will hold off on issuing amendments on contentious Obama administration proposals, like the Waters of the U.S., or WOTUS, rule. Earlier this month, 120 House lawmakers signed a letter calling to stop funding for the U.S. EPA-Army Corps of Engineers water rule (Greenwire, April 1).
But WOTUS, currently tied up in a federal appeals court, is already blocked from implementation under a stay.
Efforts to block Obama administration policies -- including a rider to defund the federal flood risk management standard to redefine floodplains for federal grants, projects and other programs -- could be introduced at the full Appropriations Committee markup, on the House floor or in conference.
But lawmakers are almost sure to raise the spending levels for the Army Corps, an agency that is historically underfunded in the president's budget regardless of the administration with the expectation that Congress will elevate the spending levels.
The Army Corps -- whose civil works division is responsible for building and repairing major public works projects on waterways, overseeing environmental permitting and restoring ecosystems -- received nearly $6 billion in the fiscal 2016 spending bill. The president's fiscal 2017 budget proposal would set aside $4.62 billion for the agency, just slightly below last year's ask but 23 percent less than what Congress appropriated.
Schedule: The House markup is Wednesday, April 13, at 1:30 p.m. in 2362-B Rayburn. The Senate subcommittee markup is Wednesday, April 13, at 2:30 p.m. in 124 Dirksen, and the full Senate committee markup is Thursday, April 14, at 10:30 a.m. in 106 Dirksen.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/04/11/stories/1060035357
-
Admin Critics Move Against Ozone Standard
Apr 11, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
Condemnation thundered down from the highest precincts of Capitol Hill last October when U.S. EPA tightened the air quality standard for ozone. But only now, more than six months later, are lawmakers taking a tangible first step toward challenging the new benchmark.
A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee will hold a hearing on H.R. 4775, a bill introduced last month by Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) that would both push back the deadline for states to make attainment recommendations for the new standard from this fall until 2024 and take broader aim at the Clean Air Act's traditional timetable for revisiting the ambient air quality thresholds for ozone and other major pollutants.
Olson, who represents a district in the pollution-plagued Houston area, has been a particularly vocal critic of EPA's ozone standard of 70 parts per billion, warning that it will strangle economic growth.
"Communities should not have to choose between clean air and jobs," he said in a news release announcing the introduction of H.R. 4775.
The measure has the backing of the National Association of Manufacturers, which views it as "a good, common-sense piece of legislation," Greg Bertelsen, the organization's senior director for energy and resources policy, said during a phone interview Friday. EPA, he noted, is still working to implement the previous 75 parts per billion ozone standard set in 2008.
Deeply opposed, however, are public health advocates who say 70 ppb isn't tough enough. The legislation has "numerous issues that we take offense to," said Kathy Attar, toxics program manager at Physicians for Social Responsibility, one of several groups that is now suing to force EPA to lower the benchmark further still.
"This is really an extreme bill," said Paul Billings, senior vice president for advocacy at the American Lung Association, which is organizing a letter of opposition. "It cuts to the core of the Clean Air Act and its health premises."
Among other provisions that the lung association finds objectionable is a proposed change in the cycle for reviewing the air quality standards from once every five years to once every decade and another revision that would allow EPA to take "likely technological feasibility" into account when setting new standards.
Ozone, the prime ingredient in smog, is a toxic lung irritant formed by the reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunlight. EPA set the previous 75 ppb standard under then-President George W. Bush's administration.
In lowering it to 70 ppb last fall, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy cited new research on ozone health effects but also settled on the upper range of options that her staff had considered.
Nonetheless, top Republicans were critical, with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) describing the new standard as "all pain for little gain." McCarthy, as well as House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), is now a co-sponsor of H.R. 4775.
Thursday's hearing by the Energy and Power Subcommittee is, however, only the second held by either chamber specifically on the new standard. It is the first to focus on a legislative alternative.
Assuming that the hearing is meant to be the first step on a path toward House passage, the measure is likely to encounter the fate of other recent bills targeting EPA air regulations: a White House veto threat and little prospect for Senate action.
Schedule: The hearing will be held Thursday, April 14, at 10:15 a.m. in 2322 Rayburn.
Witnesses: TBA.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/04/11/stories/1060035363
Congressional Hearings - There are no hearings to report at this time.
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
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested