Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 5/20
-
(ACC Mentioned) Lawmakers Reach Deal to Expand Regulation of Toxic Chemicals
May 19, 2016 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport and Emmarie Huetteman
House and Senate negotiators reached agreement on Thursday on far-reaching legislation to overhaul the nation’s 40-year-old law governing toxic chemicals, a compromise that would subject thousands of household chemicals to regulation for the first time. -
(ACC Mentioned) US on the Brink of TSCA Chem-Safety Reform
May 19, 2016 | ICIS
By Christie Moffat
US lawmakers confirmed on Thursday that they are in the process of finalising a long-awaited bill that will overhaul existing chemical safety legislation. -
Lawmakers Ready Final Push to Get TSCA Reform Done
May 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna and Pat Rizzuto
After months of bicameral negotiations, lawmakers announced May 19 they had effectively reached an agreement to overhaul the nation's primary industrial chemicals law. -
House GOP, Senate Reach Deal on Chemical Safety Bill
May 19, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
After years of tense negotiations, the Senate and House Republicans announced on Thursday they had struck a deal to overhaul a decades-old chemical safety law and rewrite the rules for EPA and states to regulate toxic substances. -
Bills on TSCA, Energy/Water Funding Go to House Rules
May 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Susan Bruninga
The House Rules Committee announced May 19 that it will convene at 5 p.m. on May 23 to take up bills to reform the nation's main chemical law, fund water and energy projects and block an Environmental Protection Agency rule governing pesticide spraying in or near bodies of water. -
EPA Plans Four New Rules, One Expanded Rule for Chemicals
May 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency's portion of the spring Regulatory Agenda includes four new chemical rulemakings and one expanded chemical rule. -
Overnight Energy: Lawmakers Closing in on Chemical Safety Deal
May 19, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama and Devin Henry
NEAR THE FINISH LINE: Senate and House lawmakers said Thursday they're putting the finishing touches on a chemical safety bill, with or without Reps. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.). -
Congress Reaches Deal to Overhaul Chemical Regulation
May 19, 2016 | AP (In The Mercury News)
By Matthew Daly
A bipartisan agreement reached by House and Senate negotiators would set new safety standards for asbestos and other dangerous chemicals, including tens of thousands that have gone unregulated for decades. -
EPA Issues New Health Advisories for Chemical Found Near Some Plastics Plants
May 19, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Cameron McWhirter
The Environmental Protection Agency announced a new health advisory Thursday for perfluorooctanoic acid, a potentially toxic chemical, calling for water utilities across the nation to adhere to a stricter guideline than the agency had previously recommended. -
EPA Issues Drinking Water Health Advisories for PFOS, PFOA
May 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Environmental Protection Agency released voluntary benchmarks May 19 to guide local water systems, states and others in determining what concentration levels of certain highly fluorinated chemicals in drinking water are safe for public health. -
Chronic Exposure Limit Set for PFOA in Drinking Water
May 19, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jessica Morrison
Water utilities should notify consumers when perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) exceed 70 parts per trillion—individually or combined—in drinking water, undernew guidelines released on May 19 by EPA. -
EPA Lowers Safety Levels For PFCs In Drinking Water Health Advisories
May 20, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA has issued long-awaited health advisories for two non-stick perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) in drinking water, significantly lowering the concentration of each contaminant in water that it says is safe, and is recommending that level -- 70 parts per trillion (ppt) -- also apply to the combined concentrations of the two chemicals if they are found together in drinking water. -
EPA Acts to Limit Teflon Chemicals
May 19, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Tiffany Stecker
U.S. EPA announced new drinking water advisories today for industrial chemicals best known as ingredients in Teflon and other nonstick coatings but that are also in plastics and fabrics. -
FDA Accepting Public Comments on the Safety of Ortho-Phthalates
May 19, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
Today, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it was accepting public comment on a food additive petition asking the agency to reconsider the safety of 30 toxic chemicals known as ortho-phthalates, which are used as additives in food packaging and handling materials. -
Corporate Chemical Risks Get Their Own Footprint
May 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrea Vittorio
Consumer-facing companies that do a good job managing chemical risks in their products and supply chains could be rewarded financially under a new footprinting framework being championed by a group of investors and institutional purchasers. -
Why Levi’s, J&J, Other Major Firms are Using Chemical Footprinting to Manage Risk
May 20, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
Chemical management and using saferchemicals is top of mind for corporations as consumers and investors increasingly demand transparency about what’s in products and stricter regulations require more in-depth chemical assessment, reporting and safety strategies. -
Energy Bills Tread a Rocky Path
May 20, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia
Fierce policy disagreements, the looming November elections and a shrinking congressional calendar are sparking serious doubts about whether House and Senate lawmakers can reach a compromise on their divergent energy bills. -
EPA Waste Agenda Targets Chemical Security, Vapor Intrusion
May 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
The Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Land and Emergency Management pledged to finalize rules on chemical security risk management and vapor intrusion in the remaining eight months of the Obama administration, according to the Office of Management and Budget's Unified Agenda, released May 19. -
State Officials Investigated Over Their Inquiry Into Exxon Mobil’s Climate Change Research
May 19, 2016 | The New York Times
By John Schwartz
Since last November, a growing number of state attorneys general have been pointing their fingers at Exxon Mobil, investigating whether the energy company’s research about climate change conflicted directly with its public statements on the issue.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Lawmakers Reach Deal to Expand Regulation of Toxic Chemicals
May 19, 2016 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport and Emmarie Huetteman
House and Senate negotiators reached agreement on Thursday on far-reaching legislation to overhaul the nation’s 40-year-old law governing toxic chemicals, a compromise that would subject thousands of household chemicals to regulation for the first time.
Public health advocates and environmentalists have complained for decades that the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act is outdated and riddled with gaps that leave Americans exposed to harmful chemicals. Under current law, around 64,000 chemicals are not subject to environmental testing or regulation.
But efforts to tighten the law have stalled for years, in part because of opposition from the chemical industry. The bipartisan authors of the new bill say their breakthrough represents a pragmatic, politically viable compromise between better environmental standards and the demands of industry.
“Anytime you have the Chamber of Commerce and you have the manufacturers and the Environmental Defense Fund all together on this thing, then that gets people’s attention,” said Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, who helped negotiate the agreement.
Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, one of its Democratic authors, said current law “has been broken for nearly 40 years.”
Some House Democrats and environmental advocates have criticized the compromise as a capitulation to the chemical industry that weakens existing law. Representatives Frank Pallone Jr. of New Jersey and Paul D. Tonko of New York said Tuesday in a joint statement, “Unfortunately, at this point, it would be better for us to not act at all.”
Aides said Thursday that conversations were continuing with House Democrats on some changes to the agreement in the hope of bringing them on board in the next 24 hours.
Senator Barbara Boxer of California, the ranking Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said Thursday that she opposed the first version of the bill — until she helped improve it. The final version is better than current law, she said.
The bill is expected to reach the House and Senate floors for final votes early next week. Mr. Inhofe said Thursday that it could reach President Obama’s desk before the Memorial Day recess.
Mr. Obama appears poised to sign the measure. An Environmental Protection Agency spokeswoman, Liz Purchia, called the final draft “a clear improvement over current law.”
Under the new bill, E.P.A. regulations would pre-empt most new state regulations, although states could still enact measures such as monitoring and labeling of chemicals. State chemical restrictions passed before April 22 would be allowed to stand. Environmental groups failed in their push to allow states to enact laws stronger than federal rules.
Daniel Rosenberg of the Natural Resources Defense Council said Thursday that the new bill was still too weak, citing its pre-emption of states’ authority, its failure to provide the E.P.A. with enough authority to check imported products, and its restrictions on citizens’ abilities to petition the E.P.A.
But the authors of the bill say it would strengthen the law in other ways. Under the 1976 law, the E.P.A. is required to evaluate the safety of new chemicals introduced in the marketplace but not the roughly 64,000 chemicals that were already being used in American commerce. Since then, about 22,000 new chemicals have been introduced and evaluated, and those the agency designates as toxic and hazardous are subject to regulation.
The new measure would require the E.P.A. to begin evaluating those untested chemicals. The E.P.A. would be required to prioritize high-risk chemicals and to test at least 20 chemicals at any given moment, with each test limited to seven years. User fees of as much as $25 million a year would be levied on companies to help pay for the testing.
Those mandates still fall far short of what environmental advocates had once envisioned, a law requiring the E.P.A. to test up to 300 existing chemicals a year.
The new legislation would also require the E.P.A. to take only the health and environmental effects of a chemical into account when devising new rules, not the financial effect of those regulations. The existing law requires new chemical regulations to consider compliance costs.
Chemical reviews would have to consider exposure impact on vulnerable people, such as pregnant women, children, poor communities and industrial workers.
Andy Igrejas of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, said that although the pending deal would bolster the E.P.A.’s authority, some issues remained.
“We don’t get opportunities for big reforms often, and we want to get it right,” he said.
The chemical industry backed the bill. Cal Dooley, the president of the American Chemistry Council, said, “This legislation balances the priorities and interests of multiple stakeholders.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/us/politics/toxic-substances-chemicals-environment.html?_r=0
-
(ACC Mentioned) US on the Brink of TSCA Chem-Safety Reform
May 19, 2016 | ICIS
By Christie Moffat
US lawmakers confirmed on Thursday that they are in the process of finalising a long-awaited bill that will overhaul existing chemical safety legislation.
The draft legislation is the result of months of negotiations between Senate and House leaders, who have been working to reconcileseparate chemical safety reform bills that passed each of the chambers last year.
The bill will overhaul the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a 40-year-old principal US regulatory structure for ensuring the safety of chemicals in commerce.
Titled ‘The Frank R Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act’, the draft bill has adopted several provisions from the Senate bill (S-697) that passed in December last year.
The House passed its own, less-detailed TSCA reform bill (HR-2576) in June last year.
Under the draft bill, all new and existing chemicals used in commerce will be subject to a safety review and risk evaluation by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with clear and enforceable deadlines.
In addition, the legislation will expand the EPA's authority to require the generation of health and safety data for untested chemicals, and will require the EPA to affirmatively determine that new chemicals meet the safety standard before entering the market.
The bill will also increase the public transparency of chemical information and will provide the EPA with the funds to carry out these improvements.
“The TSCA legislative draft that EPA has seen is a clear improvement over current law and is largely consistent with the administration's principles for TSCA reform,” an agency spokesperson said. “We understand that parties continue to work on further improvements to the draft, and EPA stands ready to support the effort to finalise strong legislation to protect public health.”
Once a final agreement on the bill is reached, it is expected that the House will pass the bill first, followed by the Senate.
In a press conference on Thursday, lawmakers indicated their intention to have the bill finalised and passed through both the House and the Senate by the end of next Friday, which marks a scheduled break for the Memorial Day long weekend in the US.
Both the chemical industry and the environmental community have long been in agreement that the existing TSCA legislation is badly out of date and in need of major reform.
The announcement was welcomed by industry groups.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) said it was “almost unprecedented” to have such broad bipartisan support for an environmental law of such consequence.
“As with any compromise, this legislation balances the priorities and interests of multiple stakeholders while producing an agreement that pragmatic industry, environmental, public health and labour groups can ultimately support,” said ACC president and CEO Cal Dooley.
“We strongly urge swift bipartisan passage in the House and the Senate so that the president can sign the bill into law and finally bring TSCA into the 21st century," he said.
The Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA) also welcomed the news and said that TSCA reform should soon become a reality.
“After years of stalemates it is now abundantly clear that Congress is finally poised to modernise the manner in which chemicals in commerce are regulated,” said SOCMA president and CEO Lawrence Sloan.
http://www.icis.com/resources/news/2016/05/19/10000185/us-on-the-brink-of-tsca-chem-safety-reform/
-
Lawmakers Ready Final Push to Get TSCA Reform Done
May 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna and Pat Rizzuto
After months of bicameral negotiations, lawmakers announced May 19 they had effectively reached an agreement to overhaul the nation's primary industrial chemicals law.
Nearly a dozen Democratic and Republican senators, including Sens. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), David Vitter (R-La.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.), told reporters Congress intends to pass legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act before departing for a week-long break at the end of the month.
Legislation to revamp TSCA will receive a House vote the week of May 23, Matt Sparks, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), told Bloomberg BNA May 19. The House Rules Committee said it will convene at 5 p.m. on May 23 to take up the measure (see related story).
That commitment comes even as negotiations continue with senior House Democrats, including Reps. Frank Pallone (N.J.) and Paul Tonko (N.Y.), with hopes of securing their support for the TSCA overhaul, the senators said May 19. Aides for both congressmen have not responded for days to repeated e-mails and phone calls requesting details about their concerns.
Despite those continuing discussions, Democratic and Republican senators said they had effectively finished the bill.
Inhofe: ‘On The President's Desk' Before Memorial Day
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, separately told Bloomberg BNA the text of the compromise TSCA legislation would be posted online “very, very shortly.”
The bill will be “passed, signed and on the president's desk” before the Memorial Day break, Inhofe told reporters at the senators' news conference.
If passed, the bill would mark the first comprehensive revision of a major environmental statute since 1990. TSCA has not been updated since 1976, the year Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak founded Apple Computers Inc. and gas was 59 cents a gallon.
The draft bill reconciles the House and Senate's separate TSCA bills: the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 (H.R. 2576) in the House and the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act in the Senate. Originally numbered S. 697, the Senate bill passed as an amendment to H.R. 2576.
Bloomberg BNA obtained a copy of the draft bill, called the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, May 18. It includes many of the provisions from the previous Senate bill (97 DEN A-1, 5/19/16).
“This really is a significant accomplishment,” Vitter said.
For decades, TSCA hasn't fully protected the public, and it created regulatory uncertainty, he said.
That uncertainty “endangered American companies’ continuing to lead innovation that makes all our lives better through the products we use every minute of every day,” Vitter said.
Boxer on Reasons She Supports Bill
Boxer, ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee said that, prior to Lautenberg's death in June of 2013, she co-sponsored at least four of his bills to strengthen the health-protective provisions of TSCA.
Yet, she vigorously opposed earlier versions of the TSCA-reform bill that is now expected to move.
“I stopped this bill dead for years,” Boxer said. “We came from a place where the bill was worse than current law.”
After years of fighting and struggling, however, the draft agreement “is better than current law,” Boxer said.
Reasons she said she now supports the legislation include that:
• it would make the control of “dangerous substances like asbestos” a priority for Environmental Protection Agency action;
• it would give states clear times when they could regulate chemicals, such as if the EPA failed to complete required tasks by the bill's deadlines;
• it would generate information about chemicals stored near drinking water supplies.
New Chemicals
A key difference between the House and Senate bills concerned new chemicals.
The Senate bill required the EPA to affirmatively find a new chemical safe before it could be made in or imported into the U.S.
The House bill did not alter current TSCA provisions, meaning that new chemicals could enter commerce unless the agency raised concerns or made specific risk findings.
Ernie Rosenberg, president of the American Cleaning Institute, told Bloomberg BNA that similar to the Senate's bill, the draft agreement increases the EPA's oversight over new chemicals.
The draft bill will make it easier for the agency to secure information it seeks to assess the risks of new chemicals before they are made or imported, he said.
The measure, however, would not leave new chemicals in regulatory limbo while the agency assesses risks. It would provide clear deadlines and regulatory certainty for manufacturers of new chemicals, Rosenberg said.
The draft also is good for business, because it allows manufacturers to keep the specific identity of their chemicals and formulas for cleaning, paint and other products, confidential, he said.
More importantly, Rosenberg said, the draft legislation would increase the credibility that chemicals are being managed appropriately by the EPA.
“For our members the biggest threat is not state actions, it's retailers and certain bloggers,” he said.
Being able to point to a credible federal law is critical, Rosenberg said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90025053&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90025053&jd=90025053
-
House GOP, Senate Reach Deal on Chemical Safety Bill
May 19, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Darren Goode
After years of tense negotiations, the Senate and House Republicans announced on Thursday they had struck a deal to overhaul a decades-old chemical safety law and rewrite the rules for EPA and states to regulate toxic substances.
House Republicans plan to file a bill by Friday named for the late New Jersey Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg that makes significant changes to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, teeing up final action next week that could land the bill on President Barack Obama's desk before lawmakers leave for Memorial Day recess.
The House plans to act first on Tuesday. Sen.David Vitter (R-La.), who released a draft plan with Lautenberg shortly before the New Jersey Democrat died in 2013 and has helped lead the negotiations since, said Senate leaders committed to act on the bill before lawmakers leave for Memorial Day.
Senate leaders are expected to treat the bill like a formal conference report, meaning it would be privileged and protected from amendments on the Senate floor once the House sends it over.
But negotiators are still hammering out some final details in an effort to bring House Democratic leaders, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), onboard.
"We're still working to make it better," Senate Environment and Public Works ranking memberBarbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said at a press conference Thursday alongside Vitter and several other Senate negotiators. The California Democrat is supporting the bill after she secured a deal with Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) earlier this month on language preempting toxic laws in California and other states.
"I believe that our agreement is respectful of the federal government's role and the state governments' role," she said. "We have something we can live with. The House said they can make it better. So far they haven't made it better."
"We're still trying. I mean there's still some minor things being pushed back and forth," House Environment and the Economy Subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus (R-Ill.) said. House Democrats, including Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), made an offer late Wednesday encompassing about a handful of items that Shimkus declined to detail.
But a bill is moving ahead regardless. "We do not need them," Shimkus said. "That's why we have a deadline. I mean, we're doing it, it's going to happen."
The bill marries a House-passed measure with a far more expansive Senate version and makes sweeping reforms that require new safety measures from both EPA and chemical companies, while giving states some flexibility to act on their own if the federal government moves too slowly.
“It’s been a five-month process of really melding the concerns and the ideas and putting together a joint document that we both can kind of claim as our own,” one Senate Environment and Public Works aide told POLITICO.
The legislation is the biggest update to federal environmental law since Congress passed the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. The deal on TSCA is notable given both the complexity of the issue and the sharp political differences among lawmakers — from hardline conservatives like Inhofe and Vitter to ardent liberals like Boxer and Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) who are usually at odds on environmental policy issues.
"It's kind of like a political Halley's Comet in this Congress," Markey said. "A special moment because you want to make sure you see it because it's probably not going to happen again in your political lifetime."
"It’s a tremendously big deal," Lautenberg's son, Josh, told POLITICO. "This is something my father has been passionate about, concerned about and thought about for many, many years. To me, this is his true legacy."
"And it happened in an otherwise very divided Congress that has a lot of anti-EPA sentiment," Environmental Defense Fund's Richard Denison said. "It's a remarkable testament to how this evolved from a careful balancing of competing interests both between the parties and the stakeholders and it's that willingness to find a middle ground on issue after issue that led to an ability to get this done."
But it was far from easy getting to this point in drama-laded talks that featured more infighting among Democrats than the usual partisan skirmishes.
The discussions remained so fluid that the specific attendees and purpose at the Thursday morning press conference weren’t made clear until minutes before it began.
The deal on the bill emerged over opposition from two House Democrats who had been central in the talks: Pallone and Environment and the Economy Subcommittee ranking member Paul Tonko. Pallone, who unsuccessfully ran for Lautenberg’s seat after his death in 2013, and Tonko issued a statement Tuesday saying the deal that was emerging between House Republicans and Senate negotiators in both parties would worsen current law.
But the White House, EPA and Environmental Defense Fund joined Senate negotiators and House Republicans to counter that assertion this week.
“We believe the latest draft represents an improvement over current law and we’re hopeful that House and Senate negotiators continue to work to finalize a strong TSCA bill for the President to sign,” the White House said in a statement early Wednesday afternoon, echoing comments issued by EPA late Tuesday.
The bill includes the compromise struck earlier this month between Inhofe and Boxer that would require that states pause their activity on high-priority chemicals when EPA is conducting its risk reviews. But Boxer also earned a couple of significant concessions.
That includes creating a mechanism for states to seek a waiver from EPA on high-priority chemicals that would take into account substantial work a state has done on regulating a chemical, and allow them to finish that process.
“It’s not a blanket exemption, it’s still a waiver that needs to be applied for,” the Senate aide said. States would need to prove they've conducted work on a chemical, and any action EPA eventually takes would override over the state regulation.
Boxer also negotiated a shortening of the pause in state action during an EPA risk review to no longer than three years, with the possibility of a six-month extension. Earlier language in the bill had said the pause would last at least three years with a one-year extension possible. Other changes gave states more opportunity to act prior to the pause applying.
Negotiators agreed to remove House language that Democrats and trial lawyers argued created a special shield for Monsanto, protecting it from legal liability for producing now-banned PCBs. That language alone would have likely have stopped Democrats from supporting the bill.
The deal also includes a section on regulating new chemicals, which was included in the Senate bill but completely absent from an earlier House-approved TSCA bill.
Another tough issue, and a top one for Shimkus, was compromising over how to clarify current law protecting chemical companies' confidential business information in publicly available health and safety studies. Negotiators “found a good middle ground that will allow for protections of chemical identity in certain circumstances but certainly better access for information in a lot of other instances,” the Senate aide said. Specifically, EPA would not disclose the identity of a chemical if that would reveal how that chemical is made.
Much of the early drama around the TSCA bill had focused on Boxer, who had lobbied colleagues aboard the plane bound for Lautenberg's funeral against his latest version of the legislation. She had also questioned the motives of the Democrat who replaced Lautenberg as Vitter's chief negotiator, New Mexico's Tom Udall, and was still a rare dissenter to an earlier version of the bill that the Senate approved by unanimous consent before entering talks with the House this year.
"I stopped this bill dead for years because this bill didn't do what I thought it should have done: Carry Frank's name," Boxer said Thursday, standing at the podium directly in front of Lautenberg's widow, Bonnie, whose friendship with Boxer collapsed over the earlier impasse.
"It has been a grueling three years watching how Congress works ... and learning how difficult it is to pass a bill even when you have senators and House members on both sides of the aisle supporting it," Bonnie Lautenberg said after Boxer had left the press conference.
But Inhofe and Udall both praised Boxer Thursday. "She has been a real team player," Udall said.
Pallone stepped into the role of Democratic combatant in the later stages, including criticizingSenate language championed by Sen. Cory Booker — who had handily beaten Pallone in the 2013 primary to succeed Lautenberg — that would require alternatives to be considered before testing of chemicals was done on animals.
Shimkus said he thinks Pallone in part is sticking with his lead subcommittee Democrat, Tonko, and Pelosi in part is sticking with her lead committee Democrat, Pallone. "Which is not a bad reason," Shimkus said.
The complaints by Pallone, who has received high ratings from the Humane Society for his record on animal rights issues, led to some revisions of the Booker language. Pallone’s criticisms though have been blamed by some close observers, including at least one aide directly involved in the discussions, as being partly tied to residual bitterness over his loss to Booker.
"Frank Pallone doesn’t strike me as someone who is bitter or would demonstrate that publicly or vocalize that," said Josh Lautenberg, who had endorsed Pallone in his primary against Booker. “But no matter how you slice it, Frank Pallone is on the wrong side of this. And I know that my father would be very disappointed.”
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/05/bicameral-deal-reached-to-overhaul-tsca-114226
-
Bills on TSCA, Energy/Water Funding Go to House Rules
May 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Susan Bruninga
The House Rules Committee announced May 19 that it will convene at 5 p.m. on May 23 to take up bills to reform the nation's main chemical law, fund water and energy projects and block an Environmental Protection Agency rule governing pesticide spraying in or near bodies of water.
The TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 (H.R. 2576) would reconcile the House and Senate versions of a bill to update the Toxic Substances Control Act, which hasn't been revised since 1976 (96 DEN A-2, 5/18/16).
The draft Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 2017 (H.R. 5055) would provide $37.4 billion, with most of it, $30 billion, going to the Energy Department, $6 billion to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and $1.1 billion for the Interior Department. It passed the House Appropriations Committee April 19 (76 DEN A-18, 4/20/16).
The Senate passed its version May 12 in a 90-8 vote (94 DEN A-14, 5/16/16).
Finally, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2015 (H.R. 897), also known as the Zika Vector Control Act, would have eliminated Clean Water Act permit requirements for pesticide applications on or near waters. The House failed, in a 262-159 vote, to suspend the rules and pass this bill May 17 (96 DEN A-8, 5/18/16).
Critics of the bill said it would weaken Clean Water Act requirements and was disguised as a Zika control bill.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90025074&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90025074&jd=90025074
-
EPA Plans Four New Rules, One Expanded Rule for Chemicals
May 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency's portion of the spring Regulatory Agenda includes four new chemical rulemakings and one expanded chemical rule.
The Office of Management and Budget released the updated agenda May 18.
EPA officials, including Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, director of the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, have referred to some of the new rulemakings in forums such as the annual Global Chemical Regulations Conference (57 DEN A-2, 3/24/16).
Nevertheless, the four rules that are published for the first time in the agency's regulatory agenda are:
• a proposed significant new use rule for trichloroethylene in non-aerosol spray degreasers (anticipated proposal in July; RIN:2070-AK18);
• a proposed rule restricting or banning the use of trichloroethylene in vapor degreasing (anticipated proposal in October; RIN:2070-AK11);
• a proposed rule to reauthorize the use of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in small capacitors, in particular, fluorescent light ballasts (anticipated proposal also in October; RIN:2070-AK12); and
• a proposed rule to require the generation of new toxicity or other information for the brominated phthalate acid group of flame retardants (anticipated proposal in December; RIN:2070-AK19).
SNUR Expanded
A planned significant new use rule for n-ethylpyrrolidone (NEP) in paint removers, published in thefall 2015 regulatory agenda, has been expanded in the spring 2016 agenda to include additional chemicals.
The expanded, yet-to-be-proposed new use rule would cover not only n-ethylpyrrolidone (NEP) but also n-propylpyrrolidone (NPP), n-isopropylpyrrolidone (NiPP), n-isobutylpyrrolidone (NiBP), n-sec-butyl pyrrolidone (N-sec-BP) and n-t-butyl pyrrolidone (NtBP).
The expanded description of this rulemaking doesn't say whether the agency is considering covering applications of these chemicals in products beyond paint removers.
The agency anticipates proposing that rule (RIN:2070-AK09) in August.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90025065&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90025065&jd=90025065
-
Overnight Energy: Lawmakers Closing in on Chemical Safety Deal
May 19, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama and Devin Henry
NEAR THE FINISH LINE: Senate and House lawmakers said Thursday they're putting the finishing touches on a chemical safety bill, with or without Reps. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.).
Senators from both parties told reporters that the final text of the negotiated deal to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) would be posted for House consideration within a day or so. They predicted that Congress could pass it by the end of next week.
"We are on the cusp here of delivering an agreement, which is a major agreement, in terms of protecting the health and safety of American families," said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), who led talks for Democrats on TSCA reform since Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) died in 2013.
Lautenberg was an advocate for TSCA reform, and the final bill will be named after him.
"I, too, am really excited about this positive accomplishment," said Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who led the GOP side of the effort.
A spokesman for House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said he was on board with the deal, even though he wasn't at the Thursday event.
But Pallone and Tonko, the top Democrats on the House committee and subcommittee dealing with the issue still aren't on board. They publicly distanced themselves from the process earlier this week.
"The problem is that the Republicans have made this bill, from what I understand, that the draft that they're proposing, is weaker than the current law," Pallone said Wednesday. "So there wouldn't be any point in having it."
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) spoke to Pallone's concerns Thursday about preempting state authority over chemicals and, without mentioning him by name, pushed him to rejoin the talks.
"I worked with Democratic members in the House as they attempted to negotiate the pre-emption provisions of this bill. I took that agreement as far as I could take it," she said. "And we have something we can live with."
Read more here.
MURKOWSKI VS. OBAMA ON ARCTIC DRILLING: Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chair Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) on Thursday challenged a top Obama administration official to include Arctic Ocean drilling leases in their upcoming five-year drilling strategy.
During a hearing, Murkowski questioned whether the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is being objective in its assessment of three proposed Arctic lease sales in the drilling plan proposed earlier this year.
The question, she asked the head of the agency, is "whether you will treat that lack of local opposition and the overwhelming support of Alaskans in favor of development as a reason to maintain the three Alaska [Outer Continental Shelf] sales in the final program?"
Bureau Director Abigail Ross Hopper said it is too early to say whether those lease sales will stay in the final plan, which is Obama's chance to shape the American offshore drilling strategy well into his successor's term as president.
But Murkowski said she doubted the agency is reviewing that plan impartially, pointing to a recent bureau tweet with a picture of Hopper posing with anti-drilling activists.
"I looked at it and said, how do we conclude that the die has not already been cast and your agency has already decided what it is you're going to get done?" Murkowski said.
Read more here.
NEW YORK A.G. VS. CONGRESS ON EXXON PROBE: New York's attorney general is dismissing a House GOP letter about his investigation into ExxonMobil Corp. as "ironic."
Members of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee sent a letter to Eric Schneiderman this week requesting information related to his investigation into claims Exxon misled the public about its climate science research.
"The committee is concerned that these efforts to silence speech are based on political theater rather than legal or scientific arguments, and that they run counter to an attorney general's duty to serve 'as the guardian of the legal rights of the citizens,'" the letter said.
Schneiderman's office slammed the request on Thursday, saying the letter's authors -- lawmakers including Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) -- "appear to be part of a multipronged media campaign funded by the fossil fuel industry aimed at suppressing the free exchange of ideas among scientists, academics and responsible law enforcement."
The Exxon probe has lead to a back-and-forth between liberal attorneys general and Republicans, who have said the investigation into the oil giant's climate science research is an infringement of the company's First Amendment rights.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/overnights/280612-overnight-energy-lawmakers-closing-in-on-chemical-bill
-
Congress Reaches Deal to Overhaul Chemical Regulation
May 19, 2016 | AP (In The Mercury News)
By Matthew Daly
A bipartisan agreement reached by House and Senate negotiators would set new safety standards for asbestos and other dangerous chemicals, including tens of thousands that have gone unregulated for decades.
A bill to be voted on as soon as next week would offer new protections for pregnant women, children, workers and others vulnerable to the effects of chemicals such as formaldehyde and styrene used in homes and businesses every day.
If enacted into law, the bill would be the first significant update to the Toxic Substances Control Act since the law was adopted in 1976.
The bill, more than three years in the making, has won the backing of both industry officials and some of the Capitol's most liberal lawmakers, including Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Edward Markey, D-Mass.
The bill also has the support of conservative Republicans such as Sens. David Vitter of Louisiana and James Inhofe of Oklahoma.
"This is a political Halley's Comet" that may not be seen again for many years, said Markey, a former opponent of the bill who signed onto it in recent weeks after changes were made to ensure that states that regulate chemicals closely can continue to do so.
Markey called the bill "a special piece of legislation" that finally updates one of the major environmental laws approved during the 1970s.
The agreement announced Thursday merges bills that the House and Senate passed last year.
Negotiations had stalled in recent weeks, as lawmakers struggled over a provision that allows states to continue regulating toxic chemicals. The proposal announced Thursday declares that any state law or rule in place before April 22 would not be pre-empted by federal law. The proposal also would allow states to work on regulations while federal rules are being developed, a process that can take years.
Boxer, who had opposed earlier versions of the bill, said the proposal protects the rights of California, Massachusetts and other states that aggressively regulate chemicals "to continue their critical work to protect their citizens from harmful toxic chemicals." States that do not regulate chemicals closely would follow the federal standard.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said in a statement Thursday that the measure "goes a long way to providing businesses with much needed clarity and certainty by facilitating a more predictable federal regulatory program" for chemical regulation.
Richard Denison, a senior scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, called the bill a "significant victory for public health," noting that it will require safety reviews for thousands of chemicals already in use and mandate greater scrutiny of new chemicals before they can be sold.
"While not perfect, this will be a dramatic improvement over current law," Denison said.
Chemicals used in everyday products such as household cleaners, clothing and furniture have been linked to serious illnesses, including cancer, infertility, diabetes and Parkinson's disease.
Under current law, only a small fraction of chemicals used in these products have been reviewed for safety.
"People believe when they go to the grocery store or the hardware store (and) get a product, that that product has been tested and it's been determined to be safe. That isn't the case," said Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M. a lead sponsor of the bill. "Today we are stepping forward and we are putting a law in place that will protect American families and protect children from chemicals."
Regulation of chemicals took on new urgency after a 2014 spill in West Virginia last year contaminated drinking water for 300,000 people. The chemical, crude MCHM, is one of thousands unregulated under current law.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., said the spill "brought into my own home how the lack of knowledge of what's in your water supply can affect your health."
The legislation is named after the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat who pushed for chemical reform before his death in 2013. Lautenberg's widow, Bonnie, praised the bill and said it was the most important legislation associated with her husband, including a landmark bill he sponsored to ban smoking on airplanes.
Under the agreement, if the federal government does not complete the regulatory process for a chemical within 3½ years, then states would be free to regulate that chemical.
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_29913955/congress-reaches-deal-overhaul-chemical-regulation
-
EPA Issues New Health Advisories for Chemical Found Near Some Plastics Plants
May 19, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Cameron McWhirter
The Environmental Protection Agency announced a new health advisory Thursday for perfluorooctanoic acid, a potentially toxic chemical, calling for water utilities across the nation to adhere to a stricter guideline than the agency had previously recommended.
In recent months, state investigators in New York, Vermont and New Hampshire have found high levels of the chemical, known as PFOA, in drinking-water wells and groundwater near former and current chemical plants, alarming residents and raising concern about PFOA contamination in other parts of the country.
The Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based advocacy group that assesses chemicals in consumer products and the environment, sent a letter in late April to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy urging the agencyto set an enforceable drinking-water standard for the chemical and to force former manufacturers to disclose all sites in the U.S. where they used, made or dumped PFOA.
On Thursday, the EPA declared that drinking water with PFOA concentrations of 70 parts per trillion or more were not healthy for human consumption. In 2009, the agency issued a provisional guideline of 400 parts per trillion. The EPA has been reviewing PFOA guidelines for months, and state environmental agencies have been setting their own guidelines. New York and New Hampshire both set limits of 100 parts per trillion, while Vermont had a stricter standard of 20 parts per trillion.
PFOA can be harmful to animals in high doses, causing tumors in the liver and other parts of the body, according to several scientific studies. A multiyear medical study in the 2000s of 70,000 people near a plant in West Virginia that made PFOA found “some suggestions” of “probable links” between high exposure to the chemical and illnesses, including cancer.
The agency Thursday also set a 70 parts per trillion guideline for perfluorooctane sulfonate, or PFOS, a chemical similar to PFOA that was used to make products stain resistant. PFOS has been found in studies to be harmful to the immune systems of animals.
For both chemicals, the guidelines are lifetime-exposure advisories.
The provisional health advisory for PFOS had been 200 parts per trillion. The EPA stated that if both chemicals were found in drinking water, the 70 parts per trillion limit applies for the two chemicals combined. The advisories are not regulations that can be enforced by the EPA, but health guidelines issued for water utilities, and state environmental and health agencies to consider.
“If these chemicals are found in drinking-water systems above these levels, system operators should quickly conduct additional sampling to assess the level, scope and source of contamination,” according to an EPA statement. “They should also promptly notify consumers and consult with their state drinking-water agency to discuss appropriate next steps. Public notification is especially important for pregnant or nursing women because of the impact these chemicals can have on the development of fetuses and breast-fed or formula-fed infants.”
Some state officials were quick to applaud the new guidelines. The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services spokesman Jim Martin said his department would work to provide bottled water to any communities where drinking-water tests exceeded the 70 parts per trillion limit.
The Environmental Working Group said the new levels aren’t strict enough and urged the agency to impose a legally enforceable limit.
Factories for decades used PFOA as a plastic coating and to make consumer products such as Teflon nonstick pans, waterproof jackets and pizza boxes. Former large manufacturers or users of PFOA, including 3M Co. andDuPont Co., agreed in 2006 to phase out PFOA production and use by December 2015. Public concern over PFOA has spread through upstate New York and New England since August 2014, when a resident of Hoosick Falls, N.Y., near the Vermont border, tested his drinking water and found high levels of the acid. The man was concerned because his father, a former employee of the town’s plastics plant that used PFOA, died of cancer.
Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, a subsidiary of Saint-Gobain SA of France, operates plants in Merrimack, N.H., and Hoosick Falls, N.Y., and used to operate a plant in North Bennington, Vt. Since last year, state investigators have found PFOA contamination near all three sites, and they cited the plants as potential sources.
A company spokeswoman said in a statement that, according to the EPA, the new advisory is “not a legally enforceable federal standard and is subject to change as new information becomes available.” The company, however, believes the new guidelines will help “state and local governments to make consistent decisions concerning the levels of PFOA in drinking water,” she said.
Shawn Dalton, 65, a retired communications manager who lives not far from the Merrimack plant, thought until Thursday that water from his well, which tested 73 parts per trillion for PFOA, was safe. Now he knows it is three parts above the new guideline. He was glad for the new guidelines, however, because it means he now can hold government officials and companies accountable, he said.
“At least now the federal government has put a stake in the ground,” he said.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-issues-new-health-advisories-for-chemical-from-some-plastics-plants-1463687484?mg=id-wsj
-
EPA Issues Drinking Water Health Advisories for PFOS, PFOA
May 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Environmental Protection Agency released voluntary benchmarks May 19 to guide local water systems, states and others in determining what concentration levels of certain highly fluorinated chemicals in drinking water are safe for public health.
The EPA set the same benchmark—0.07 microgram per liter or 70 parts per trillion—in its two lifetime drinking water health advisories on perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). Individual or combined exposure to the chemicals, which were previously widely used in products like carpets to make them more water- or stain-resistant, could result in negative health effects including cancer, the agency said.
Reactions were mixed as to whether the health advisory levels that are lower than 2009 provisional levels for the chemicals are protective enough. But the advisories won't be the end of the issue: The EPA left the option open to develop enforceable rules on the chemicals.
“This is going to be the next lead … because its in many people's drinking water and people are just finding out about it,” Arlene Blum, executive director for the Green Science Policy Institute, told Bloomberg BNA. “Right now, it's an emergency. We need to find out where the highly fluorinated chemicals are in drinking water and help people prevent harm.”
“But in the big picture: we need to question the use of these chemicals in products,” Blum, who is also a visiting scholar at the University of California, Berkeley, said of the chemicals that don't easily break down in the human body or the environment. “Things that never break down, you're making a big decision.”
Persistent Chemicals
PFOS is no longer manufactured domestically—it was voluntarily phased out between 2000 and 2002 domestically by 3M, it's primary manufacturer.
DuPont, the primary manufacturer of PFOA, has stopped making that chemical. PFOA and PFOA-related chemicals are still used for limited purposes, according to the EPA.
Exposure generally is declining nationwide, the EPA said. However, exposure through consumer products, food and drinking water continues.
Exposure through drinking water is generally limited to communities where supplies have been contaminated around a specific PFOS or PFOA-manufacturing or using facility, such as an airfield where the chemicals were used in firefighting efforts, the EPA said.
In January 2009, the EPA issued provisional health advisories for each chemical for exposure that could result in negative health effects in weeks or months. The provisional advisory for PFOA of 0.4 microgram per liter (400 parts per trillion) and for PFOS of 0.2 microgram per liter (200 parts per trillion) were intended to offer guidance to public water systems as the agency developed a lifetime health advisory.
But years have passed since then and states and even the EPA have issued different recommendations about what is safe, including the EPA's special advisory to Hoosick Falls, N.Y., in late February, when the agency said not to drink water with PFOA concentrations of 0.1 microgram per liter (100 parts per trillion). Governors, members of Congress, environmental advocates and others have urged the EPA to clarify what levels are safe in drinking water.
Protectiveness Examined
Depending who is asked, the numbers reached by the EPA for the lifetime health advisories are very protective—or up to 70 times too high.
Joel Beauvais, deputy assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Water, said in an agency blog post that the unenforceable benchmark of limiting exposure to under 0.07 microgram per liter (70 parts per trillion) won't cause negative health effects. It actually “reflect[s] a margin of protection, including for the most sensitive populations,” he said.
Janet Smith, a spokeswoman for the DuPont-created Chemours Co., told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail, “We believe the Agency set the health advisory at 70 parts per trillion with the goal of being extremely protective.” Smith said her company is reviewing the data posted on the EPA website, and has been preparing water treatment and monitoring measures to meet the new advisory.
But Bill Walker, investigations editor for the Environmental Working Group, disagreed. While he acknowledged the advisory was a step forward for public health protection, he told Bloomberg BNA the benchmark for these chemicals isn't low enough and pointed to research that found a 1-part-per-trillion level for these types of chemicals is more appropriate.
States will now take these advisories and “move to the front lines” to respond to public queries, according to Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, executive director for the Environmental Council of the States.
States will work with federal agencies and national associations to provide “clear and effective information to all Americans in the coming weeks and months,” Dunn said.
What's Next
“We anticipate public concern to be real and immediate,” Dunn said in a statement.
Both PFOA and PFOS are required contaminants to monitor under the EPA's third unregulated contaminant monitoring rule, and the agency will consider this information alongside others to determine whether to begin developing a national primary drinking water regulation, it said.
But Walker expressed frustration at the pace of EPA action.
“They really demonstrate the problems with toxics regulation under [the Toxic Substances Control Act],” Walker said. “They've known about this [issue] for quite some time, and yet they're just acting now. We can hardly think of a better poster child for the failures of TSCA than what's happening around these chemicals.”
The Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies declined to comment, saying it needed more time to review the advisories. The American Water Works Association and 3M, the former main manufacturer of PFOS, didn't respond to requests for comment.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90025080&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90025080&jd=90025080
-
Chronic Exposure Limit Set for PFOA in Drinking Water
May 19, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jessica Morrison
Water utilities should notify consumers when perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) exceed 70 parts per trillion—individually or combined—in drinking water, undernew guidelines released on May 19 by EPA.
The long-awaited advisory aims to reduce chronic exposures to the persistent fluorochemicals in drinking water. Environmental groups, who have long been pushing EPA to set a limit for the fluorochemicals in drinking water, are disappointed that the advisory is only voluntary. The agency “highlights the fact that this is a chemical that you do not want in your water or the environment,” says David Andrews, senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, an environmental advocacy organization. “But we think [EPA] could have taken a bigger step to protect public health,” he adds.
The chemicals, which were used to manufacture iconic household brands such as DuPont’s Teflon and 3M’s Scotchgard, persist indefinitely in the environment and have been linked to disease in humans. More than a decade ago, the fluorochemical industry pledged to end production of PFOA and PFOS by 2015. EPA says that the companies have met their stewardship commitments.
-
EPA Lowers Safety Levels For PFCs In Drinking Water Health Advisories
May 20, 2016 | InsideEPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA has issued long-awaited health advisories for two non-stick perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) in drinking water, significantly lowering the concentration of each contaminant in water that it says is safe, and is recommending that level -- 70 parts per trillion (ppt) -- also apply to the combined concentrations of the two chemicals if they are found together in drinking water.
While the advisories for lifetime exposures are not enforceable standards, the move is expected to prompt calls for treatment of water supply systems across the country that fail to meet the stricter level and additional cleanups of the chemicals at fire-fighting training sites that have been relying on a less stringent cleanup level.
In a fact sheet released May 19 along with the advisories, EPA repeats earlier comments from agency water officials that drinking water impacts from the two chemicals will be localized rather than national, saying that exposure to the two PFCs "can be an additional source in the small percentage of communities where these chemicals have contaminated water supplies. Such contamination is typically localized and associated with a specific facility," it says.
The drinking water health advisories for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)set lifetime exposure health advisory levels at 0.07 micrograms per liter (ug/L) for both chemicals, which translates to 70 ppt. At the same time, EPA is recommending the combined concentrations of PFOA and PFOS, if found together in drinking water, not exceed 70 ppt.
Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water Joel Beauvais May 19 also signed a notice of availabilityfor the advisories and PFOA and PFOS health effects support documents that the agency submitted for publication in the Federal Register.
The advisories are for lifetime exposures, and replace EPA's short-term exposure levels, the agency says in the fact sheet. EPA says the advisory levels -- derived from peer-reviewed studies of the effects of the chemicals on laboratory animals and informed by epidemiological studies -- are formulated to protect the most sensitive populations -- fetuses and breastfed infants -- against adverse health effects. "The health advisory levels are calculated based on the drinking water intake of lactating women, who drink more water than other people and can pass these chemicals along to nursing infants through breastmilk," the fact sheet says.
The new advisory levels ratchet down EPA's provisional short-term exposure levels for both chemicals, which were set in 2009 at 400 ppt for PFOA and 200 ppt for PFOS.
They come after EPA was under escalating pressure to apply stricter drinking water treatment levels to water supplies with PFOA amid conflicting health advisory levels EPA and states had been applying, and as more communities became aware of PFOA's presence in their drinking water.
For example, EPA Region 2 officials earlier this year recommended residents in one New York community not consume water from private drinking water wells when PFOA was detected at levels above 100 ppt. And Vermont had established an interim groundwater quality standard of 20 ppt for PFOA after discovering the chemical in drinking water. A chemical manufacturer is challenging the standard in state court.
Further Actions
EPA, in the fact sheet, indicates it is still weighing whether to develop an enforceable drinking water standard for the two chemicals, saying it will consider drinking water occurrence data for the two chemicals and the peer-reviewed health effects assessments to make that determination.
Peter Grevatt, director of EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, said earlier this year that drinking water reporting data required by the unregulated contaminants monitoring rule has so far not shown PFCs to be nationally prevalent in water systems to the degree that would justify national regulations, though he acknowledged the chemicals “will still play out in a local way for local jurisdictions.”
The agency says it also will start a separate effort to determine the range of PFCs for which an Integrated Risk Information System assessment is needed.
In response to the new advisories, attorney Robert Bilott, who has represented thousands of plaintiffs potentially exposed to PFCs in drinking water and has long pressured EPA to act on PFOA, welcomed the new levels but says they do not go far enough. He told Inside EPA in a May 19 email response that EPA's stricter advisory "and recognition of the need to consider combined PFCs is certainly a long overdue step in the right direction, but it is still too high, as it will allow the unacceptable cumulative buildup of higher and higher levels of PFOA in the blood of those exposed.”
Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, executive director and general counsel of the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), said in a May 19 statement that with the release of the advisories, state environmental and public health agencies “now move to the front lines in responding to public inquiries regarding these advisories. We anticipate public concern to be real and immediate.”
EPA notes in the fact sheet that the advisories are non-enforceable and non-regulatory and offer technical information to state agencies and public health officials on health effects, analytical methods and treatment technologies for drinking water contaminants.
In a move that appears to anticipate questions from states and others on how to implement the advisories, the agency is recommending actions for drinking water systems, advising that if water sampling shows 70 ppt concentrations of the chemicals individually or combined, the systems "should quickly undertake additional sampling to assess the level, scope and localized source of contamination to inform next steps."
If the higher levels are confirmed, water systems should give prompt notice of the levels to their state drinking water agency and consumers, providing specific information on the risks to fetuses and infants from exposures to levels above the health advisory, the fact sheet says.
The agency says several options are available to reduce the concentration of PFOA and PFOS in water supplies, suggesting closing contaminated wells, changing blend rates or treating source water with activated carbon or reverse osmosis systems to remove the contaminants.
And while no industry standards are currently available to verify whether home drinking water treatment filters are effective in removing PFCs, NSF International is currently working on protocols for such testing, EPA says.
The new advisory will also likely impact cleanups being conducted by the Defense Department, which has relied on EPA's less stringent short-term health advisory levels to guide cleanups of PFCs found on fire-fighting training sites. PFCs are a component of aqueous film forming foam in firefighting foam used by the military services. DOD has identified 664 fire training sites across the country where PFCs have been used, according to the Air Force, which is sampling its installations to confirm releases and determine any impacts to groundwater.
One of those sites is the former Pease Air Force Base in New Hampshire, where EPA Region 1 last year issued a first-time Safe Drinking Water Act administrative order for the Air Force to clean up PFC contamination.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) in a May 19 statement welcomed the advisories and said, “These new standards will help New Hampshire officials address water quality more directly and aggressively to ensure that Granite State communities have safe drinking water.”
Toxicity Studies
In the PFOA health advisory, EPA says oral animal studies showed developmental effects, liver toxicity, kidney toxicity, immune effects and testicular and kidney cancer. "Overall, the toxicity studies available for PFOA demonstrate that the developing fetus is particularly sensitive to PFOA-induced toxicity," the health advisory says.
"Human epidemiology data report associations between PFOA exposure and high cholesterol, increased liver enzymes, decreased vaccination response, thyroid disorders, pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia, and cancer (testicular and kidney)," the PFOA health advisory says.
The PFOS health advisory says animal studies on that chemical reported developmental effects, reproductive impacts, liver toxicity, immune effects and thyroid and liver cancer. Toxicity studies on PFOS also indicated fetuses have a particular sensitivity to PFOS-related toxicity, it says. "Human epidemiology data report associations between PFOS exposure and high cholesterol, thyroid disease, immune suppression, and some reproductive and developmental parameters, including reduced fertility and fecundity," it says.
Both chemicals were used in various consumer products and industrial processes, but have been phased out in recent years under an agreement between EPA and U.S. manufacturers. The chemicals have been found in the blood of nearly all people tested, and exposure remains possible due to legacy uses, degradation of precursors and the chemicals' persistence in the environment, EPA says in the documents it released.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-lowers-safety-levels-pfcs-drinking-water-health-advisories
-
EPA Acts to Limit Teflon Chemicals
May 19, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Tiffany Stecker
U.S. EPA announced new drinking water advisories today for industrial chemicals best known as ingredients in Teflon and other nonstick coatings but that are also in plastics and fabrics.
The two draft advisories would limit concentrations of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) to 70 parts per trillion in tap water.
"These advisories will help local water systems and state, tribal and local officials take the appropriate steps to address PFOA and PFOS if needed," Joel Beauvais, EPA's deputy assistant administrator for water, wrote in a blog post.
PFOA and PFOS are fluorinated organic chemicals that are part of a larger group of chemicals called perfluoroalkyl substances.
The chemicals -- which have been used in manufacturing since the mid-20th century -- have been linked to liver and kidney damage, cancer, and birth defects.
PFOA and PFOS are unregulated, and the health advisories are not legally enforceable standards. But they do set guidelines for utilities for doing additional sampling and notifying water customers.
Between 2000 and 2002, PFOS was voluntarily phased out of American production by 3M, its primary manufacturer. EPA had asked eight other companies to stop making PFOA by the end of 2015.
The advisories come as communities in New York, Vermont and New Hampshire seek to control the concentrations of those chemicals in their drinking water.
PFOA in New Hampshire was linked to plastics manufacturer Saint-Gobain's plant in Merrimack, N.H. The chemical was also found around Bennington, Vt., near a former Saint-Gobain factory, and in Hoosick Falls, N.Y.
New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D) welcomed the advisories.
"These new standards will help New Hampshire officials address water quality more directly and aggressively to ensure that Granite State communities have safe drinking water," she said in a statement.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/05/19/stories/1060037572
-
FDA Accepting Public Comments on the Safety of Ortho-Phthalates
May 19, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
Today, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it was accepting public comment on a food additive petition asking the agency to reconsider the safety of 30 toxic chemicals known as ortho-phthalates, which are used as additives in food packaging and handling materials.
The announcement, to be published in tomorrow’s Federal Register, comes shortly after a new study by Dr. Ami Zota published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that individuals who consume large amounts of fast food have higher levels of exposure to two of the most commonly-used phthalates—diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) and diisononyl phthtlate (DiNP). Because the study was about fast food, final food packaging is less likely to be a major source than food handling equipment, including gloves.
The Milken Institute School of Public Health at the George Washington University study adds more urgency to the petition filed by EDF and allies which prompted today’s FDA notice.
Ortho-phthalates are a class of chemically- and pharmacologically-related industrial substances; thirty of them have FDA-approved uses as plasticizers, binders, coating agents, defoamers, gasket closures, and slimicide agents in food packaging materials and processing equipment. Found in cellophane, paper and paperboard, and plastics that come in contact with food, they can leach into the food.
Studies have linked ortho-phthalates exposure to a variety of reproductive anddevelopmental problems, and some are known endocrine disruptors.
Previous studies have found that diet is a major source of phthalate exposure. The Milken study, is one of the first to look specifically at the exposure risk of fast food using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data. NHANES is a nationally representative survey. The researchers found that individuals who consumed fast food in the 24 hours leading up to the study had as much as 40%(corrected 5/19/16) more phthalates in their urine than study participants who had not eaten fast food in the previous day. The findings also provide one of the first concrete steps that consumers can take to reduce their exposure—they can eat less fast food.
Public comments on this petition can be submitted until July 19, 2016.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2016/05/19/ortho-phthalates-public-comments/#more-5265
-
Corporate Chemical Risks Get Their Own Footprint
May 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrea Vittorio
Consumer-facing companies that do a good job managing chemical risks in their products and supply chains could be rewarded financially under a new footprinting framework being championed by a group of investors and institutional purchasers.
These risks have come into sharper focus in recent years amid a rise in regulations and consumer concerns over hazardous chemicals in everything from food to cosmetics.
Up until now, though, there hasn't been a common standard for understanding and comparing companies' chemical performance. In the world of corporate sustainability reporting, there are carbon footprints and there are water footprints, but “there isn't anything on chemicals,” said Mark Rossi, who helped develop a first-of-its-kind benchmark revealed May 19 as part of a Chemical Footprint Project he co-founded.
The project is backed by investors representing $2.3 trillion in assets under management and institutional purchasers with more than $70 billion in purchasing power.
Underpriced Risks
Investors and purchasers want to know which firms are most at risk for fines or reputational hits associated with hazardous chemicals and which ones are best positioned to profit from redesigning or reformulating their products with safer alternatives.
Take Lumber Liquidators, for example. The flooring retailer's stockplummeted, and its chief executive officer resigned after allegations that the chain sold laminate flooring with cancer-causing levels of formaldehyde.
Or Sony, which incurred more than $150 million in costs several years ago for failing to remove cadmium from its Playstation consoles.
Investors could consider these to be “underpriced risks,” said Susan Baker, a vice president at Trillium Asset Management, one of the project's backers.
“We don't always know what the cost is,” she told Bloomberg BNA. “We can't always factor that into our valuation models.”
Scoring Companies
But much like other sustainability issues, how well a company handles potential liabilities posed by chemicals can be a marker of the quality of its management team and its ability to create long-term shareholder value, Baker said. “Investors are at a point where getting more information on chemical footprinting is critical,” she said.
So in the project's inaugural survey, two dozen corporate volunteers were asked to calculate their overall chemical footprint based on how many chemicals of high concern to human health and the environment are in the products they sell. Most of the companies surveyed, which included Clorox, Johnson & Johnson and Levi Strauss & Co., found it difficult to quantify.
Companies also were scored on qualitative measures, such as what chemical policies they have in place, how they inventory chemicals and whether they share information on chemicals publicly. One of the survey's main findings was that disclosure lags behind practice.
Identifying Leaders
“Companies are doing a lot more than they're talking about publicly,” Rossi said.
Individual scores remained anonymous the first time around, but the project's goal is to eventually show progress over time and identify leaders. The leading companies could then be rewarded financially with a boost in sales and market share, more customer loyalty and employee satisfaction, or lower compliance costs.
“We believe that innovation in this realm, both on our own and together with our garment manufacturers and chemical suppliers, presents significant business opportunities, as well as huge potential for advancing environmental sustainability in the apparel industry.” Bart Sights, Levi's vice president of technical innovation, said in a statement.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90025062&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90025062&jd=90025062
-
Why Levi’s, J&J, Other Major Firms are Using Chemical Footprinting to Manage Risk
May 20, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
Chemical management and using saferchemicals is top of mind for corporations as consumers and investors increasingly demand transparency about what’s in products and stricter regulations require more in-depth chemical assessment, reporting and safety strategies.
Case in point: the US Senate and House are expected to announcement an agreement on chemical safety legislation, which updates the 30-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act, any day now.
As US lawmakers move closer to new federal chemical regulations, dozens of major companies including Levi Strauss & Co., Seagate Technology and Johnson & Johnson have participated in a first-of-its-kind effort to publicly benchmark corporate chemical management.
The Chemical Footprint Project yesterday published itsinaugural report that provides insights into how leading companies manage chemicals in their products and supply chains, as well as recommendations about how all companies can better manage these issues.
“Investors, institutional purchasers, and brands increasingly want to know all the chemicals in their products, whether those chemicals are hazardous to human health or the environment, and whether safer alternatives are available to chemicals of high concern,” lead author of the report and executive director of Clean Production Action Mark S. Rossi told Environmental Leader.
Environmental nonprofit Clean Production Action, research institute The Lowell Center for Sustainable Production at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, and the sustainability consultancy Pure Strategies founded the Chemical Footprint Project in 2014.
“A comprehensive chemicals management strategy positions companies to reduce their chemical risks and to maximize their opportunities for growth,” Rossi said. “The CFP informs companies on how to reduce their regulatory, reputation, and redesign risks, thereby capturing new markets and increased market share, increasing customer loyalty and reducing regulatory costs.”
Last year, 24 businesses both small (millions in annual revenue) and large (tens of billions in annual revenue) agreed to participate in the Chemical Footprint Project and to receive a score on their corporate chemicals management practices. Twenty-two agreed to be named publicly. In addition to the three named above, other participants included: GOJO Industries, Dignity Health, Beautycounter and California Baby, among others.
The report analyzes participants’ responses to a 20-question survey regarding chemicals management across four categories: management strategy, chemical inventory, footprint measurement, and disclosure and verification. The report doesn’t, however, identify the companies with their respective points scored. It instead lists the companies as A through X (see chart).
Key findings include:The 29 percent of firms with board-level oversight or senior management incentives performed better overall than firms with no such accountability.Companies need comprehensive policies. Without policies that address chemical hazards in manufacturing, supply chains and packaging — in addition to products — companies face liabilities and chemical risks.Disclosure lags practice. Across every category (management, inventory, footprint, and disclosure) companies have more chemicals management practices in place than they share publicly. For example, 83 percent have a legally restricted substances list, but only 17 percent of those companies make that list public.Companies whose entire product portfolios are based on minimizing or eliminating chemicals of high concern performed well above average.Chemical footprint measurement is new and challenging. Before they can reduce their chemical footprints, companies need to know the chemical ingredients in their products and identify chemicals of high concern.
Rossi says companies that measure their chemical footprint ultimately reap business benefits like increased sales and market share, higher rates of customer loyalty and employee satisfaction, and lower compliance costs.
The report highlights Levi’s as a chemical management and sustainable chemistry leader. The company set a goal of zero discharge of hazardous chemicals by 2020, and began developing its Screened Chemistry Program in 2013.
The program’s goal is to screen chemicals against human health and environmental toxicity hazards and identify safer alternatives. It uses methodologies including the EPA’s Safer Choice Program and GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals.
As it moves from a pilot to full implementation, Levi’s says it will require all of its suppliers to use its preferred chemicals list. To help other companies adopt similar chemical management initiatives, Levi’s has shared its Screened Chemistry Program with other apparel brands.
“We believe that innovation in this realm, both on our own and together with our garment manufacturers and chemical suppliers, presents significant business opportunities, as well as huge potential for advancing environmental sustainability in the apparel industry,” said Bart Sights, Levi’s vice president, technical innovation.
The report also suggests opportunities for companies to improve their chemical management. These include: establishing comprehensive chemicals, policies, engaging senior management; knowing the chemicals in your products, anticipating future regulations and increasing transparency.
Considering the massive numbers of so-called chemicals of high concern — these are chemicals government agencies and NGOs say pose a threat to human health or the environment — managing and mitigating chemical risks and potential liability from chemicals throughout the production process makes financial sense. The European Union’s REACH Candidate List of Substances of Very High Concern includes more than 160 chemicals. The state of California’s Candidate Chemicals List, developed as part of its Safer Consumer Products regulations, includes over 2,000. These lists indicate chemicals that are likely to be regulated in the future.
But the first step is chemical footprinting. As Rossi says, “You can’t manage what you don’t measure.”
https://www.environmentalleader.com/2016/05/20/why-levis-jj-other-major-firms-are-using-chemical-footprinting-to-manage-risk/
-
Energy Bills Tread a Rocky Path
May 20, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia
Fierce policy disagreements, the looming November elections and a shrinking congressional calendar are sparking serious doubts about whether House and Senate lawmakers can reach a compromise on their divergent energy bills.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), the chairs of the House and Senate energy committees, are publicly optimistic that a pending conference on the legislation will produce a final product that President Barack Obama will sign into law.
"If you don’t have confidence, it doesn’t happen. You must believe," Murkowski told POLITICO this week. Upton "seemed pretty positive" about the conference prospects during a closed-door meeting of House Republicans on Wednesday, according to a person who attended.
But environmental, industry and conservative groups, which have all raised objections to key portions of the bills, are privately skeptical that the conference will succeed.
“The major problem is that in a conference setting it is very easy for any one issue to knock the whole thing off kilter. That takes time to re-set and right now the one thing this conference doesn't have is time," one oil industry official said. "Still, hope springs eternal for those who care."
An environmentalist closely tracking the energy bills added, "It’s proving to be quite difficult to see where the path forward is," noting that members of Congress are increasingly turning their focus to the election, not policy making.
Reaching a compromise that President Barack Obama will sign into law is certain to be a massive undertaking, particularly since the House and Senate energy bills offer vastly different policy prescriptions.
The Senate bill would improve the efficiency of buildings and appliances, promote advanced vehicle technology and take new steps to protect the electric grid from cyberattacks. The House bill includes a range of measures to speed up the permitting of fossil fuel projects.
While the Senate bill won approval last month on a rare bipartisan 85-12 vote, it has weathered strong criticism from environmentalists, and the White House has raised concerns about several provisions, though it stopped short of issuing a veto threat. But the White House did threaten to veto the House energy bill shortly before it passed the chamber on a largely party-line vote last year.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (Wash.), the top Democrat on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, drew criticism from environmentalists for agreeing to compromises that greens strongly opposed, including a provision that would expedite federal permit reviews for liquefied natural gas export projects. After that blowback, some observers said they don't expect Cantwell or other Senate Democrats to accept measures in conference negotiations that are viewed as anti-environment.
"They’re not going to be able to pass a bill without the consent of Senate Democrats and I don’t think they’d go much further," another official at an environmental group said.
Meanwhile, conservative groups are warning House Republicans not to compromise and make the bill too moderate in order to simply get something signed into law. Heritage Action, for example, is talking to GOP lawmakers about its priorities for the conference, and has said the "few encouraging, small-scale provisions" in the Senate bill like the LNG measure don't outweigh those creating "wasteful" energy efficiency programs or spending on worker training.
Heritage Action spokesman Dan Holler pointed to House Speaker Paul Ryan's recent call to "unite conservatives around a bold" policy agenda. "Nobody should be under any illusion that a conference product is going to rise to that level," Holler said.
But for Murkowski and Upton, successfully shepherding the energy bills through Congress would be a potential legacy-making policy achievement. And they remain committed to trying to reach a compromise.
Still, Murkowski has acknowledged that the congressional calendar isn't on her side. "One of the concerns that we have, or the obstacles that we have in front of us, is time," she told reporters shortly after the Senate energy bill passed. "In order to have a conference, the House and the Senate have to be in town at the same time. Looking at the calendar going forward, we have some work to do."
Murkowski, Upton and Bishop met recently to discuss a path forward on the conference, but they have yet to name conferees. Both Murkowski and Cantwell said this week they are waiting on a formal response to the Senate energy bill from the House before they can proceed. Cantwell told POLITICO she thinks the House is playing "long ball" with the conference and she said the effort to reconcile the two bills could stretch into the fall.
Rep. John Shimkus (Ill.), a top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, told POLITICO this week that he expects the conferees to be named next week. He said he's confident that the conference can succeed, arguing that there aren't as many hugely controversial issues compared to past efforts to combine major legislation.
Still, big sticking points remain. One of the biggest is a provision in the Senate bill permanently reauthorizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund. An aide to Bishop, a strident critic of the LWCF, said last month that provision "isn't going to fly in the House."
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) acknowledged the vast differences between the two bills, particularly when it comes to cost, a major factor for House Republicans.
"I don't know exactly how we're gonna do it because you know they have a lot of riders ... over there that we certainly didn't have. And that's going to be a dicey issue to deal with, but I think everything has to be on the table and both sides, hopefully, can make a good-faith effort to come out with something productive," he said, adding that he expects the conference to begin after the Memorial Day recess.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/05/energy-bills-tread-a-rocky-path-114637
-
EPA Waste Agenda Targets Chemical Security, Vapor Intrusion
May 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
The Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Land and Emergency Management pledged to finalize rules on chemical security risk management and vapor intrusion in the remaining eight months of the Obama administration, according to the Office of Management and Budget's Unified Agenda, released May 19.
The department, previously known as the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response until January 2016, is set to move forward with a more ambitious agenda in the coming months compared to its platform offered in fall 2015, pledging to act on a dozen regulatory items compared to 10 in the fall. The office is the lead on waste handling.
On top of final rules on Risk Management Program revision and the addition of vapor intrusion to the list of criteria considered in the agency's Superfund Hazard Ranking System, the office is targeting prerule action on new Superfund financial assurance regulations for the chemical, petroleum and electric power industries, among other new rulemakings.
Following through on commitments OLEM chief Mathy Stanislaus made in recent months, the agency vowed to finalize rulemaking on its chemical security risk management revision. That proposal, which the EPA says would strengthen safety regulations for facilities that house chemicals, has hit staunch opposition.
The EPA closed comments on that proposal (RIN:2050-AG82) roughly one week ago, despite calls from a wide spectrum of critics for a comment period extension (94 DEN A-13, 5/16/16).
Support Seen for Vapor Intrusion Rule
Meanwhile, most public comment involved measured support for the final rule (RIN:2050-AG67) to add vapor intrusion to Superfund hazard ranking criteria ( 86 DEN A-7, 5/4/16).
That rule is formally titled the Addition of the Subsurface Component to the Hazard Ranking System.
The final rule for chemical security is set for December, while the vapor intrusion final rule is set for January 2017.
The unified agenda also targets final rules on pharmaceutical hazardous waste management (RIN:2050-AG39) and hazardous waste generation (RIN:2050-AG70), both of which were targeted for finalization in the fall.
The office is set to propose its rulemaking on financial assurances for the hardrock mining industry (RIN:2050-AG61).
That rulemaking has hit some opposition even before the EPA floats a proposal (97 DEN A-10, 5/19/16).
Under this agenda, however, the agency is pushing forward with prerule action (RIN:2050-AG56) for the first time on Superfund financial assurance regulations for the chemical petroleum and electric power industries.
The agency previously pledged to stagger a set of Superfund financial assurance rules for different industry sectors.
New regulatory strategy (RIN:2050-AG86) for bioreactor and wet landfills under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act also may surface as part of a prerule notice in the coming months, the agenda said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90025069&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90025069&jd=90025069
-
State Officials Investigated Over Their Inquiry Into Exxon Mobil’s Climate Change Research
May 19, 2016 | The New York Times
By John Schwartz
Since last November, a growing number of state attorneys general have been pointing their fingers at Exxon Mobil, investigating whether the energy company’s research about climate change conflicted directly with its public statements on the issue.
But now the accusers are being accused, with a battle being waged over principles of free speech, government overreach and collaboration with activist organizations.
Representative Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas, sent a letter on Wednesday to the New York attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, demanding all communications since 2012 between his office and climate change activist organizations.
The attorneys general, Mr. Smith said, are doing the bidding of environmental activists who set out to make pariahs of Exxon Mobil and its industry in pursuit of policies to limit climate change.
Those activists and the attorneys general, Mr. Smith said in the letter, have secretly collaborated in the years since a two-day workshop in 2012 “to act under the color of law to persuade attorneys general to use their prosecutorial powers to stifle scientific discourse, intimidate private entities and individuals, and deprive them of their First Amendment rights and freedoms.”
The 2012 workshop among climate activists was held in the San Diego community of La Jolla, and its report can be found online. Those attending included representatives the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Climate Accountability Institute and the Massachusetts-based Global Warming Legal Action Project.
Over time, discussions of legal action involved the Rockefeller familyphilanthropies, the environmental campaigner Bill McKibben’s 350.org, the Al Gore-founded Climate Reality Project, Greenpeace, and eventually, representatives of Mr. Schneiderman’s office.
The state officials have countered that there was nothing nefarious or even unusual about prosecutors consulting with outside experts, including scientists and their counterparts in other states, when gathering facts for an investigation.
Eric Soufer, a spokesman for Mr. Schneiderman, said, “It is remarkable that a do-nothing Congress that has refused to take any action on climate change is now attempting to disrupt this important investigation into potential corporate malfeasance.” The office did not take part in the 2012 meeting, he said. He added, “speaking with outside experts is a routine part of the investigative process, and we make decisions based on the merits, period.”
He also noted that Mr. Smith, the chairman of the House Science Committee, is in the midst of a contentious investigation of federal climate scientists and has demanded private correspondence as part of the inquiry.
“The irony of this letter is breathtaking,” Mr. Soufer said. “Its signatories appear to be part of a multipronged media campaign funded by the fossil fuel industry aimed at suppressing the free exchange of ideas among scientists, academics and responsible law enforcement.”
He added, “Anyone who thinks that Attorney General Schneiderman will be intimidated by this effort has no idea who they’re dealing with.”
Mr. Schneiderman, a Democrat, announced his investigation of Exxon in November, and by March had been joined by at least four other attorneys general. The Democratic presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, have each called for a federal investigation of Exxon’s actions.
Many legal experts have expressed skepticism about the legal reasoning of the states’ investigations. The company’s statements undercutting climate science, they argue, may actually fall within its rights under the First Amendment.
But Mr. Schneiderman has said, “The First Amendment, ladies and gentlemen, doesn’t give you the right to commit fraud.”
Alan Jeffers, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil, said he had no comment on the letter from Mr. Smith. When several attorneys general announced at a news conference in March that they were joining Mr. Schneiderman’s investigation, the company called the accusations “politically motivated, and based on discredited reporting by activist organizations.”
The company also said that it “recognizes the risks posed by climate change,” and the accusations are based on the “preposterous” claim that the company “reached definitive conclusions about anthropogenic climate change before the world’s experts” and withheld it.
The company shared its findings in peer-reviewed publications, it said.
In the weeks after the March news conference, Exxon Mobil sued Claude E. Walker, the attorney general of the Virgin Islands, as well as a private law firm working with him on his investigation of the energy company.
Mr. Walker has gone beyond New York’s efforts by including subpoenas to private organizations like the free-market oriented Competitive Enterprise Institute, looking for evidence that the company funded such groups to spread its message to oppose regulation and sow doubt about climate science.
Noting that the company has no “physical presence” in the Virgin Islands, Exxon Mobil called Mr. Walker’s actions a “flagrant misuse of law enforcement power.”
The new letter from Mr. Smith, which he also sent to 16 other attorneys general, comes as Exxon Mobil’s allies have intensified their own attack on the attorneys general.
This week, Republican attorneys general of Texas and Alabama filed motions to block Mr. Walker’s inquiry. The Competitive Enterprise Institute also took out a full-page advertisement in The New York Times this week denouncing what it referred to as Mr. Walker’s “abuse of power.”
Mr. Walker did not respond to a request for comment, but his lawyers have sent a letter to a lawyer for the Competitive Enterprise Institute noting that the investigation “is not targeting C.E.I.,” but is simply seeking production of documents related to the investigation of Exxon.
The groups cited by Mr. Smith also received copies of the letter, demanding that they turn over documents related to their efforts.
The Rockefellers, whose patriarch John Rockefeller built the family fortune with the company that is now as Exxon Mobil, have been increasingly critical of the company and its industry.
In 2014, they announced they would remove fossil fuel stocks from the portfolio of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and this month said they would remove fossil fuel stocks from their Rockefeller Family Fund as well. They called the conduct by Exxon Mobil that is under investigation by the attorneys general “morally reprehensible.”
Another group that received the Smith letter is Greenpeace USA. Annie Leonard, its executive director, said “America’s least respected politicians have now courageously stepped up to defend one of America’s most hated corporations from scrutiny.”
The 13 signers of the Smith letter, she noted, “have been paid millions in campaign contributions from coal, oil and gas companies, so this letter is more proof that the system works — for corporations.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/science/exxon-mobil-climate-change-global-warming.html
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested