Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 10/18/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) J. Harold Chandler Elected President And CEO Of Milliken
Oct 17, 2016 | The State
By Bob Montgomery
J. Harold Chandler was elected chairman, president and CEO, effective immediately, following the resignation of Joseph M. Salley as president and CEO and as a member of the board of directors, the company announced. -
(ACC Mentioned) Putting A Human Cost On Endocrine Disruptors
Oct 17, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Stephen K. Ritter
Long-term, low-level exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals costs the U.S. $340 billion in annual health care spending and lost wages, according to a study of epidemiological data (Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016, DOI: 10.1016/S2213-8587(16)30275-3). -
(ACC Mentioned) Health Problems from Common Chemicals Cost $340 Billion Per Year: Study
Oct 17, 2016 | Time
By Justin Worland
Conditions linked to everyday chemicals—used in cosmetics, plastics and common household items like sofas—lead to $340 billion in treatment and lost productivity costs annually in the U.S., according to a new study. -
(ACC Mentioned ) Toxic Economy: Common Chemicals Cost US Billions Every Year
Oct 18, 2016 | Environmental Health News
By Brian Bienkowski
Researchers estimate the United States economy takes a $340 billion hit annually as endocrine-disrupting compounds lower IQs, increase behavior problems and exacerbate health woes like obesity and diabetes. -
Common Household Chemicals Hurt Our Health ... And Cost Us Billions
Oct 17, 2016 | CNN
By Susan Scutti
Routine contact with plastic bottles, toys, food cans, cosmetics and flame retardants containing "endocrine-disrupting chemicals" results in ingestion, leading to a toxic buildup and potentially a variety of medical conditions. -
Massive US Health Tab For Hormone-Disrupting Chemicals
Oct 17, 2016 | AFP (In The Daily Mail)
Exposure to tiny doses of hormone-disrupting chemicals is responsible for at least $340 billion (310 billion euros) in health-related costs each year in the United States, according to a report published Tuesday. -
BPA-Free, With Regrets
Oct 17, 2016 | Science 2.0
By Steve Hentges
Not that many years ago, many reusable food and beverage containers on the market worldwide were made from polycarbonate plastic. Polycarbonate, which is made from bisphenol A (BPA), is an almost ideal material for these products since its clarity is comparable to glass, making it easy to see what’s inside, and it’s virtually shatter-proof – an important attribute for consumer products that could be dropped. -
EPA to Propose Perchlorate Rule by October 2018
Oct 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Perchlorate in drinking water will be subject to federal regulation no later than Dec. 17, 2019, under an agreement reached Oct. 17 between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Natural Resources Defense Council. -
Antibacterial Soaps: When Squeaky Clean Is Not Enough
Oct 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Doc Schneider, Geoffrey Drake and Adam Reinke
On Sept. 6, 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a final rule concluding that 19 ingredients commonly used in consumer hand soaps labeled as “antibacterial” are not generally recognized as safe and effective. -
New Admin Should Form Office To Coordinate Strategy — Report
Oct 17, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey and Arianna Skibell,
Former top administration officials from both Republican and Democratic presidents today called for the next White House to create a new federal body to coordinate the nation's disparate energy policy. -
DOE Invests $80M To Showcase 'Supercritical' CO2 Turbines
Oct 17, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Christa Marshall
General Electric Co. is joining two research groups to build and test a new type of power plant that aims to slash emissions and lower costs by using "supercritical" carbon dioxide instead of steam. -
Repercussions of Dakota Access Pipeline Delay
Oct 17, 2016 | Real Clear Energy
By Jack Rafuse
The repercussions of the Obama administration’s decision to continue delaying the more than half-completed Dakota Access pipeline would extend well beyond billions in private investment dollars, tens of thousands of lost jobs, and hundreds of millions in denied annual tax revenues. -
Boulder County Proposes to Drop Fracking Moratorium
Oct 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Boulder County is proposing to approve tight new restrictions on drilling in November and let an existing moratorium on fracking expire. -
California Air District Plans Stricter Refinery Flaring Rule
Oct 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Oil refineries in Southern California could face even stricter requirements for repeat and excessive flaring even though the region's requirements are already among the toughest in the country. -
EPA Could Grant Advocates' Call To Issue Facility Safety Rule Before 2017
Oct 17, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA has sent for White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) pre-publication review its final revised facility safety rule and is signaling that it could grant advocates' call to release the rule before 2017, although the next administration could potentially block the rule or the agency's critics in Congress might seek to scrap it -
OSHA Slaps La. Silica Factory With Fine
Oct 17, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Gabriel Dunsmith
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration last week cited a chemical facility in Westlake, La., for 11 violations. -
Deal Cutting Refrigerant Climate Gases Can Be Strengthened
Oct 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Negotiators from nearly 200 nations who reached a deal over the weekend to cut 80 percent of super-polluting hydrofluorocarbons by midcentury also agreed to periodically revisit whether to reduce climate emissions even more as new control technologies come online.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) J. Harold Chandler Elected President And CEO Of Milliken
Oct 17, 2016 | The State
By Bob Montgomery
SPARTANBURG, SC Spartanburg-based Milliken & Co. announced a change in leadership Monday.
J. Harold Chandler was elected chairman, president and CEO, effective immediately, following the resignation of Joseph M. Salley as president and CEO and as a member of the board of directors, the company announced.
Chandler has served on Milliken’s board of directors for 14 years and as chairman the past five years. He retired in May as chairman of the Wofford College board of trustees.
“We sincerely thank Joe Salley for his service to Milliken, which covers a span of 20 years, the past eight as president and CEO” Chandler said in a statement. “I am honored to take on the additional roles of president and CEO.”
Milliken, named for the late textile magnate Roger Milliken, is a global technology-based company headquartered in Spartanburg on a 600-acre campus. It has 35 manufacturing facilities and more than 7,000 employees worldwide.
The company, which dates back to 1865, provides specialty chemical, floor covering and performance materials “to add value to people’s lives, improve health and safety and help make our world more sustainable,” according to the company’s website.
The circumstances surrounding Salley’s departure were not immediately clear. Milliken spokeswoman Courtney Edwards called it “an internal matter.”
“Our focus is on the transition and making sure we can continue business as usual,” Edwards said.
Richard Dillard, Milliken’s former corporate director of public affairs, said he worked with both Salley and Chandler during his years at Milliken. Dillard retired in 2015.
“I was very pleased to hear Mr. Chandler will be leading the company going forward,” Dillard said. “I developed a huge amount of respect for him. He seems to be a man of great integrity, sharp intellect and a well-honed understanding of business. Mr. Chandler is the type of person you need to step in at this time of transition.”
Dillard declined to comment on why Salley may have stepped down.
“When someone suddenly leaves the company and you don’t have a knowledge of the circumstances of the departure, I think it’s best not to discuss the individual or the circumstances,” Dillard said.
Spoartanburg County Councilman David Britt, chairman of the council’s Economic Development Committee, said he had briefly known Salley and Chandler, and he said he believes that Chandler will be good for Milliken and Spartanburg County.
“I cannot say enough positive things about Harold Chandler,” Britt said. “As chairman, he helped to transform Wofford into one of the top-flight colleges in the United States, if not the world.”
He added: “Having been chairman at Milliken, he will help do the same for Milliken.”
Salley, who worked with Milliken for 20 years, formerly served as chief operating officer and was elected CEO in 2008 when Ashley Allen retired. Allen succeeded Roger Milliken, who retired in 2005. Milliken served as president of the company from 1947 to 1983, then became chairman and chief executive officer.
Salley formerly served as chairman of the S.C. Chamber of Commerce board and has served on the boards of the Citadel Foundation, the Society of Chemical Industrial Executive Committee and the American Chemistry Council.
He could not be reached for comment Monday.
Chandler is a 1971 graduate of Wofford College, where he served on its board of trustees for 24 years, the last five as its chairman. He received his masters of business administration degree from the University of South Carolina and later completed post-graduate studies at Harvard Business School.
He has served on the boards of directors of eight public and family-owned companies over the past 30 years.
Chandler said in a statement his first step “will be to ensure an effective transition and to maintain the positive momentum from which the company is currently benefiting.”
“Together, we will continue to innovate, contribute to Spartanburg and our other communities, and be a leader in our industry,” he stated.
Milliken is a major employer in Spartanburg County and an important corporate citizen, Britt said.
“Milliken, like Michelin and BMW, we need them to be an active partner with us as we work to make Spartanburg the county we know it can be,” Britt said.
Dillard said he was with Milliken & Co. for 39 years, and he believes that the late Roger Milliken would be fine with the leadership change.
“Mr. Milliken built Milliken into a world leader in innovation, and the solid foundation he put into place will easily endure changes in leadership,” Dillard said.
http://www.thestate.com/news/business/article108834407.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Putting A Human Cost On Endocrine Disruptors
Oct 17, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Stephen K. Ritter
Study quantifies health care spending and lost wages stemming from low-level exposures to certain synthetic chemicals
Long-term, low-level exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals costs the U.S. $340 billion in annual health care spending and lost wages, according to a study of epidemiological data (Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016, DOI: 10.1016/S2213-8587(16)30275-3).
These compounds, commonly found in consumer products and their packaging and associated with pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical use, can interfere with hormone function and contribute to the development of a variety of diseases and health problems.
The estimated costs equal roughly 2.3% of the U.S. gross domestic product. By comparison, earlier this year the team estimated that the same cost for the European Union is $217 billion, or about 1.3% of its gross domestic product (Andrology 2016, DOI: 10.1111/andr.12178).
The study’s authors, who are experts in endocrine disruptor research, attribute the difference in GDP share to differences in health and safety policies as well as in chemical industry regulations. They argue that their findings indicate that the U.S. should adopt more stringent requirements for chemical testing, even going beyond those in the recently revised Toxic Substances Control Act.
In the new study, the team led by health epidemiologistLeonardo Trasande of New York University School of Medicine reviewed blood sample and urine analyses to document the presence of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in participants in the U.S. National Health & Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which annually gathers information about disease prevalence and risk factors for major diseases. The researchers then used computer models to project disease totals based on those chemical exposures and to calculate the estimated health costs and lost income for each disease.
Trasande and coworkers focused on chemicals including polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), organophosphates, phthalates, and bisphenol A, which are components of or used in making plastic bottles, metal cans, detergents, flame retardants, toys, cosmetics, and pesticides. The researchers say their analysis helps confirm that routine endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure increases rates of neurological and behavioral disorders, such as autism and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, leading to diminished IQs. They say the chemical exposure also increases rates of male infertility, birth defects, obesity, diabetes, and some cancers.
For example, the analysis shows that yearly exposure to PBDE flame retardants and organophosphate pesticides accounts for nearly two-thirds of the U.S. total disease burden associated with endocrine disruptors, mostly from neurological damage caused in the unborn. Specifically, Trasande says, annual PBDE exposure accounts for 43,000 cases of “intellectual disability” and 11 million lost IQ points in children, with an associated disease burden of some $266 billion. Meanwhile, pesticide exposure is estimated to cause 7,500 disability cases each year and 1.8 million lost IQ points, with a total health cost of $44.7 billion.
“Based on our analyses, stronger regulatory oversight of endocrine-disrupting chemicals is needed,” Trasande says. “This oversight should include not only safety tests on the chemicals’ use in the manufacture of commercial products before the chemicals receive government approval, but also studies of their health impact over time once they are used in consumer products.”
In a statement provided to C&EN, the American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry’s main trade association, strongly rejected the results and conclusions of the analysis. The study “is the latest in a series of papers in which Dr. Trasande and his colleagues demonstrate a casual indifference toward scientific principles, yet a dogged pursuit of headlines,” according to ACC. “The paper’s conclusions are speculative at best and based on incomplete, inaccurate information about the relationship between chemicals and human health.”
The ACC statement further states that some of the chemicals in the study do not meet the World Health Organization’s definition of endocrine disruptors, that the authors have cherry-picked studies that show incomplete and inconsistent correlations between the chemicals and disease, and the methods the authors use to generate the economic data have been criticized by economists and the European Commission.
“The only thing more troubling than the paper’s many flaws is that it does virtually nothing to advance the protection of public health,” the ACC statement continues. “ACC strongly supports the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, and we will continue to contribute meaningful, scientifically validated data to help policymakers make sound decisions about the safety of chemicals in commerce.”
“Endocrine disruption radically alters the traditional view of the balance of benefits and negatives associated with the chemical enterprise,” says Terrence J. Collins, a chemistry professor and director of the Institute for Green Science at Carnegie Mellon University, in response to the new study. “It is vital that endocrine disruption enter the education of chemists as a top priority and that we deal with the challenges in a timely way. Much progress has been made in laying the foundation for strategically coping with endocrine disruption, and this report provides new information to help understand why that is important.”
https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i42/Putting-human-cost-endocrine-disruptors.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Health Problems from Common Chemicals Cost $340 Billion Per Year: Study
Oct 17, 2016 | Time
By Justin Worland
Some scientists are calling for stronger regulationConditions linked to everyday chemicals—used in cosmetics, plastics and common household items like sofas—lead to $340 billion in treatment and lost productivity costs annually in the U.S., according to a new study.
Researchers behind the paper, published in The Lancet, evaluated a set of chemicals that have been shown to disrupt normal functioning of the endocrine system using data on the levels of the chemicals in blood and urine of subjects of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study. Flame retardants like PBDEs, phthalates, which are widely used in cosmetics and scented products, plastic component DEHP and organophosphate pesticides are among the chemicals linked to health issues in the U.S., according to the research.
The study contributes to a growing debate about how best to assess and manage the safety of common chemicals. Improved regulation could reduce exposure to some of the most damaging chemicals, the report’s authors say. Previous research has shown that Europe—where regulations require manufacturers to prove household chemicals are safe before they hit shelves—loses a significantly smaller share of its GDP as a result of endocrine disrupting diseases than the U.S.
Diseases related to household chemicals cost $217 billion, or 1.28% of GDP, in Europe, compared to $340 billion, or 2.33% of GDP, in the U.S. These chemicals have been linked to obesity, intellectual disabilities, endometriosis, autism and heart disease.
“Exposures in the United States are similar in some ways, but they also differ,” says study author Leonardo Trasande, a New York University professor who studies environmental health. “That’s in large part to differences in regulation between Europe and the U.S.”
The U.S. relies on a law known as at the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to regulate household chemicals, a decades-old law that was updated earlier this year, and thousands of chemicals on the market remain untested. Improvements passed this year give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) more authority to test and ban hazardous chemicals, but Trasande and many others say the law does not go far enough. The EPA has announced five chemicals the agency plans to “fast track,” but tens of thousands more will remain untested for the foreseeable future, including many included in the study. Trasande says Congress should provide additional funding to allow the agency to move faster with review of a broader array of chemicals.
The American Chemistry Council, a lobbying group for chemical manufacturers, criticized the paper for using research that shows links between certain household chemicals and endocrine disruption rather than causation. The paper does “virtually nothing to advance the protection of public health,” the ACC said in a statement.
But while research showing the connection between many chemicals and endocrine disruption remains correlational, many scientists say the burden should still rest on manufacturers to prove a substance is safe before selling it to the public.
“What we need here is a reform that tests chemicals proactively before they’re used on the open market,” Trasande said last year.
http://time.com/4533595/household-chemicals-bpa-health/
-
(ACC Mentioned ) Toxic Economy: Common Chemicals Cost US Billions Every Year
Oct 18, 2016 | Environmental Health News
By Brian Bienkowski
Researchers estimate the United States economy takes a $340 billion hit annually as endocrine-disrupting compounds lower IQs, increase behavior problems and exacerbate health woes like obesity and diabetes.
Exposure to chemicals in pesticides, toys, makeup, food packaging and detergents costs the U.S. more than $340 billion annually due to health care costs and lost wages, according to a new analysis.
The chemicals, known as endocrine disruptors, impact how human hormones function and have been linked to a variety of health problems such as impaired brain development, lower IQs, behavior problems, infertility, birth defects, obesity and diabetes.
The estimated economic toll is more than 2 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP).
The findings, researchers say, "document the urgent public threat posed by endocrine disrupting chemicals.”
The study was published Monday in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology journal. Pete Myers—founder of Environmental Health Sciences, publisher of Environmental Health News and The Daily Climate—is a co-author on the study.
The researchers estimated costs by looking at exposures, then projecting 15 medical conditions linked to the chemicals and the associated health costs and lost wages.
The findings are built upon calculations made by the Endocrine Society, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Environment Program. A similar study conducted in Europe found about $217 billion in annual costs due to exposure to these compounds.
The much higher cost in the United States "is due to a major difference in policy and regulation," said Dr. Leonardo Trasande, an associate professor and researcher at the NYU School of Medicine and senior author of the study.
The U.S. public has greater exposure to flame retardant chemicals, due in part to stringent fire-safety rules. These compounds are added to furniture foam and electronics to slow the spread of flames.
In Europe, pesticides were the main cost driver. Both flame retardants and certain pesticides can impact brain development when unborn babies are exposed.
Trasande noted the U.S. Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 requires consideration of children’s safety before a pesticide is approved for use in farming. No such policy exists in Europe. Conversely, Europe has been much more proactive in tackling a particularly concerning groups of flame retardant chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs).
PBDEs were the worst offenders in the U.S., accounting for nearly two thirds of the estimated health problems. PBDEs were estimated to annually cause about 11 million lost IQ points and 43,000 additional cases of intellectual disability to the tune of $268 billion.
Pesticide exposure—the second most costly chemical group in the U.S.—causes an estimated 1.8 million lost IQ points and another 7,500 intellectual disability cases annually, with an estimated cost of $44.7 billion.
The researchers also looked at common chemicals such as bisphenol-A (BPA), used in polycarbonate plastics, food tin cans and receipts; and phthalates, found in food containers and cosmetics.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), which represents chemical manufacturers, slammed the new report, alleging Trasande and co authors “demonstrate a casual indifference toward scientific principles, yet a dogged pursuit of headlines.” The Council said the research was speculative and the conclusions drawn from “cherry-picked” data.
Trasande countered that estimates are on the conservative side. Researchers calculated the health-related costs from just a fraction—less than 5 percent—of known endocrine disrupting chemicals, he said.
“We also didn’t focus on chemicals already banned, such as persistent organic pollutants,” he said. Those compounds, which include DDT and PCBs, remain common in the environment and in human blood despite being off the market for years, even decades.
“Given that [persistent organic pollutants] are known to also contribute to diabetes, obesity and adverse neurological outcomes, that’s another source of underestimating,” Trasande said.
Trasande added that the researchers “significantly discounted” the disease numbers, wanting to reflect those people where chemicals played a role rather than total people with the disease.
Philippe Grandjean, a renowned environmental health researcher and professor at Harvard’s School of Public Health, said the study doesn’t confirm whether the health effects are due to endocrine disruption or if other toxics play a role. However, he said in an emailed comment, "we must seriously take into regard adverse health effects and not just ignore them while calling for more evidence.”
“Of course it would be great to know more, but my prediction is that the calculated costs to society will increase substantially once we get better documentation on ... additional substances and additional adverse effects,” said Grandjean, who was not involved in the study.
Trasande said the study highlights the need to address endocrine disruptor exposure in the United States, especially as the country updates the federal Toxic Substances Control Act.
The 2016 updates to the act, which regulates both existing and new chemicals, contained no mention of endocrine disruption, Trasande said. Chemicals should be screened for any potential impacts to human hormones before they hit the marketplace, he added.
“The cost of required testing is likely to be small when weighed against the $340 billion in costs we have identified as being related to exposure to [endocrine disrupting compounds],” the authors wrote.
While many of these toxics linger in the body for a long time, people can take steps to avoid exposure.
“We can ask questions about flame retardants and perfluorinated compounds when we buy rugs and furniture, and choose products without these substances,” Grandjean said. “We can choose to avoid tuna and other large predatory species of fish, and we can choose organic fruits and leafy vegetables.”
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2016/oct/toxic-economy-common-chemicals-cost-us-billions-every-year
-
Common Household Chemicals Hurt Our Health ... And Cost Us Billions
Oct 17, 2016 | CNN
By Susan Scutti
Routine contact with plastic bottles, toys, food cans, cosmetics and flame retardants containing "endocrine-disrupting chemicals" results in ingestion, leading to a toxic buildup and potentially a variety of medical conditions.
Routine exposure to these chemicals adds up to annual costs in excess of $340 billion -- a whopping price tag that comes in the form of poor health, increased medical bills and lost income, according to researchers at NYU Langone Medical Center.
The largest single cost comes from chemical effects on children's developing brains, said Dr. Leonardo Trasande, an associate professor at NYU Langone and lead investigator of the study.
Obviously, costs are not the main concern of families with growing children. According to Trasande, a few simple steps will limit exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the home.
"Families can eat organic; they can avoid the use of pesticides in their homes to get rid of unwanted creatures; they can avoid aluminum can food consumption; they can avoid microwaving plastic and machine-dishwashing plastic containers," Trasande said, noting that it is important to avoid plastic bottles with the numbers 3, 6 and 7 on the bottom.
Another easy fix for families is to "simply air out their homes every couple of days," Trasande said. This helps remove chemical dusts from electronics and other materials, especially flame retardants.
Chemicals and our hormones
By mimicking the body's natural sex steroid hormones, endocrine-disrupting chemicals interfere with the function of hormones. Increasing evidence over the past three decades shows how exposure to these chemicals has negative effects on human health, including neurobehavioral disorders, reproductive disorders, and obesity and diabetes, according to Trasande and his co-authors.
These chemicals include bisphenol A (BPA), which lines food cans made of tin; phthalates, which are used when manufacturing cosmetics and plastic food containers; polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) found in the flame retardants added to furniture and packaging; and pesticides such as chlorpyrifos and organophosphates.
For the new study, appearing in the journal Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, the NYU team reviewed the levels of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in blood and urine samples provided by volunteers participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Five thousand people have participated in this survey each year since 1999.
After collecting this data, Trasande and his colleagues used advanced computer models to estimate the total cases of disease that would result from exposure to the levels of endocrine-disrupting chemicals they observed. The researchers also calculated the consequences of disease caused by chemicals: lost income, in addition to health care bills.
The grand total? Annually, it costs the United States $340 billion. Yearly exposure to highly toxic fire-resisting PBDE chemicals and pesticides accounted for nearly two-thirds of this total endocrine-disrupting chemical disease burden, said Trasande.
Worst of all, most of this financial burden resulted from neurological damage in unborn children.
"Typically, when policy discussions are had about regulation, the arguments are one-sided," Trasande said, noting that everyday people hear about the costs to manufacturers, but they never hear about the benefits -- and cost savings -- involved in regulating the use of damaging chemicals.
This new analysis is intended "to facilitate a transparent dialogue about the real and substantial tradeoffs for human health that we make by failing to act to protect against the chemicals of greatest concern," said Trasande.
As such, it should come in handy for the days ahead.
Chemical policy decisions in the works
In June, President Obama signed into law a reboot of the Toxic Substances Control Act, "the major law that reviews chemicals for their safety and decides whether they should be allowed for use in the broad environment," including in personal care products, furniture and electronics, explained Trasande.
"That law presumed that chemicals are innocent until proven guilty," he said.
The June reboot, known as the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, means "the Environmental Protection Agency is on a fast timeline to deal with the requirements associated with that action," said Frankie Wood-Black, principal at Sophic Pursuits Inc., a boutique consulting firm specializing in environmental and safety regulatory compliance and an instructor at Northern Oklahoma College.
"All of us in the regulatory world" are interested in the EPA's timing, actions and priorities, said Wood-Black.
With the EPA articulating new policy, "there is an opportunity here to ensure effective implementation of the law," Trasande said.
Andrea Gore, a professor of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Texas at Austin, explained how last year, Trasande and his team estimated costs based on predictions of exposures to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the European Union.
"It is important that they did a similar study in the US, because it shows that costs of endocrine-disrupting chemicals to health are an international problem," Gore said, adding that the chemicals people are exposed to differ around the world, so "learning about exposures in one part of the world can inform decisions in other places that may be considering whether or not to allow or ban a chemical."
Gore was not involved in the new study, though she is a co-author in a couple of the studies cited by Trasande.
According to Michele La Merrill, an environmental toxicologist and assistant professor at University of California-Davis, the authors used a definition of endocrine disruption that reflects the views of the Endocrine Society, a 100-year-old global membership organization representing professionals from the field.
"These authorities have a broader definition of endocrine disrupting-chemicals than that used by the US EPA," said La Merrill, who did not participate in the research. "This exposes a weakness in the archaic US EPA definition and indicates a need for the US EPA to include endocrine-disrupting effects they currently do not consider, such as obesity."
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/17/health/endocrine-disrupting-chemicals-cost-billions/
-
Massive US Health Tab For Hormone-Disrupting Chemicals
Oct 17, 2016 | AFP (In The Daily Mail)
Exposure to tiny doses of hormone-disrupting chemicals is responsible for at least $340 billion (310 billion euros) in health-related costs each year in the United States, according to a report published Tuesday.
So-called endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are found in thousands of everyday products, ranging from plastic and metal food containers, to detergents, flame retardants, toys and cosmetics.
Neurological damage and behavioural problems, including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism and loss of IQ, accounted for at least four-fifths of these impacts, researchers said in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, a medical journal.
The invisible but dangerous chemicals also boosted obesity, diabetes, some cancers, male infertility and a painful condition known as endometriosis, the abnormal growth of tissue outside the uterus.
The economic impact of the chemicals leaves a huge, two percent dent in the US' gross domestic product (GDP) each year.
"Our research adds to the growing evidence on the tremendous economic as well as human health costs of endocrine-disrupting chemicals," said lead investigator Leonardo Trasande, an associate professor at NYU Langone in New York City.
"This has the potential to develop into a much larger health and economic issue if no policy action is taken," he told AFP.
The body's endocrine tissues produce essential hormones that help regulate energy levels, reproduction, growth, development, as well as our response to stress and injury.
Mimicking naturally occurring hormones such as oestrogen and androgen, EDCs lock on to receptors within a human cell and block the body's own hormones from binding with it.
- 'Adverse consequences' -
Recent research has raised red flags showing that "environmental contaminants can disrupt the endocrine system leading to adverse-health consequences," according to the US Environmental Protection Agency.
In the US, the biggest chemical culprit by far among the thousands of manmade molecules suspected of interfering with human hormones are so-called PBDEs, found in flame retardants.
Bisphenol A, used to line tin food cans, along with phthalates in plastic food containers and many cosmetics, were also held to be responsible for upward of $50 billion worth of health damages.
A similar study concluded last year that health-related costs of EDCs in the European Union were some $271 billion, about 1.28 percent of GPD.
Crucially, the main drivers of disease and disability were different on either side of the Atlantic, Trasande said.
"US costs are higher mainly because of the widespread use in furniture of brominated flame retardants," which were banned in the EU in 2008, he explained.
The blood level of these chemicals in the average American would be in the top five percent of Europeans today.
By contrast, the health costs associated with pesticides in food were 10 times higher in the EU than in the United States, where more stringent regulations were put in place to protect pregnant women and children.
To put a figure on the impact of EDCs, the researchers reviewed blood and urine samples from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which has gathered data since 2009 on major disease risk factors from 5,000 volunteers.
Computer models were then used to project how much each of 15 diseases or conditions was attributable to chemical exposure, and the estimated health costs for each one.
- 'Cat-and-mouse game' -
Flame retardants and pesticides in particular are known to affect the developing brain and can lead to loss of IQ.
"Each IQ point lost corresponds to approximately two percent in lost productivity," Trasande explained.
The costs and benefits of regulation should be openly debated, the authors argued, citing the decision in the 1970s to ban lead in paint, and then 20 years later in gasoline.
Commenting in the same journal, Michele La Merrill, an expert in environmental toxicology at the University of California in Davis, said the new findings "provide a lesson on the lasting economic effects of harmful chemicals."
They should "inspire a policy shift to end the cat-and-mouse game currently employed the US government and industry."
The EU set broad criteria in June for identifying potentially harmful EDCs, but consumer and environmental groups said they fell far short of what is needed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-3845782/Massive-US-health-tab-hormone-disrupting-chemicals.html
-
Oct 17, 2016 | Science 2.0
By Steve Hentges
Not that many years ago, many reusable food and beverage containers on the market worldwide were made from polycarbonate plastic. Polycarbonate, which is made from bisphenol A (BPA), is an almost ideal material for these products since its clarity is comparable to glass, making it easy to see what’s inside, and it’s virtually shatter-proof – an important attribute for consumer products that could be dropped.
For years though, BPA has attracted considerable attention from scientists, environmental activists and the media. Now, as a result of that attention, few of these products are made from polycarbonate and a variety of alternative materials are used instead.
What happened, and was it a good idea to abandon a high performing material with a safety track record spanning several decades? With the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, perhaps it’s not surprising that the safety of the alternative materials is now being called into question.
Could it be that what seemed like a good idea at the time might have turned into a regrettable substitution? And what can we learn from this experience that will help to avoid the same issue for other materials and products in the future?
A Little History
Polycarbonate plastic was invented in the 1950s and its use has continued to grow ever since. Anywhere that a clear, durable and lightweight material is needed, polycarbonate is a good candidate and you’ll find it today in countless products that we use every day. From bicycle helmets to components of life saving medical devices, and eyeglass lenses to safety shields, polycarbonate makes our lives better and safer.
The critical ingredient that is necessary to make polycarbonate is bisphenol A (BPA), which has been the subject of extensive research – and more recently controversy – about its safety for more than 15 years. Only trace levels of residual BPA, typically less than 50 parts per million, remain in polycarbonate plastic, and even smaller trace levels, typically in the range of 1 part per billion, can migrate into a food or beverage in contact with polycarbonate under typical conditions of use.
In spite of repeated and consistent scientific safety assessments by governments, starting in 2008 some legislatures in U.S. states and later elsewhere began to ban polycarbonate baby bottles. None actually demonstrated that polycarbonate is unsafe, and some explicitly stated that their ban was based on the precautionary principle. As a result, product manufacturers began moving away from using polycarbonate in baby bottles, sippy cups and other products.
A Little Precaution Goes a Wrong Way
The general idea behind the precautionary principle is that precautionary measures should be taken in response to perceived threats to human health or the environment even if full scientific certainty about the threat is not available. The principle is sometimes described in a common sense way as “better safe than sorry.”
From a scientific perspective, applying the precautionary principle as a solution to concerns about the safety of BPA seemed inappropriate. Never mind that the actual threat to human health was not supported by government experts; a precautionary approach doesn’t provide a mechanism to address the safety of the most likely replacements.
Polycarbonate had to be replaced with something else, but what? Without knowing what, how is it possible to know which is safe and which is sorry? Missing from consideration was the moral from one of Aesop’s Fables, which is to “look before you leap.”
In a commentary published in 2010 by Judy LaKind and Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, the authors predicted that there might come a time when the safety of the replacements would be questioned:“There are too many examples of chemicals taken off the market only to be replaced with chemicals that, in time, come to be considered ‘of concern’. We may be at such a juncture with replacement chemicals for bisphenol A (BPA) and PFOS. BPA, used mainly in the production of polycarbonates, has been measured in >90% of the general US population, prompting calls for bans, which have been enacted for certain uses in some parts of the United States and proposed in other countries. … Our literature search on some of the replacement … chemicals revealed no exposure information. Years from now, will we be seeing exposure studies describing certain BPA alternatives as emerging chemicals of concern?”
That time has now come.
Will We Regret The Substitution?
The risk of leaping to an alternative chemical before you look is that you might make a regrettable substitution. Whether the polycarbonate baby bottle replacements are regrettable may not be entirely known, but some researchers are starting to ask the question.
Published very recently is a paper from a group of Belgian researchers titled “Evaluation of the potential health risks of substances migrating from polycarbonate replacement baby bottles.” The 24 baby bottles included in the study were made from five different materials that are now being used as replacements for polycarbonate bottles. The researchers evaluated 17 substances that were found in an earlier study to migrate from one or more of the bottles into a solvent that simulated milk under real-life use conditions.
The evaluation was done with a conservative approach that reflected the frequent lack of adequate data for a thorough evaluation. An exposure range for each substance was estimated from the level found to migrate under standard test conditions. In the absence of adequate toxicological data to evaluate safety, assignment of a concern level for each baby bottle was based on a standard approach known as threshold of toxicological concern, which is used by government bodies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Food Safety Authority.
Of the 24 baby bottles examined, four were designated as “high concern” and another 14 were designated as “concern.” While these findings reflect potential risk from a conservative assessment rather than actual harm, they raise the question whether the precautionary principle was properly applied. In other words, are the precautionary solutions safe, as intended, or sorry?
It’s Not Just About Baby Bottles
The case study raises some important questions. Replacement of polycarbonate baby bottles was largely the result of legislation driven by consumer demand. Is that the best way to prioritize our actions? Does moving from one product to another simply to avoid controversy lead to improved safety? This might be less of an issue if alternative materials were being considered only for products that do not play an important role in protecting human health and safety. Unfortunately those are often the products where alternatives are most likely to be considered.
For example, alternatives to polycarbonate are under consideration for critical components of medical devices. Is this a good idea when polycarbonate has a multi-decade safety track record and baby bottles made from the likely alternative material have been designated as a “concern” in the Belgian study? If your life depended on it, which material would you choose?
Is BPA-Free Safe or Sorry?
If the baby bottle saga teaches us anything, it’s that we cannot assume that BPA-Free means the same thing as safe. This is not only a scientific question, but a marketplace issue since consumers regularly see BPA-Free labels and may well factor the information into their buying decisions. Indeed, BPA-Free labels are now found on materials like glass, which never contained BPA in the first place.
Recent psychology research examined what consumers understand when they see BPA-Free labels and how consumer behavior is influenced. The researchers found that “the BPA-free label appears to mislead some people into thinking that ‘free’ means ‘safer.’” As the researchers noted:“This is not a trivial issue. Consumer reaction to ‘BPA-free’ and similar labels may in some cases cause people to make riskier decisions, decisions that feel safer but actually expose them to agents which may ultimately be more toxic. ‘BPA-free’ labels don’t make it easier for consumers to make reasoned choices. They lead people to substitute unconscious assumptions about safety and benefit for reasoned consideration of what is known or not known about different chemicals and products. And that is truly a regrettable substitution.”
Accordingly, the researchers note that “such labels are misleading and cause some people to accept a substitute chemical that they might otherwise reject.”
Is It Time To Free BPA?
In light of the demonstrated safety and efficacy of polycarbonate plastic in its many product applications, and the questions now bubbling to the surface about alternatives, is it time to revisit the past and Free BPA? Unlike the goat in Aesop’s Fable, we should look before we leap to avoid regrettable substitutions.
http://www.science20.com/steve_hentges/bpafree_with_regrets-180540
-
EPA to Propose Perchlorate Rule by October 2018
Oct 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Perchlorate in drinking water will be subject to federal regulation no later than Dec. 17, 2019, under an agreement reached Oct. 17 between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The agreement would require the EPA to propose by Oct. 17, 2018, a maximum contaminant level goal and a national public drinking water regulation for perchlorate, a contaminant that affects thyroid function.
The deadlines for issuing a proposed and final rule for perchlorate were reached in a consent decree, which the the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has to approve, Preet Bharara, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, told Judge Edgardo Ramos in an Oct. 17 letteraccompanying the consent decree.
The agreement resolves the lawsuit that NRDC brought against the EPA in February for missing deadlines to propose and issue a final drinking water standard, mandated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The NRDC said the EPA was required to regulate perchlorate following its 2011 determination that outlined the rationale for regulating the contaminant, which, though occurring naturally, also is used in the manufacture of rocket fuel, explosives, road flares and fireworks.
The agreement, however, acknowledged EPA efforts to move forward with its rulemaking process. It said the EPA plans to complete its peer review process for the biological dose response model for setting the maximum contaminant level goal for perchlorate no later than Oct. 18, 2017.
The NRDC did not return Bloomberg BNA's e-mail seeking comment on the consent decree.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99017365&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99017365&jd=99017365
-
Antibacterial Soaps: When Squeaky Clean Is Not Enough
Oct 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Doc Schneider, Geoffrey Drake and Adam Reinke
Doc Schneider is a Senior Partner and trial lawyer in the Atlanta office of King & Spalding and a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. Mr. Schneider focuses on the defense of complex tort and commercial litigation cases, including class actions.
Geoffrey Drake is a Partner in the Atlanta office of King & Spalding. Mr. Drake represents companies in high-exposure product liability, personal injury, toxic tort, commercial, and whistleblower litigation. He also advises manufacturers on a variety of issues, including risk assessment and liability avoidance. Adam Reinke is an Associate in the Atlanta office of King & Spalding, where he defends consumer class actions and product liability claims.
On Sept. 6, 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a final rule concluding that 19 ingredients commonly used in consumer hand soaps labeled as “antibacterial” are not generally recognized as safe and effective. The Final Rule codifies a rule first proposed in 2013, which required manufacturers to submit data demonstrating the safety and efficacy of the 19 active ingredients at issue. Apparently, there are data showing that consumer antibacterial soaps reduce skin surface bacteria compared to regular soaps, but the FDA insisted on clinical data showing that people who use antibacterial soaps have fewer infections than people who use regular soaps. The FDA rejected the soap makers' arguments that that sort of clinical data was not necessary.
The FDA concluded that given the absence of the data and the existence of data showing hormonal effects in animals, as well as other countervailing considerations, the 19 ingredients that are the subject of the final rule have not been shown to be safe or effective for use in hand soap products. As a result, antibacterial hand soaps containing any of these active ingredients are now considered misbranded and are considered new drugs for which approved new drug applications are required before they can be marketed. The Final Rule does not reach and specifically excludes hand sanitizers (rubs) and antibacterial soaps/antiseptics used in the healthcare and food industries.
The FDA final rule allows manufacturers one year to comply. After that time, no consumer hand wash product containing one of the 19 active ingredients listed in the final rule may be introduced into interstate commerce unless the FDA has approved a new drug application with respect to that product.
With this ban, litigation is sure to follow as enterprising lawyers look to clean up on the conclusion that consumer antibacterial soaps have not been shown to meet the FDA's standards for a risk-benefit analysis. This would not be the first time consumer hand soap products have been the subject of litigation. In April 2010, the FDA announced in a news release that it was “engaged in an ongoing scientific review” of consumer products that contain the active ingredient triclosan, one of the 19 ingredients that is the subject of the FDA final rule. Shortly thereafter, lawyers representing consumers residing in 10 different states began filing lawsuits against the Dial Corp. alleging that it marketed triclosan-containing hand soaps in a deceptive and misleading manner. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that Dial marketed the hand soaps as more effective for washing hands than soap and water alone. According to the plaintiffs, however, Dial's triclosan-containing soap was no more effective than any other soap on the market and may actually cause negative effects. The plaintiffs brought claims for violations of various states' consumer protection statutes, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty and unjust enrichment, and sought damages, restitution, and injunctive relief. The individual cases were consolidated in multidistrict proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire and are proceeding as a putative class action. That action remains pending.
In 2011, several similar lawsuits were filed against Colgate-Palmolive Co., alleging that its Softsoap brand of antibacterial soaps—which also contained triclosan—was deceptively marketed as more effective at eliminating bacteria than ordinary hand soaps, when Colgate-Palmolive allegedly had no evidence supporting that claim. The plaintiffs asserted claims nearly identical to those asserted against Dial, and like the Dial lawsuit, the individual lawsuits against Colgate-Palmolive were also consolidated in the District of New Hampshire and proceeded as a class action. In 2015, Colgate-Palmolive, which had stopped using triclosan in hand soap products, reached a classwide settlement by which it agreed not to reintroduce triclosan as an ingredient in such products except in a manner consistent with final FDA regulations.
If the FDA's latest ban triggers a wave of new cases, the defendants can be expected to launch an impressive array of defenses. First, defendants presumably would mount a factual defense that antibacterial soaps do indeed reduce surface bacteria more than ordinary soap and that this is a sufficient distinction supporting differentiating them even if they do not meet the FDA demand for a clinical study showing fewer infections. Second, attempts to certify classes are likely to confront obstacles of ascertainability as most consumers do not keep a log of their soap purchases and there is no centralized list of purchasers. Third, consumer plaintiffs will face reliance issues having to prove that each purchaser purchased the product because of its antibacterial label, as opposed to some other product attribute—such as sale price, or “buy one, get one free” promotions, or various other factors that may drive a consumer product purchase decision. Finally, consumer plaintiffs will face expert damage modeling obstacles as they try to offer common proof of actual damages—especially if the facts show the absence of any actual retail price premium and plaintiffs' experts try to extrapolate a loss based on consumers not obtaining what they allegedly bargained for. Consumers will also face obstacles to injunctive relief if the products are no longer being sold.
In sum, the FDA's new final rule concerning antibacterial soap will present many legal challenges for manufacturers and retailers of such products. Consideration and strategic analysis of those challenges now may help such companies get ahead of such issues and reduce their liability exposure.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99017343&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99017343&jd=99017343
-
New Admin Should Form Office To Coordinate Strategy — Report
Oct 17, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey and Arianna Skibell,
Former top administration officials from both Republican and Democratic presidents today called for the next White House to create a new federal body to coordinate the nation's disparate energy policy.
The Center for New American Security released a blueprint for the first 100 days of the next administration that includes the creation of a "mechanism" to convene various federal agencies handling all aspects of energy and environmental matters and develop policy for the next president.
"We need somebody who ... has closer access to the president and [can] do the work of both providing the advice the president will need, he or she, and executing on those priorities," Robert McNally, a co-author of the report and former international energy adviser under President George W. Bush, said during a briefing today.
"We think we need a serious commitment by the White House to high-level interagency coordination of energy policy," said McNally, currently a senior fellow at Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy. "We need a new position there."
David Goldwyn, who served as the State Department's special envoy and coordinator for international energy affairs for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, also penned the report. Goldwyn also worked as assistant secretary of Energy under President Bill Clinton.
Such high-level coordination is needed because energy policy is currently handled in a diffuse matter with no one person in charge, Goldwyn said. Goldwyn said that while he and McNally didn't agree on all aspects of the strategy, he would like to see a special council take on energy issues, citing the National Economic Council and National Security Council as predecessors.
"What happened the last six years in the Obama administration is that you had energy and environment equities that were divided among the Domestic Policy Council, the National Security Council and the National Economic Council. So there was no one in charge," he told E&E News.
Goldwyn referenced the Obama administration's 2008 Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy that was co-chaired and later combined with another presidential office in 2011.
"It only did climate, it didn't really do energy," Goldwyn said. "So essentially I would suggest reconstituting something like that, but with a single head instead of two heads to try and drive this agenda because it's challenging and it's not a part-time job."
The Energy Department, U.S. EPA, the Interior Department and other agencies that handle these issues would all be members of the council, he added.
The report also calls on the next president to issue an executive order to provide guidance on timelines for all permitting of new infrastructure and to make the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission — not the State Department — in charge of permitting cross-border oil pipelines like Keystone XL. Doing so would prevent the process from becoming overly political, according to the report.
Goldwyn and McNally also said the next president should reverse the decision to sell off more than 160 million barrels of oil from the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve for budgetary purposes.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/10/17/stories/1060044408
-
DOE Invests $80M To Showcase 'Supercritical' CO2 Turbines
Oct 17, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Christa Marshall
General Electric Co. is joining two research groups to build and test a new type of power plant that aims to slash emissions and lower costs by using "supercritical" carbon dioxide instead of steam.
The Department of Energy will provide $80 million to support construction of a 10-megawatt electric pilot project in San Antonio that aims to improve power plant efficiency by at least 20 percent. Currently, there are no commercial-scale power plants using supercritical CO2 to power a turbine.
Supercritical CO2 is a semiliquid state of the greenhouse gas that is above its normal critical temperature and pressure.
In theory, using supercritical CO2 instead of steam to run a power plant could save large amounts of energy by allowing smaller turbines and reducing operating costs dramatically. Among other potential advantages, supercritical CO2 is easier to compress than steam, allowing for more power output for the same amount of fuel input. It also could extensively reduce water use by power plants.
The technology has been used in spacecraft applications but has not been demonstrated at scale outside a lab for electricity.
"Supercritical CO2 power systems have the potential to improve the efficiency and reduce the size of future power plants," said Franklin Orr, DOE's undersecretary for science and energy. "The selection of this test facility will help to further our nation's climate goals."
According to DOE, the average efficiency of U.S. plants that rely on the traditional steam cycle is in the low 30 percent range. Supercritical plants could boost that to 50 percent efficiency in theory.
Engineers are examining how to tie the technology with various fuels that produce heat, including nuclear and concentrating solar. The majority of U.S. plants currently rely on coal or natural gas to produce steam for power.
The Gas Technology Institute is leading the six-year initiative. Other partners are GE Global Research and the Southwest Research Institute — which will host the project at its Texas headquarters.
Earlier this year, the United States and Saudi Arabia formed a consortium to support research on supercritical CO2 systems (E&ENews PM, June 3).
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/10/17/stories/1060044404
-
Repercussions of Dakota Access Pipeline Delay
Oct 17, 2016 | Real Clear Energy
By Jack Rafuse
The repercussions of the Obama administration’s decision to continue delaying the more than half-completed Dakota Access pipeline would extend well beyond billions in private investment dollars, tens of thousands of lost jobs, and hundreds of millions in denied annual tax revenues. At stake is the fragile nexus between state and federal regulation of the private development they govern. If Dakota Access is denied at this late stage – after having met and exceeded all applicable rules and regulations, and, after having invested huge sums of capital – it would signal an end of the rule of law under this administration.
Private companies do not spend large amounts of time and money frivolously. They identify a need, conceive a solution, and then establish a goal for attaining it. They study. They plan. They commit to years of regulatory hearings, testimony, proceedings, and detailed reports by the company and by federal, state and local officials. Only after all those steps have been taken do the private companies commit, and with years to go before ultimate clearances are granted, do they commit.
For Dakota Access, that commitment revolves around a 1,172-mile pipeline that will transport domestically-produced crude oil from the Bakken region of North Dakota to major refining markets throughout the country. It’s a commitment that, at today’s volume, will transport half of the total production coming from the Bakken, and will result in a river of royalties to private landowners, the state, and to many Native Americans who hold oil and gas leases or production on reservation land.
Routed on private property for all but 1,094-feet of federal land, Dakota Access will employ state-of-the art technology, and prove vastly safer and more environmentally sound than other modes of transport such as rail or truck. It will be more efficient and more cost-effective. It will also directly infuse the economies of North Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, and South Dakota – the four states the pipeline will traverse – with more energy-wealth, jobs, and tax revenue. In fact, it already has.
In the 800-plus days since the project was announced, the $3.8 billion Dakota Access has already invested more than $1.6 billion in construction, heavy equipment and direct labor costs, supporting between 8,000 and 10,000 American jobs.
Understandably, most Dakota Access news coverage of late has revolved around the ongoing protests – and localized work stoppage – that result from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s suit to halt construction (I addressed the relevant history, merits, and motivations here weeks ago).
The project studiously applied for all relevant permits, approvals, and certificates issued across four separate states’ jurisdictions, and also from the Federal Government. Together, these exhibits form compelling testimony to Dakota Access’s commitment to a safe and legal process that has been enormously sensitive to, and solicitous of, the Native American community.
Although Dakota Access was ultimately green-lighted by the applicable agencies of four separate states as well as the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), it received those approvals only after a painstaking review process that included continuous consultation with Native American tribes, as well as the verification by three independent sources – USACE (which held 389 meetings with 55 tribes), a federal judge, and the North Dakota State Historic Preservation Office (and its Chief Archaeologist, Paul Picha) – that the pipeline’s route near the protest site in North Dakota does not infringe upon any areas of cultural significance.
Yet reporters, journalists and photographers add sympathy and coverage to the growing Indian crowds who say they will continue to oppose the pipeline for as long as it takes. They stack firewood, hold school classes, build stronger, warmer winter homes, meeting centers and medical facilities. They gather sympathy and support from visitors, many of whom would typically support legal and regulatory processes.
Dakota access has been thoroughly – exhaustively – examined. On every applicable issue, it has been found compliant. It has played by the rules, and satisfied all legal demands made upon it. Its approval has been won, and earned. Continued delay will have deleterious consequence that extends far beyond just the immediate and obvious economic fallout. For these reasons, the Dakota Access Pipeline should be allowed to continue construction without further delay.
Dr. Jack Rafuse is a former White House energy advisor and energy executive.
http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2016/10/17/repercussions_of_dakota_access_delay_110085.html
-
Boulder County Proposes to Drop Fracking Moratorium
Oct 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Boulder County is proposing to approve tight new restrictions on drilling in November and let an existing moratorium on fracking expire.
Environmentalists and residents of the county northwest of Denver responded to the proposed rules by urging the county board of commissioners to extend the moratorium, and even to ban the use of fracking in the county outright.
The oil and gas industry, meanwhile, said the proposed regulations “may well be illegal.”
Both sides in the fracking debate submitted comments to the Boulder County Planning Commission in advance of a commission hearing Oct. 12. The Board of County Commissioners is scheduled to consider whether to approve or disapprove the new rules at a public meeting Nov. 17, one day before the expiration of the existing moratorium on fracking.
Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, involves the high-pressure injection of water, sand and chemicals into deep underground shale formations to release natural gas and oil.
Still a Concern
A number of the comments urged the county not to let the moratorium end.
“Please don't allow this to happen,” said Sarah and Richard Kuyper, homeowners in the county. “Fracking is obviously still controversial and its unintended consequences are still too destructive to the health and safety of people and the environment.”
A leading voice of the industry in the state, the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, said in its comments there are areas of the proposed regulation that cause operators “the highest level of concern” and “may well be illegal under the law of operational preemption.”
In May the Colorado Supreme Court ruled a fracking ban in Longmont and a five-year moratorium on fracking and the storage of fracking waste in Fort Collins operationally conflict with the state's Oil and Gas Conservation Act and are therefore pre-empted. The court, in two separate rulings, invalidated both the ban and the moratorium, and industry said other bans across the state were similarly invalid City of Longmont v. Colo. Oil and Gas Ass'n, Colo., No. 15SC667, 5/2/16 City of Fort Collins v. Colo. Oil and Gas Ass'n, Colo., No. 15SC668, 5/2/16.
In response to the rulings, the Boulder Board of County Commissioners shortened its moratorium, originally scheduled to expire July 1, 2018, to Nov. 18, 2016. The new date was intended to allow the county to comply with the state supreme court's pre-emption ruling, while giving the county “enough time to review the oil and gas regulations” it adopted in December 2012 and adopt changes “that fit with the current status of oil and gas drilling operations.”
More Stringent Than State
The new proposed rules are more stringent than state rules and the December 2012 rules in several areas, including reviews of new wells and evaluations of the impacts of large, multi-well facilities. The proposal includes county air regulations that match or exceed new Colorado Air Quality Control Commission rules. They provide for protection of floodplains, improvements regarding pipelines, and general use of county land use, zoning and comprehensive planning powers.
COGA said the proposed regulations “illegally give the County the ability to mandate siting of oil and gas location.” They include best-management practices and mitigation measures exceeding or overlapping state regulations, the association said.
“The regulations include aid and water quality standards that exceed or overlap state agency regulations and are operationally preempted,” COGA said, among other concerns it listed.
In sum, the proposed rules “in key areas fail to comply with current Colorado law regarding the primary jurisdiction of the” Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, the state regulatory agency that oversees drilling, COGA said.
Local Government Designees
In its comments, the Colorado Petroleum Council, a division of the American Petroleum Institute, said Colorado already has “some of the very strongest, if not the strongest” regulations regarding oil and natural gas development in the country, including “unequaled provisions” for local government engagement. Existing state rules provide for local government designees to participate in the development of comprehensive drilling plans, the council said.
While acknowledging the state Supreme Court rulings prohibits local communities from saying “no” to fracking, environmentalists urged the county to make the proposed rules more strict. For example, 350 Colorado, a group that is pushing for statewide restrictions on drilling, said the county should require baseline sampling for air, water and land. It also called for “audited financial statements and scrutiny of every company applying for a permit to ensure that county residents are not left cleaning up the mess left by insolvent companies.”
Micah Parkin, spokeswoman for 350 Colorado, told Bloomberg BNA Oct. 17 the group had not abandoned its pursuit of statewide constitutional amendments giving local governments more say over drilling, including the authority to ban fracking within their jurisdiction if they choose. The group backed two proposed measures restricting drilling that failed to qualify for the November ballot. Oil and gas producers said the measures amounted to “de facto” bans on fracking.
‘Not Giving Up.’
“We're not giving up on bans, but until we can make that happen, we want to see the most protective local rules possible to protect our families and our communities,” she said.
Kevin Lynch, an attorney at the Environmental Law Clinic at the University of Denver College of Law, who has represented community groups seeking to tighten local rules on fracking, told BNA it “makes total sense” that municipalities will try to pass more stringent local rules if they feel that “states are not doing enough.”
“We lost at the Supreme Court, but since then a lot of people have been trying to think about what else they can do,” he said. “The impacts of oil and gas activity are still there.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99017368&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99017368&jd=99017368
-
California Air District Plans Stricter Refinery Flaring Rule
Oct 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Oil refineries in Southern California could face even stricter requirements for repeat and excessive flaring even though the region's requirements are already among the toughest in the country.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District plans to revisit its flaring regulations largely in response to flaring events at the Torrance Refinery Co., the refinery PBF Energy acquired from Exxon Mobil Corp. in July.
“We've had enough of these events in Southern California,” Earthjustice attorney Adrian Martinez told Bloomberg BNA Oct. 14. “They are dangerous to the communities near the facilities.”
A lot more regulatory oversight of refineries is needed, Martinez said.
More Fees?
The new rule could increase mitigation fees and fee caps for emissions from flaring events, the air district said. Better backup power supply systems and enhanced air pollution monitoring systems also may be required.
Flaring is used as a safety measure to burn off excess gas when a refinery or one its units shuts down due to a power cut, breakdown or for maintenance.
South Coast's flaring rule is the most stringent in the nation, according to Laki Tisopulos, the air district's deputy executive officer for engineering and permitting.
The current rule established an emissions cap, based on throughput, for sulfur dioxide emissions that declined annually from 2006 through 2012, but has remained level since, air district spokesman Sam Atwood told Bloomberg BNA. Refineries exceeding their performance target pay mitigation fees, he said.
Over the years, Exxon Mobil racked up $18.5 million in fees for exceeding its target at the Torrance refinery.
The Ultramar refinery in Wilmington, now owned and operated by Tesoro Refining and Marketing Co, has paid $3 million in flaring mitigation fees and the Phillips 66 facilities in Carson and Wilmington $2 million.
Changes Possible for Bay Area Rule
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District also has plans to revise its flaring rule to make it more effective, said Ralph Borrmann, a spokesman for the agency.
The current Bay Area rule aims to minimize the use of flares, so it complements Environmental Protection Agency requirements, which require that a flare be hot enough to ensure the material is completely burned, he said.
Abatement Order Sought
South Coast air district officials this week plan to ask its quasi-judicial hearing board for an order to address recent flaring events the PBF refinery in Torrance.
“The Torrance Refining Co. has been responsible for an unacceptably high number of flaring events resulting from shutdowns at its Torrance facility,” Wayne Nastri, the air district's acting executive officer, said in a written statement.
“All refineries need to do their utmost to minimize flaring to protect our air quality and communities,” Nastri said.
Regulators issued a notice of violation against the refinery Oct. 13, following an area-wide power outage that triggered flaring for multiple days. The facility's flare emitted tall flames and billowing black smoke for hours, forcing Torrance officials to issue a shelter-in-place order for residents near the refinery, the air district said.
Additional flaring occurred Sept. 19, due to a power cut, and July 11, related to a software malfunction, regulators said.
Consistent with the planned rulemaking, the air district is seeking an order from its hearing board to force the Torrance refinery to improve its power supply system, electrical infrastructure, monitoring systems and overall maintenance.
The notice of violation may also result in penalties.
South Coast regulators oversee air quality in urban areas of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties and all of Orange County.
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. and Valero Energy Corp. operate other major refineries in the South Coast air basin.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99017354&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99017354&jd=99017354
-
EPA Could Grant Advocates' Call To Issue Facility Safety Rule Before 2017
Oct 17, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA has sent for White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) pre-publication review its final revised facility safety rule and is signaling that it could grant advocates' call to release the rule before 2017, although the next administration could potentially block the rule or the agency's critics in Congress might seek to scrap it.
OMB received the rule on Oct. 14 and review typically takes 90 days, although it can take more or less time depending on the regulation. According to OMB's website, EPA intends to publish the final rule sometime in December. Publication would trigger the right for groups to sue over the regulation, and would also allow lawmakers to use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn the policy with majority votes in both chambers.
Environmental and labor advocates have long urged EPA to quickly issue a final rule, noting the revisions would likely face push-back from a potential Donald Trump administration, or the next Congress.
Chemical manufacturers have sought to delay the rule, seeking additional time for public input. They are also urging OMB to reject an EPA information collection request to collect data to ensure facilities comply with the revised rule, and that the agency says will help to inform state and local authorities emergency planning. The projected publication date on EPA's website indicates that the agency is unlikely to grant the industry request to delay the rule.
However, while the rule's schedule is a win for environmentalists, EPA appears set to reject advocates' call to include in the rule a mandate for facilities to use inherently safer technology (IST) to improve safety. IST refers to changes in industrial processes, such as switching to use of less hazardous chemicals.
EPA's rule, which will update its Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility safety planning rules, is part of a broad federal effort co-led by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Department of Homeland Security to implement President Obama's Executive Order 1360 on improving the safety and security of industrial plants.
Obama issued the order Aug. 1, 2013 after an ammonium nitrate explosion at a fertilizer facility in West, TX, killed 15 people, including first responders, and injured more than 200 others.
EPA sought comment through May 13 on its Feb. 25 proposed version of the RMP rule to mandate that certain facilities consider safer chemicals or processes in hazard assessments; require third party audits after a reportable release to reduce risk of future accidents; and aim to improve coordination between facilities and local emergency planners.
Currently, the RMP program, established under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act, requires companies to craft a plan to submit to EPA that outlines how the facility will reduce risks from releases.
OMB Review
Advocates and the chemical industry are both expected to seek meetings with White House officials during the OMB review. Advocates will likely reiterate long-standing calls for the administration to use Clean Air Act authority to mandate facilities use IST where feasible, while industry is expected to continue claims that proposed new requirements for third-party audits and hazard analysis are unwieldy.
While EPA's proposed rule has drawn critical comments from advocates and industry, EPA waste chief Mathy Stanislaus indicated in an interview with Inside EPA last March that the agency is unlikely to significantly revise the proposal given that the agency already took significant public input prior to proposing the rule.
The Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters, which petitioned EPA to use authority under the Clean Air Act to require facilities to use IST, reiterated that call in comments on the proposed rule. Last summer, the agency's Local Government Advisory Committee in a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy called for stronger requirements for public release of facility data, and backed advocates' calls for EPA to establish a publicly-accessible database of available safer alternatives to encourage use of alternative substances, among other things.
Chemical manufacturers, in comments to EPA, have argued that facilities already use IST where feasible, and that new requirements to consider those safety measures in facility analysis could open the door for government to second-guess facilities' processes.
Whatever rule EPA finalizes could be subject to challenges under the CRA from the agency's opponents in Congress. The CRA allows Congress to approve resolutions by a majority vote to undo agency rulemakings, although prior efforts to use the law to block other EPA regulations have been unsuccessful. Both chambers voted to scrap EPA's Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule, but President Obama vetoed the measure.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-could-grant-advocates-call-issue-facility-safety-rule-2017
-
OSHA Slaps La. Silica Factory With Fine
Oct 17, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Gabriel Dunsmith
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration last week cited a chemical facility in Westlake, La., for 11 violations.
OSHA, run by the Department of Labor, found that employees at the facility were "exposed to hazards such as corrosive materials and a leaking, 30,000-gallon hot water tank."
OSHA proposed a fine of $92,642.
The facility, run by Pittsburgh-based PPG Industries, manufactures precipitated silica products for use in shoes and tire manufacturing, according to the company's website. PPG Industries, a multinational company, makes paint and coating products and employs around 18,500 people in North America.
OSHA further found that safety valves had not been inspected and that supervisors had failed to conduct air monitoring in certain confined factory spaces.
"The violations found at PPG Industries' Westlake facility are disturbing. Not inspecting safety relief valves endangers workers and could have catastrophic consequences," said Dorinda Folse, OSHA's area director in Baton Rouge. "This employer must take all necessary steps to correct these issues and take the safety of its workers seriously."
PPG has 15 days to comply, request a conference with OSHA officials or dispute the citations or fine.
"A safe work environment is a top priority for PPG as evidenced by the company's exemplary record," said company spokesman Mark Silvey. "PPG intends to communicate with OSHA to better understand its findings and resolve the matter."
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/10/17/stories/1060044396
-
Deal Cutting Refrigerant Climate Gases Can Be Strengthened
Oct 18, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Negotiators from nearly 200 nations who reached a deal over the weekend to cut 80 percent of super-polluting hydrofluorocarbons by midcentury also agreed to periodically revisit whether to reduce climate emissions even more as new control technologies come online.
The global deal reached Oct. 15 targets consumption and production of HFCs used in air conditioning and refrigeration that, if left unchecked, would have an outsized impact on raising global temperatures.
All countries under the deal reached after a week of talks in Kigali, Rwanda, agreed to phase down HFCs. But the U.S. and other richer industrialized countries, many of which already are cutting HFCs, essentially will go first. They agreed to a 10 percent reduction in the refrigerant beginning in 2019.
Developing countries were given longer to take action, with China and most other developing economies agreeing to a freeze in 2024; India and a few other nations fought for and won a 2028 freeze date.
The Kigali amendment calls for periodic reviews of the global action phasing down HFCs every five years; a technical panel is to determine whether technologies have emerged to allow “any needed adjustments” in agreed-upon reductions, according to a White House fact sheet.
Under the deal, the U.S. and other richer nations agreed to begin ratcheting down HFCs in 2019 and continue doing so until 2036. At that time, the developed nations are to achieve an 85 percent cut from 2011–2013 production and consumption levels. President Barack Obama pursued the global deal on HFCs to complement the broader climate accord reached in Paris 10 months ago. Obama called the Kigali deal “an ambitious and far-reaching solution to this looming crisis” that makes “a significant contribution towards achieving the goals we set in Paris.”
Developing Nations Given More Time
But the deal provides a sort of sliding scale for developing nations, with one group—China, Latin America, Africa and island nations—agreeing to a freeze by 2024. That group covers the bulk of developing nations around the world, more than 100 total, according to the World Wildlife Fund.
A second tier of developing nations headed by India, which sought to delay any HFC freeze until about 2030 given its increasing demands for air conditioning for its burgeoning middle class, conceded to a slightly earlier freeze date of 2028 in the deal. Others in that group were given until 2028 to take action include Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and some Persian Gulf nations.
The deal was reached was reached as an amendment to the Montreal Protocol, which has been successfully used to phase out substances that deplete the ozone layer. The Kigali negotiations served as the 28th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone.
Hydrofluorocarbons originally were developed as alternatives to ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). But HFCs were later determined to be a potent greenhouse gases with long atmospheric lifetimes and thus a significant contributor to global warming. Consequently, HFCs can be hundreds or even thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide in contributing to climate change.
Steep reductions in HFCs will require nations to move to alternatives with a lower global warming impact and increase energy efficiency, particularly in air conditioning units. Already existing more climate-friendly HFC alternatives include HFO-1234yf, developed jointly by Honeywell and Dupont.
Icing on the Cake After Paris?
The Rwanda deal was seen as icing on the cake for climate action, coming less than a year after nearly 200 nations reached the first truly global deal in Paris to address climate change, but also just weeks after a deal was announced to cut international aviation emissions of carbon dioxide. The aviation deal was reached Oct. 6 after roughly two decades of negotiations under the UN International Civil Aviation Organization.
Regine Guenther, interim leader of WWF's Global Climate and Energy Practice, said the Oct. 15 Kigali deal on HFCs “sends a powerful signal that our governments are serious about tackling climate change, coming as it does on the heels of the ratification of the Paris Agreement, a new deal to cap aviation emissions and just weeks before UN climate talks resume” in Morocco.
The Morocco talks got a boost with faster-than-anticipated ratification of the Paris Agreement this year by enough developed and developing nations to ensure it is formally in place in time for the two-week UN climate change conference in Marrakech, which opens Nov. 7. At the summit, countries will begin the first negotiations on how to implement the Paris Agreement, including a kind of rule book countries will use to measure and verify whether they make good on their pledges to cut emissions.
Mattlan Zackhras, a minister to the Marshall Islands—among the nations most vulnerable to sea-level rise linked to climate change—said hours before nations clinched the Oct. 15 Rwanda deal that deep cuts in HFCs “may be the single biggest bite we ever take out of the global mitigation gap in one go.”
Fastest Growing Climate Emissions
While HFCs are today responsible for only about 1 percent to 2 percent of global warming, they are the fastest growing climate-related emissions.
If left unaddressed, global emissions of HFCs would grow to the equivalent of 19 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in 2050, according to the White House; steep reductions during the coming decades could prevent nearly a half-degree Celsius of warming this century, the White House projects.
Durwood Zaelke, who has tracked the talks as president of the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development, said the promised reductions get the world to about 90 percent of the goal of cutting a half degree Celsius of global warming this century.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99017369&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99017369&jd=99017369
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested