Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 11/3/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Trade Body Calls for Reexamination of Conflict Mineral Reporting
Nov 3, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The National Association of Manufacturers (Nam) has called for the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Congress to reexamine conflict mineral reporting requirements. -
(ACC Mentioned) Keep America Beautiful Launches #BeRecycled Sweepstakes
Nov 3, 2016 | Recycling Today
By Staff
National nonprofit Keep America Beautiful (KAB), Stamford, Connecticut, has launched the #BeRecycled Sweepstakes in honor of America Recycles Day, its national initiative that takes place on and in the weeks leading into Nov. 15. -
(ACC Mentioned) APR: Plastic Bottle Recycling Rate Down by a Fraction Amid Tough Climate
Nov 3, 2016 | Waste Dive
By Cole Rosengren
The Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR) and American Chemistry Council (ACC) have released a report showing that the overall diversion rate for plastic bottles in the U.S. was 31.1% in 2015 as compared to 31.7% in 2014. -
(ACC Mentioned) Here's How Much the Average American Wastes on Food
Nov 3, 2016 | Madison
By Maurie Backman
Food waste probably isn't something we think about too often, especially for those of us who don't struggle to afford groceries. But despite the fact that over 42 million Americans live in food-insecure households, collectively, we manage to throw out an estimated 80 billion pounds of food every year. -
(ACC Mentioned) Monsanto Counters Oehha Motion to Dismiss Prop 65 Case
Nov 3, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
Agrochemical firm, Monsanto, and California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment appear closer to a trial, in a civil case that challenges a listing method for adding substances to Proposition 65. -
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Round-Up
Nov 3, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Comments are available in response to the EPA's draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) toxicological review of the fuel additive ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE). -
Endocrine Disruptors: How We Lost Track of Scientific Focus
Nov 3, 2016 | Endocrine Science Matters
By Rainer von Mielecki
Hormones were discovered about 100 years ago and scientists have been looking at their impact on living species ever since. -
An Appeal for the Integrity of Science and Public Policy
Nov 3, 2016 | Toxicology
By Dr. Gio Batta Gori et al.
We, scientists and signatories of this appeal assert our concern for the erosion of scientific principles in the purported validation of experimental evidence, which is manifest in arguments disguised as true science. -
Washington Investigates Apparent Violations in Children's Products
Nov 3, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The Washington State Department of Ecology is investigating five apparent self-reported violations of cadmium and phthalate levels in children’s products. -
14th Report on Carcinogens Lists Cobalt, Updates TCE Designation
Nov 3, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US Department of Health and Human Services has published the 14th Report on Carcinogens (RoC), with new and updated listings for trichloroethylene (TCE) and cobalt. -
Industry Body Backs Cosmetics Bill That Better Supports SMEs
Nov 3, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The Independent Cosmetic Manufacturers and Distributors Association (Icmad) has voiced support for a House of Representatives bill that would establish a new national safety standard for the cosmetics industry. -
US NTP Assessing Non-Animal Tests for Chemical Developmental Effects
Nov 3, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The National Toxicology Program (NTP) Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM) is soliciting data and information on zebrafish embryo screening tests and protocol designs, including pharmacokinetics measurements. -
Study Breaks New Ground on Chemical Effects on Newborns
Nov 3, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
Low-income and Latina pregnant women experience pervasive exposure to environmental toxins, and their infants often exhibit higher levels of the same, a new study shows. -
Halting the Flow of Microplastics
Nov 3, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Polly-Anna Ashford
Having investigated the fate of microplastics in different wastewater treatment processes, scientists in the US found that most plants are not designed to fully remove the small litter particles. -
Will the Pipeline Fight Affect Future Permitting?
Nov 3, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Tiffany Stecker
The rulemaking for the next round of the five-year nationwide permits from the Army Corps of Engineers was expected to be a relatively low-profile process. -
Pipeline Expert Slams Corps' Dakota Access Environmental Review
Nov 3, 2016 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
An independent pipeline expert and outside adviser to the DOT found the Army Corps of Engineers' review of the Dakota Access pipeline "seriously deficient" and unable to justify its conclusion that the project would not pose a potentially serious spill risk, according to a report released today by environmentalists. -
Where are the Methane Risks for Investors? This Guide Helps Them Find Out.
Nov 3, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Sean Wright
A year ago, a hidden methane leak at SoCalGas’ Aliso Canyon facility drew global attention after ballooning into one of the largest environmental disasters in United States history. -
The Natural Gas Model for Emissions Compliance
Nov 3, 2016 | Breaking Energy (in Real Clear Energy)
By Mark Green
In recent months we’ve posted a number of times about how increased U.S. use of natural gas is lowering carbon dioxide emissions by the electricity-generation sector while also making our air cleaner by helping reduce criteria pollutants. -
Colonial's Fatal Blast is the Most Serious in a String of Incidents
Nov 3, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan and Mike Lee
The Colonial pipeline, disrupted this week by a fatal explosion and fire in Alabama, has had 183 reports of problems since 2005, according to federal records. -
UPS Opposes STB's Proposed Reciprocal Switching Rule
Nov 3, 2016 | Progressive Rail Roading
United Parcel Service (UPS) will consider ending its use of railroads for the transportation of containers and trailers if theSurface Transportation Board (STB) adopts new regulations that allow for competitive or "reciprocal" switching, the company said in a letter to the board. -
EPA Rule Proposal Keeps Focus on Background Ozone
Nov 3, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
For U.S. EPA, background ozone remains a forefront issue. -
Climate Diplomats to Meet on Implementing Paris Accord
Nov 3, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The top climate change diplomats from the world’s nations will meet next week in Morocco to start discussing how to implement last year’s Paris climate agreement.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Trade Body Calls for Reexamination of Conflict Mineral Reporting
Nov 3, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The National Association of Manufacturers (Nam) has called for the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Congress to reexamine conflict mineral reporting requirements.
Its comments were made in response to a concept release, initiated by the SEC earlier this year, on business and financial disclosure requirements for publicly traded companies. According to a notice in the Federal Register, this is part of an initiative "to consider ways to improve the requirements for the benefit of investors and registrants".
Among the 26,000 responses, were a number on the conflict mineral reporting requirement, under section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act. This requires publicly traded companies to conduct due diligence and report to the SEC on whether their sourcing of conflict minerals – tin, tungsten, tantalum and gold (3TG) – is supporting armed groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), or neighbouring countries.
In Nam's response, director of tax policy Christina Crooks said, it was “unreasonable for companies to continue to spend substantial resources implementing the rule, when its central feature has been invalidated on constitutional grounds.” The SEC and Congress “should reexamine the statute and rule", she said.
The US Chamber of Commerce and Nam filed suit against the commission in October 2012, seeking a revision or discarding of the reporting rule.
In 2014, a US Court of Appeals ruled that the compelled disclosure requirements that products were “DRC conflict free” or “not conflict free” was in violation of the First Amendment. This decision was reaffirmed in an appeals court last August.
The court's ruling removed the requirement that companies disclose whether or not their products are conflict free, but it has not affected the due diligence and reporting obligations.
According to its comments, Nam had urged Congress during consideration of Dodd-Frank, "to focus their efforts on strengthening the US financial system rather than imposing new regulations that could be costly and hinder job creation for manufacturers and other non-financial companies that had nothing to do with the financial crisis."
And Ms Crooks said the organisation "continues to have strong concerns about several SEC proposed and finalised rules and regulations, implementing Dodd-Frank provisions, that create significant costs for manufacturers without providing any significant benefit to shareholders or companies."
A response to the concept release, submitted by US Chamber of Commerce senior vice president, Tom Quaadman, said that the organisation does not believe "SEC-mandated disclosures should be used to further social, cultural or political motivations that the federal securities laws were not designed to advance.”
"The SEC’s expertise centres on the operation, practices and regulation of securities markets ... [and] is not an expert about topics outside its mission, such as how to resolve difficult issues of a social or political nature," said Mr Quaadman. "Thus, we believe the SEC should tread lightly when it comes to compelling so-called sustainability disclosure."
In comments from the American Chemistry Council (ACC), vice president of regulatory technical affairs, Michael Walls, said that the reporting rule's impact and benefits to shareholders remain "unclear".
And he said the requirements cause “a significant burden to companies throughout the supply chain, not only to those that are required to report to the SEC."
Nam's Ms Crooks quoted research from the Tulane University Law School, which said it would cost industry almost $8bn to comply with the requirements, and that publicly traded companies worked a combined 6,139,983 hours on the first annual filing alone.
She added that they also affect thousands of SMEs not subject to SEC reporting, because they supply large, publicly traded companies and are asked by those issuers to conduct the due diligence required by the rule.
Conflict mineral reporting requirements pose “a huge financial and reporting burden, and potentially a huge auditing burden, on reporting manufacturers,” she said.
Earlier this year, House Republicans introduced the Financial CHOICE [Creating Hope and Opportunity for Investors, Consumers and Entrepreneurs] Act, a far-reaching bill aimed at significantly overhauling Dodd-Frank. It calls for a full repeal of section 1502 of the Act, and that the provisions of the law affected by it be “restored or revived as if [it] had not been enacted”.
Although the measure is not likely to get traction in an election year, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R–Texas) has suggested the bill is a reflection of the Republican stance on reforming Dodd-Frank.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50678/us-trade-body-calls-for-reexamination-of-conflict-mineral-reporting
-
(ACC Mentioned) Keep America Beautiful Launches #BeRecycled Sweepstakes
Nov 3, 2016 | Recycling Today
By Staff
National nonprofit Keep America Beautiful (KAB), Stamford, Connecticut, has launched the #BeRecycled Sweepstakes in honor of America Recycles Day, its national initiative that takes place on and in the weeks leading into Nov. 15. America Recycles Day is dedicated to promoting and celebrating recycling in the United States. The organization provides an array of tools and resources designed to help improve recycling in America.
The America Recycles Day #BeRecycled Sweepstakes can be accessed through the KAB Facebookpage and does not require a Facebook login for entry, just the participant’s name, email and zip code. A bonus entry will be rewarded to participants who share a unique URL with friends and family. The sweepstakes is open for entry and will close at 11:59:59 PM EDT Nov. 18. Winners will be contacted shortly thereafter, KAB says.
The grand prize will include a $1,000 gift card to Hayneedle, www.hayneedle.com, a leading online home furnishings and décor retailer, which offers a selection of Green Living products among the world’s largest outdoor living selection, including many items constructed from recycled content. Second prize offers a pair of Trex planter boxes made from 95-percent-recycled content, and third prize is a $250 Hayneedle gift card.
“#BeRecycled is a call-to-action to invite individuals to actively pursue and live a recycled lifestyle,” says Brenda Pulley, senior vice president, recycling, Keep America Beautiful. “We encourage everyone to take the #BeRecycled Pledge and to commit to the ‘Reduce. Reuse. Recycle.’ mantra in every aspect of their lives. And it doesn’t have to stop there! There is an abundance of products that are made with recycled content—make a pledge to buy those items over the traditional versions.”
KAB says that by taking the #BeRecycled Pledge, individuals commit to learn about recycling in their communities, to consistently and correctly recycle, to reduce personal waste and to buy products made from recycled content. Participants are encouraged to help spread the word by educating and encouraging friends, family and neighbors to recycle in their community and to integrate the act of recycling and buying recycled content throughout their daily routines.
Aside from the #BeRecycled Sweepstakes and Pledge, KAB says people can be part of the recycling solution by being more mindful of how to properly recycle products by participating in or hosting their own America Recycles Day event. Event organizers can access valuable resources to plan, promote and host an event on the America Recycles Day website, where there are guides for hosting events, activity ideas, downloadable posters and banners, media outreach tools, sample proclamations and more. Events can be scheduled at any time during the fall leading into the official America Recycles Day celebration, Nov. 15. Sponsors of this year’s initiative include Amcor, American Chemistry Council, the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI) and Northrop Grumman.
“America Recycles Day is important because it reminds us that every day we can make a difference by doing our part to recycle the things we use and choosing products made from recycled material,” says Steve Russell, vice president of plastics for the American Chemistry Council.
http://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/america-recycles-day-kab-sweepstakes/
-
(ACC Mentioned) APR: Plastic Bottle Recycling Rate Down by a Fraction Amid Tough Climate
Nov 3, 2016 | Waste Dive
By Cole Rosengren
Dive Brief:
The Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR) and American Chemistry Council (ACC) have released a report showing that the overall diversion rate for plastic bottles in the U.S. was 31.1% in 2015 as compared to 31.7% in 2014.
Of the 2.98 billion pounds of bottles collected, 97% were made of PET or HDPE. The small fraction of bottles made from polypropylene and PVC saw a slight increase in the amount of pounds collected.
Domestic HDPE processing increased by 44 million pounds in 2015, driven by more imports and a decrease in exports due in part to weak bale prices.
Dive Insight:
These results follow trends shown in a report on PET bottle recycling rates released last month. Despite more lightweight packaging, sinking oil prices and reduced export volumes to China as a result of the "Green Fence" initiative, the U.S. bottle recycling rate appears to be somewhat stable.
Though the report notes that single-stream collection, reduced quantity of exported material and economic pressure on bale suppliers resulted in lower quality postconsumer bottle material. A lack of accessible recycling options outside of homes was also cited. The APR has been pushing new design guidelines and other standards to help ensure what is collected can actually be used once it reaches material recovery facilities for sorting.
As evidenced by recent backlash against plastic bottle waste in Canada and the U.K., it's possible that similar sentiments could eventually catch on in the U.S. and reduce the amount of available material. At the same time, bottled water consumption is also set to overtake soda this year and industry representatives have strongly resisted any efforts to curtail the use of their products in areas such as national parks so it's more likely that the supply will remain consistent for the near future.
http://www.wastedive.com/news/apr-plastic-bottle-recycling-rate-down-by-a-fraction-amid-tough-climate/429626/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Here's How Much the Average American Wastes on Food
Nov 3, 2016 | Madison
By Maurie Backman
Food waste probably isn't something we think about too often, especially for those of us who don't struggle to afford groceries. But despite the fact that over 42 million Americans live in food-insecure households, collectively, we manage to throw out an estimated 80 billion pounds of food every year.
So just how much food does the average American waste? According to a survey by the American Chemistry Council, the average household throws out $640 of food each year. Furthermore, 76% of Americans admit to throwing out leftovers on a monthly basis. Since data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics tells us that the average American household spent $4,015 on food in 2015, this means we're throwing away almost 16% of the food we buy -- and that's not a number to be proud of.
Why are we wasting so much food?
So what's up with this bad habit? Researchers from The Ohio State University conducted a survey to arrive at an answer, and here's what they found:
Sixty-eight percent of Americans believe that throwing away food once its expiration date passes lowers their chances of getting sick from it.
Fifty-nine percent believe that food waste is "necessary" to consistently produce fresh, flavorful meals.
Only 42% feel that food waste is a major source of wasted money.
Now let's talk about expiration dates for a minute. We're often taught or warned not to mess with them for fear of getting sick, but for many of us, the decision to toss expired products often boils down to labeling. Since there's no universal standard for labeling products, reconciling the various terminology out there can be next to impossible. After all, what's the real difference between the "sell by" date and the "use by" date? And then there's the "best before" date, which is even more ambiguous. Will eating a product after the "best before" date simply result in a less satisfying dining experience? Or will it put consumers at risk for food poisoning? It's hard to know, and so many of us err on the side of caution, wasting millions of dollars of food in the process.
What food waste could be costing you
While $640 a year may not seem like such an egregious number in the grand scheme of what many of us spend, imagine what $640 a year could do for your retirement savings. If you were to contribute that amount to a 401(k) or IRA each year, invest it, and generate an average annual 8% return (which is actually just below the stock market's average), after 30 years, you'd have over $72,000 to add to your nest egg. Now that's a good reason to rethink the way we buy -- and waste -- food.
It's time to make changes
Want to break the cycle and save yourself a good $640 a year? Then consider changing the way you shop for and consume food.
First, the obvious: Buy less. Many people are quick to assume that buying in bulk is always the most cost-efficient way to go, but supersizing your purchases might cause you to toss out more than you'd think. In fact, in the above-referenced survey, 53% of respondents say they waste more food when they buy in bulk. Unless you're absolutely certain you'll go through your entire haul before it expires, avoid buying food at warehouse clubs and wait for your local supermarket to run its sales.
Speaking of sales, don't buy food you don't need just because it's being offered at a discount. If you see ranch dressing marked down from $2.99 to $1.99 but you eat it once a year at best, you're not getting a deal. Rather, you're throwing out $1.99.
You should also take regular inventory in your fridge and pantry so you know what you have and what you're missing. That, and plan your weekly menus in advance so you're more organized while shopping.
Additionally, it probably wouldn't hurt to be a little less picky about expiration dates. If a perishable product is well-expired, or if it looks or smells funky, then by all means, trash it. But if you have products that are only a few days past their respective expiration dates, give them a whiff before tossing them out. Also, remember that freezing products can prolong their life, so if you find that you've overbought, try preserving some of your stash for later on.
Finally, learn to embrace leftovers in all of their budget-friendly glory. You have your entire life to go out and sample different cuisines, so if there's perfectly good day-old pot roast sitting in your fridge, there's no reason not to call it dinner.
The $15,834 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook
If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets" could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. For example: one easy trick could pay you as much as $15,834 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Simply click here to discover how to learn more about these strategies.http://host.madison.com/business/investment/markets-and-stocks/here-s-how-much-the-average-american-wastes-on-food/article_0eb1b521-c87b-5277-a4ab-93aed89c798b.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Monsanto Counters Oehha Motion to Dismiss Prop 65 Case
Nov 3, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
Agrochemical firm, Monsanto, and California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment appear closer to a trial, in a civil case that challenges a listing method for adding substances to Proposition 65.
Earlier this autumn, Oehha filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (MJOP), seeking a dismissal of the case. But in a 28 October memorandum, Monsanto opposed this request.
A hearing is set for 9 December, although the court may pass down a tentative ruling ahead of that date. Should the courts grant Oehha's motion, the plaintiff would have the opportunity to appeal the decision.
The latest developments come after months of legal proceedings, in the wake of Oehha announcing its intent to list glyphosate – a key chemical in Monsanto’s Roundup line of herbicide – as a carcinogen under Prop 65.
Since Monsanto filed the suit in January, NGOs and trade organisations have picked their respective sides in the case.
The following have intervened on Monsanto’s behalf:
California Citrus Mutual;
Western Plant Health Association;
Western Agricultural Processors Associations;
California Grain and Feed Association;
California Cotton Ginners & Growers Association; and
Almond Alliance of California.
And the following on behalf of Oehha:
Sierra Club;
AFL-CIO;
Canadian Labour Congress;
Natural Resources Defense Council;
Environmental Law Foundation; and
Center for Food Safety.
Long-lasting impact
While the case focuses on the listing of glyphosate, the final outcome could have broader ramifications for Prop 65.
Monsanto has challenged the constitutionality of the “Labour Code” listing mechanism, which directs Oehha to add to Prop 65 any substance given certain classifications by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Iarc). Under this, the office says it cannot consider scientific arguments, concerning the weight or quality of the evidence that informed Iarc's carcinogenicity determination.
Monsanto argues this process is unconstitutional because the state cedes the basis of its regulatory authority to an unelected and non-transparent foreign body that is not under the oversight or control of any federal or state government entity.
But Oehha rebutted this in court documents, saying the Labour Code mechanism does not empower Iarc to make decisions on behalf of California, but simply provides a way for Oehha to make the most of scarce resources.
Iarc’s scientific determinations are “the gold standard in carcinogen identification” that the US federal government, along with a number of state and foreign governments, rely upon and trust, said the agency in its MJOP. “There is simply no delegation of legislative power, when a statute merely relies on an existing authoritative source to exercise its independent authority to determine a technical factual issue.”
If Monsanto’s challenge is successful, the status of substances that have been listed via the Labour Code mechanism may be called into question.
A 2013 decision in Styrene Information and Research Council v the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, for example, required Oehha to reevaluate four listed substances and six substances under consideration for listing, due to the mechanism questioned in the case.
The role that Iarc plays in the US regulatory process has recently come under fire by the American Chemistry Council (ACC). The National Institute of Health's funding of the international agency is also being investigated by a US House oversight committee.
Oehha received more than 9,300 written comments in response to its notice of intent to list glyphosate.
The agency says it is reviewing these, prior to making a final listing determination; it does not have a target date or deadline for that decision.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50737/monsanto-counters-oehha-motion-to-dismiss-prop-65-case
-
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Round-Up
Nov 3, 2016 | Chemical Watch
IRIS review of ethyl tertiary butyl ether
Comments are available in response to the EPA's draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) toxicological review of the fuel additive ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE).
Commenting organisations include:
the American Petroleum Institute (API);
the American Chemistry Council (ACC);
the Japan Petroleum Energy Center (JPEC); and
LyondellBasell.
BOSC meeting
The EPA has given notice of a meeting of its Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Chemical Safety for Sustainability subcommittee. It will take place 16-18 November in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
The proposed agenda includes:
an overview of materials provided to the subcommittee;
a review of EPA's Office of Research and Development's (ORD) chemical safety for sustainability research programme;
a short update from ORD's Human Health Risk Assessment Research Program; and
a poster session and discussion.
Requests for the draft agenda, or for presenting written or oral statements at the meeting, will be accepted until 14 November. Attendees must register by 10 November.
The Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) is a federal advisory committee that gives advice and recommendations to the EPA's ORD on technical and management issues of its research programmes.
SAB meeting
The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) has announced a public meeting of the chartered SAB to:
conduct a quality review of the draft SAB review of the EPA's proposed methodology for mortality risk valuation estimates for policy analysis;
discuss information provided by the EPA on planned actions in the spring 2016 semi-annual regulatory agenda, and its supporting science;
discuss information about shipboard treatment efficacy in the SAB report, Efficacy of ballast water treatment systems; and
receive briefings on future topics from the EPA.
The meeting will take place from 30 November to 1 December in Arlington, Virginia.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50687/us-epa-round-up
-
Endocrine Disruptors: How We Lost Track of Scientific Focus
Nov 3, 2016 | Endocrine Science Matters
By Rainer von Mielecki
Hormones were discovered about 100 years ago and scientists have been looking at their impact on living species ever since. More recently, such investigation has expanded to chemical substances that impact the endocrine system, such as birth control pills and even crop protection products. However, it has often been muddied by premature conclusions about cause and effect that subsequently result in misleading communication to the public.
Today, public discussion about endocrine disruptors – probably due to publication bias – has focused on several useful chemicals, ignored benefits versus real world risks, mixed political opinion with scientific assessment and subsequently, has led to regulations that are not in the best public interest. Unfortunately, all of these efforts set us back in endocrine science, rather than advance it.
Looking back on my 30-year career in endocrine science, it seems we’ve lost track of scientific focus along the way. This should be a wake-up call to all stakeholders to regroup on and rethink the “endocrine disruptor debate.” Applying the highest standards of science to regulation, after all, should not be debatable.
Discovery of Endocrine Activity
Endocrine science arguably began in 1905 when Ernest Starling, a professor of physiology at University College London, UK, first used the word “hormone.” Derived from a Greek word meaning “to arouse or excite,” hormones he defined as “the chemical messengers, which speeding from cell to cell along the blood stream, may coordinate the activities and growth of different parts of the body.” Then Friedrich Gudernatsch found in 1912 that extracts of horse thyroid tissue can induce precociously the complete metamorphosis of frog tadpoles into adults. And in 1939, Adolf Butenandt won the Nobel Prize for discovering the chemical structure of the female hormone estrogen.
As hormones are involved in many developmental processes, including sexual differentiation, libido, ageing and reproduction, they have caught public interest and imagination more than many other biological functions. In other words, dealing with hormones is highly emotional. I learned that at the beginning of my career in 1986 when I was responsible for correspondence between German pharmaceutical company Schering AG and transsexual people, who were helped by the company’s hormonal products with their sexual identity, and with concerned patients who were afraid of the contraceptive pill’s potential side effects, such as cardiovascular disease or breast cancer. (Schering developed the first oral contraceptive pill in Europe in 1961.)
Wanted and Unwanted Effects
At Schering in those days, a large number of scientists – from pharmacologists, endocrinologists, toxicologists to gynecologists and epidemiologists – were working on assessing potential relationships between exposure to hormones and disease in order to determine so-called unwanted effects. The results of their thorough research found its way into drug package inserts for patients and consumers. People that used Schering drugs or those of other pharmaceutical companies often found technical drug information difficult to understand. Scientists, whether from academia, industry or government institutions, found it difficult to talk to non-scientists in a meaningful way. The reason is because science is complex and most scientists do not want to oversimplify so they tend to confuse non-experts with a lot of detail, open questions and scientific uncertainties.
And this is where the problem regarding endocrine disruption started. How can anyone who is not an expert (we are all non-experts in most areas) know whether a chemical substance causes health problems, say endocrine disruption, or not? What do we know for certain? Is there a high or low probability of potential damage – or none at all? Who should we believe?
One issue when discussing potential unwanted health effects is to convince non-experts that two incidents occurring at a similar time are often not causally linked. For example, as ice cream sales increase, the rate of drowning deaths increases sharply. Therefore, ice cream consumption causes drowning.
The aforementioned example fails to recognize the importance of time and temperature in relationship to ice cream sales. Ice cream is sold during hot summer months at a much greater rate than during colder times and it is during these hot months that people are more likely to engage in activities involving water, such as swimming. The increased drowning deaths are simply caused by more exposure to water-based activities, not ice cream. The stated conclusion is false.
Psychologically, humans have a strong tendency to link similar, temporal events to the same cause even when they are not related. From a scientific point of view, such cause and effect links are often wrong. Experts and journalists should have communicated this general fact more clearly in the past.
At the same time, judgments need to be made and communicated once there is relevant evidence that two events are causally linked, then regulatory steps need to be taken to protect human health and the environment. For example, the Swiss pharmaceutical company Roche studied in the 1960s the product Accutane to treat severe acne. When animal experiments with rabbits showed a causal link to birth defects, the company immediately warned doctors and patients, and restricted use of the drug that was regarded as an essential treatment by dermatologists and psychologists. In 2001, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced a new regulatory scheme called SMART (System to Manage Accutane-Related Teratogenicity) requiring Roche to provide training materials to doctors, who have to sign and return a letter acknowledging they have reviewed the materials. With signed letters in hand, Roche sends stickers to doctors, who must place them on prescriptions given to patients after confirming a negative pregnancy test. In addition, prescriptions can only be written for 30 days and not refilled, thus requiring a new pregnancy test for each prescription. In this case, communication was rapid and effective.
It often takes a thorough expert assessment to determine whether a cause and effect relation is plausible or not. As the cases above show, there is no reason to ban ice cream sales during summer, however, pregnant women must be prevented from taking Accutane.
Information and Informed Decision-Making
Back to my days at Schering: Did it matter to regulators whether the potential unwanted effects of the birth control pill were causally linked to taking a drug or not? Only to some extent. Regulators insisted that hints of potential side effects were included in the package insert and patient information regardless of whether a causal link had been established. The drug itself was not banned as this was not seen as a proportionate action to the potential risk.
Thirty years later, research on hormones in the medical area goes on and by the very nature of research, there are always new things to be discovered and many questions remain yet unanswered. The “pill scares” of the 1980s have ebbed and the media seem to have lost interest. Oral contraceptives, which we would probably call endocrine disruptors today, are a frequent choice for family planning and users weigh the benefits higher than risks. Common understanding in the assessment of benefits and risks among the public, regulators and scientists has increased over time.
Rise of Endocrine Disruptors
In 1992, I left Schering and joined the Swiss chemical company Ciba. By 1995, I was asked to join a team tasked with enhancing the company’s understanding of so-called “endocrine disruptors.” Ciba was interested in this area as it produced anti-fouling chemicals for paints to control algae growth on the underside of boats. These chemicals were suspected as potential endocrine disruptors and later banned internationally because of endocrine-disrupting effects on marine invertebrates (e.g., snails). Joining Ciba from a pharmaceutical company whose core competency had been endocrinology, I was not immediately convinced that extremely low-dose environmental residues from chemicals could lead to massive and broad unwanted effects. Clearly, more research was needed to better define the issue.
In the early 1980s at university, I learned about the endocrine-disrupting effects of DDT on eggshell glands of birds of prey. The birds had obviously consumed meat from dead sheep that were previously bathed or dipped in a high-dose DDT bath to kill insect parasites on their skin. Exposure to and dosage of potent DDT must have been so high that damage was caused to the birds. Further research established that those findings were dose-dependent. It is regrettable that this happened. But could “endocrine disruption” be caused by extremely low doses and unclear exposure?
It had taken more than 20 years to go from Schering’s first structural identification of estrogen and Butenandt’s discovery to marketing the first European contraception pill Anovlar. Natural estrogen does not pass through the human liver without being metabolized. Schering and others had to synthesize a highly persistent estrogen called Norethisterone in order to reach target organs in the body after passing through the liver. This synthetic estrogen had to be very potent in order to interfere reliably with the female menstrual cycle. On the backdrop of that knowledge, and even when taking into account that the route of exposure may not always be oral, I find it difficult to believe in the real world relevance of low-dose “endocrine disruptors” in the environment.
Environmentalists Leading Debate
With even greater surprise I realized in 2008 while working for Germany’s BASF SE Crop Protection that the new European Pesticide Regulation 1107/2009 was to include hazard-based cut-offs for endocrine disruption. What happened?
A considerable number of environmentally concerned scientists in the U.S. and Europe, many from academia and often in close collaboration with environmental NGOs, had undertaken research for more than 30 years on potential endocrine hazards based on the conviction that the release of some synthetic chemicals in the environment posed a major risk and had to be significantly reduced or even banned. Reports from these scientists on the potential adverse effects of chemical substances such as phthalates, Bisphenol A or flame retardants in small quantities ubiquitous in modern consumer products and packaging, led to media reports and consequently, public and regulatory concern.
Scientific Shortcomings
Publications on “endocrine disruptors” were neither able to address uncertainties nor shed light on the true extent of the problem. Also, probable causal relationships based on relevant scientific signals or evidence have not been established in many cases. Many findings could not be confirmed in repeated experimentation. Such failure to reproduce results may infer that there are other variables or factors inadequately controlled which influence the outcome of these studies. In other words, biology is more complex than scientists understand.
On this backdrop, concerned environmental and other scientists started to focus on concepts such as endocrine disruptor “low-dose effects,” “non-monotonic dose responses” and “cumulative toxicity” that most probably should not have relevance to current regulatory practices. Not surprisingly, a key scientific paper published in the prestigious journal Science, which helped launch the movement against endocrine disruptors, was retracted and its author found to have committed scientific misconduct. Another debate that caused public concern had been about endocrine disruptors and observations of falling sperm counts in men in Denmark. These first findings could not be repeated in a publicly paid for follow-up study and its contradicting results were never fully published in a peer-reviewed journal. The data from 16 years of comprehensive sampling of the most relevant men showed that there was little evidence of any decline in sperm counts from the thousands of samples taken.
Risk of Only Seeing What You Want
Where does this story leave me when considering endocrine disruptors, scientists, regulators and the public? There is a real risk that scientists with a political agenda – and certainly, we all have our agendas – may fall victim to bias, such as “concerned environmentalists” seeing what they want to see.
Those scientists tend to disregard the falsifiability paradigm of Sir Karl Popper that was hammered into my brain by my biology professor when I studied at the Free University of Berlin 40 years ago. For Popper, a theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments. If the outcome of an experiment contradicts the theory, one should refrain from ad hocmaneuvers that evade the contradiction merely by making it less falsifiable.
It is my understanding that many environmental scientists as well as other scientists in the endocrine field, try hard to support their hypotheses and not expose them to falsifiability. They should ask to be challenged by the more traditional hormone scientists in pharmacology and toxicology. Unchallenged hypotheses do not lead to new insights, rather they carry the risk of bias and controversy in the scientific community. Political opinions may then trump science and regulators make decisions that may not be in the best public interest. Most importantly, society will waste resources that could be better focused on further advancing science.
Potency Matters
Moreover, consumers could be manipulated to their disadvantage. If not shared with them (other than in drug package leaflets) whether high or low chances of a causal relationship between exposure to a chemical and a disease exists, they will not be able to make rational decisions. If they are made to believe their health is at risk from endocrine low-dose effects or cumulative effects of certain chemicals in the environment, they will find it hard at the same time to identify risks from potent chemicals or those with high-dose effects and learn to avoid them. Potent chemicals could include pharmaceuticals (e.g., hormonal medications, certain pain killers or antipsychotics), whereas less potent food ingredients may be consumed above a healthy physiological level (e.g., sugar at high doses).
Pharmaceuticals and certain food ingredients have to be potent and/or highly dosed in order to produce desirable effects. However, chemical residues in the environment normally do not have such effects, nor are they intended to. The hormonal system has developed robust stability throughout human evolution in order to protect individuals and species against environmental fluctuations to low-potency compounds. Only very strong environmental interferences, such as birth control pills, can break this robustness, not low-dose residues of natural or synthetic chemicals in the environment.
Food for Thought
Working for a chemical company, it is not up to me to tell others how to do better, nor am I the most qualified individual to do so. However, based on my 30-year, limited experience with hormonal science and endocrine disruptors, here are a few discussion points:
Scientists from academic and industry backgrounds alike should be more open and honest and go back to Popper’s falsifiability paradigm. Experts from all areas of expertise – from toxicology, pharmacology and endocrinology to epidemiology should critically look at today’s hypotheses in endocrine disruptors and together define a way forward. The values and beliefs of one expertise group – concerned environmental scientists – should not trump all others. It is incumbent on regulatory scientists to conduct a weight of evidence analysis of hypotheses proposed by endocrinologists and NGOs, whereas it is incumbent upon endocrinologists and NGOs to understand how regulatory science is performed (e.g., the impact of general toxicity on endocrine endpoints, potency, exposure, etc.). If there are any deficiencies in chemical/toxicity management, these scientists should work together to address shortcomings. Neither scare tactics nor deniability will improve the safety of new chemicals in the future.
Regulators should base their decisions on real world observations in order to protect the health of people and the environment most effectively. To concentrate regulation on speculation rather than on probable causes takes the focus away from what really matters and thus may do more harm than good. Decisions should be based on science, not speculation.
Consumers should receive information that differentiates between the most probable unwanted effects and the most unlikely effects, such as drug patient leaflets. Experts owe this to non-experts, particularly in an area that is so heavily influenced by emotions as hormones. This will enhance informed decision-making and may lead to rational consumer behavior and better political debates.
Finally, I am worried if the endocrine disruptor debate continues as it is today, we will keep “looking under the wrong lamp post” instead of identifying relevant causes of endocrine-related diseases. This will not provide additional protection for the environment, science, regulation or consumers. The fathers of hormonal science – Butenandt, Starling and Gudernatsch – would like us, I am sure, to build on their formidable heritage from 100 years ago to ensure that cause and effect are linked by evidence based on the highest standards of today’s science.
Rainer von Mielecki is vice president of Global Public & Government Affairs Crop Protection at BASF SE inLudwigshafen, Germany.
http://endocrinesciencematters.org/endocrine-disruptors-lost-track-scientific-focus-rainer-von-mielecki/
-
An Appeal for the Integrity of Science and Public Policy
Nov 3, 2016 | Toxicology
By Dr. Gio Batta Gori et al.
We, scientists and signatories of this appeal assert our concern for the erosion of scientific principles in the purported validation of experimental evidence, which is manifest in arguments disguised as true science. Such arguments are used to simulate and exaggerate hazards and risks that justify official intervention policies in health, safety and environmental issues. This erodes public confidence in science and government, leads to misallocation of public resources, cause massive economic distortions, and strains court adjudications.
Our concern is motivated by the importance of adhering to the self-evident precepts of the scientific method in arriving at defensible conclusions. Those precepts require observational and experimental data that are authentic and of known measurement error; experimental variables that are relevant to the hypotheses being tested; the control of externalities that may confound observations and experimental results; and reproducibility by other performers or counterfactual verification.
Unlike unbiased science, the spurious science of our concern starts off from arbitrary default assumptions that inevitably yield biased and uninterpretable results, unable to quantify or estimate putative human hazards. Similar concerns apply to advocating premature experimental accounts that are not sufficiently tested and controlled. Examples are found in animal, in vitro and in silico tests of presumed risk factors for human cancer and endocrine disturbances, and in many epidemiologic surveys and environmental impact assessments.
We agree that precautionary policies and regulations may be called for in the absence of firm scientific evidence that would permit an assumption of certainty. However, such precautionary regulations and policies should not be imposed as if grounded on objective science, but should result from public debates on wider issues including economic trade-offs between desirable uses and cautious restrictions on exposure. Rather than being truly precautionary, what might be called pseudo-science is a subterfuge to gloss over arbitrary policies and regulations while claiming to be supported by the impartial objectivity of the scientific method. Indeed, on such shaky grounds the lifestyles, choices, and behaviors of nations are directed, substantial segments of national economies are regulated, and unfortunate transgressors face criminal charges, massive fines and detention.
Science is synonymous with factual representations, and only close adherence to the evidentiary standards of the scientific method has allowed the multiple discoveries that sustain current understanding of the world and related technologies. Remarkably, those standards are not binding in most national and international statutes that discipline the development of public policies and regulations.
Reflecting a tradition of wide administrative discretion, such existing statutes are non-prescriptive on how evidence is to be obtained and considered, at odds with anticipations of clear checks and balances to inform delegated legislative authority. Change seems in order, and we urge legislators to embed the rules of evidence of the scientific method in statutes governing administrative policy and regulations. Such rules would only apply when testable scientific evidence is available – where this is not the case, considerations between precaution and desirable uses would determine policies and regulations.
We believe it is necessary to affirm the reliable and evidence based power of science to ensure the rational and ethical integrity of public policies and regulations, and of legal proceedings. Not only is science in play, but also those ideals of justice and rationality that sustain free intellects, free persons and free societies.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X16301901
-
Washington Investigates Apparent Violations in Children's Products
Nov 3, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The Washington State Department of Ecology is investigating five apparent self-reported violations of cadmium and phthalate levels in children’s products.
Each year, manufacturers of children’s items in Washington are required to report the presence of Chemicals of High Concern to Children (CHCC), under the Children’s Safe Products Act (CSPA).
There were 5,300 reports filed of toxic chemicals in the products, sold between 9 March and 6 September this year. They were from 87 companies.
Washington State of Ecology’s CSPA lead, Tina Schaefer, told Chemical Watch there had been a reduction in the number of self-reported limit violations from ten last year.
She confirmed there had been two apparent state, and three apparent federal, violations, reported by four companies.
According to a report by the NGO Toxic-Free Future, these included:
levels of cadmium, between 100ppm and 500ppm, reported in non-motorised ride-on toys sold by MGA Little Tikes, in excess of the state's 40ppm limit. The company did not respond to Chemical Watch’s request for comment;
cadmium levels, between 100ppm and 500ppm, in textiles of toys and games variety packs sold by Dollar Tree; and
1,000ppm of the phthalate DEHP in toys and games variety packs reported by Dollar Tree, above the federal limit of 1,000ppm.
A spokesperson for Dollar Tree told Chemical Watch that incorrect information from its independent testing lab had been “mistakenly entered” into the state’s database.
And the Department of Ecology's Ms Schaefer said the agency is “currently working with the companies and the CPSA to reach compliance”.
But Toxic-Free Future spokesperson, Ivy Sager-Rosenthal, said that because Washington's rules only require companies to report the product category containing CHCC substances, it was impossible to know the exact products which exceeded the limits.
“The lack of specificity on products is a loophole in the reporting regulation that should be closed,” she said.
This is in contrast to Vermont, where the Chemicals of High Concern in Children's Products Rule will require companies to report at a product-specific level. Industry groups have voiced concerns at the burden this level of reporting will place on regulated parties.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50757/washington-investigates-apparent-violations-in-childrens-products
-
14th Report on Carcinogens Lists Cobalt, Updates TCE Designation
Nov 3, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US Department of Health and Human Services has published the 14th Report on Carcinogens (RoC), with new and updated listings for trichloroethylene (TCE) and cobalt.
In the latest edition, released on 3 November, the agency lists TCE as “known to be a human carcinogen”. Since 2000, the industrial solvent was listed as “reasonably anticipated to be” such. This was updated due to numerous new human studies, showing a causal association between exposure and an increased cancer risk, according to the National Toxicology Program (NTP).
The US EPA has named it as a substance that will be subject to a proposed risk management rule section 6 under TSCA, for its uses in degreasers, spray fixatives and as a stain remover.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has also named TCE a priority for updating its toxicological profile.
Use of the substance in the EU has been banned since last year, except for those granted authorisationunder REACH.
Cobalt
The update to the RoC also added a listing for cobalt and cobalt compounds as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen”. This is consistent with an NTP monograph on the substance, released earlier this year.
The naturally occurring metal is used in such applications as:
rechargeable batteries;
green energy products, like solar panels, electric vehicle batteries, and wind and gas turbines;
various medical uses, including in orthopaedic joint implants; and
pigments used for blue colour in glass, tiles, and ceramics.
The vitamin B12 form is not included in the listing, as it does not release cobalt ions in the body.
The European Commission has been tracking the NTP's formal review of cobalt and its compounds as part of a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) pilot project.
The RoC is a congressionally mandated, science-based public health document, prepared by the NTP. The latest edition includes information on 248 substances. These include 62 listed as known to be a human carcinogen and 186 reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen. It is revised every two years.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50763/14th-report-on-carcinogens-lists-cobalt-updates-tce-designation
-
Industry Body Backs Cosmetics Bill That Better Supports SMEs
Nov 3, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The Independent Cosmetic Manufacturers and Distributors Association (Icmad) has voiced support for a House of Representatives bill that would establish a new national safety standard for the cosmetics industry.
And in letters to congressional leaders, the trade group for SME cosmetic manufacturers said that the overhaul of the regulations, as proposed in the Cosmetic Modernization Amendments of 2015 (HR 4075), would support small business better than two similar bills also up for debate.
The Icmad-backed HR 4075, introduced last year, would amend the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. It calls for strengthening the FDA oversight of cosmetics with a national safety standard for manufacturing.
This is in line with the Personal Care Products Safe Act (S 1014), introduced last year by senators Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), and backed by the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) and a number of large manufacturers.
A similar approach is outlined in a legislation discussion draft released, last month, by representatives Frank Pallone (D-New Jersey) and Leonard Lance (R-New Jersey).
But in a letter to Mr Pallone and Mr Lance, Icmad CEO Pamela Jo Busiek says the bill they authored does not create a national cosmetic safety standard and does little to alleviate the financial pressure regulators put on SMEs.
As for the Feinstein-Collins bill (S 101), Ms Busiek says its definition of a small business falls far short. Any company with more than $500,000 annual revenue, in three consecutive years, would no longer classify, which, she says, is “significantly off the mark”.
“A products business, in the competitive arena of the cosmetic industry, could not survive with revenues at that level,” Ms Busiek says.
State regulations stifling competition
In a separate letter to Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee), chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, she made her argument for a national safety standard for cosmetics.
The FDA currently sets regulations for cosmetic manufacturers, but more stringent state requirements often supersede these.
“Our members do not have the staff required to deal with different state regulations. If the states continue on their current course, [they] may have to forgo selling in states that enforce additional regulatory requirements,” she says. “This puts them at a competitive disadvantage versus some of the bigger companies in the industry.
“A stronger FDA with the power to create a strong national uniformity standard for all aspects of cosmetics regulation, including safety and labelling, will be good for the industry and for consumers.”
The EU already has a national security standard for cosmetics manufacturers.
Congress has adjourned until after the November elections. Bills introduced in the 2015-16 Congress may still be considered during the “lame duck” session, which runs until 3 January 2017.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50753/industry-body-backs-cosmetics-bill-that-better-supports-smes
-
US NTP Assessing Non-Animal Tests for Chemical Developmental Effects
Nov 3, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The National Toxicology Program (NTP) Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM) is soliciting data and information on zebrafish embryo screening tests and protocol designs, including pharmacokinetics measurements.
It will use this to assess the state of the science and determine technical needs for non-animal test methods used to evaluate the potential of chemicals to induce developmental effects in offspring.
NICEATM is particularly interested in how study design may influence measures of toxicity and bioactivity, and the kinetics associated with chemical uptake in zebrafish embryos.
For comparative purposes, the centre is also requesting any available data from in vivo developmental studies using the same chemicals.
The deadline for receipt of information is 30 December.
BSC meeting
The NTP has also announced the next meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC).
The Board is an external advisory group of scientists from the public and private sectors. It will review and provide advice on programmatic activities at its 14-15 December meeting.
Preliminary agenda topics include:
reports from the NIEHS/NTP Director and the NTP Associate Director;
updates on projects and recent meetings;
a report on release of the 14th Report on Carcinogens; and
draft concepts for substances nominated for the Report on Carcinogens.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50773/us-ntp-assessing-non-animal-tests-for-chemical-developmental-effects
-
Study Breaks New Ground on Chemical Effects on Newborns
Nov 3, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
Low-income and Latina pregnant women experience pervasive exposure to environmental toxins, and their infants often exhibit higher levels of the same, a new study shows.
The research, conducted by University of California researchers at the Berkeley and San Francisco campuses, examined 59 chemicals in the blood of pregnant women at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital.
The scientists also took umbilical cord samples after birth. They found that 80 percent of the mothers' chemicals were also present in cord blood.
"Our findings have found that many chemicals do indeed accumulate in the fetal environment and are absorbed at greater levels by fetuses than by the pregnant women themselves," Tracey Woodruff, senior author and director of UC San Francisco's Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, said in a statement.
"This may have significant consequences for the growing fetus," she said, "since many of these chemicals are known to affect development."
The study was published Tuesday in Environmental Science & Technology. State research body Biomonitoring California collaborated on the effort.
Researchers tested for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), banned by Congress in 1976 but still pervasive in the environment.
They also looked at organochlorine pesticides (OCPs); polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), which are ubiquitous flame retardants; and heavy metals like mercury and lead.
"Pregnant women in the U.S. are exposed to many harmful industrial chemicals that have been linked to premature birth, low birth weight, and birth defects, but estimates of how efficiently pollutants are transferred from mother to fetus have varied widely," Woodruff continued.
Conflicting with prior studies, the UC research found several toxins at higher levels in umbilical cord samples than in mothers' blood.
"It is important for researchers to more fully understand chemical exposure trends among women of color, as well as immigrant and low income women, as these populations are often understudied," said lead author Rachel Morello-Frosch, professor at UC Berkeley's School of Public Health, in a statement.
"Our findings highlight the need to inform policymakers and the public about the potential health risks of prenatal chemical exposures and reduce the sources of exposure to these compounds," Woodruff added.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/11/03/stories/1060045239
-
Halting the Flow of Microplastics
Nov 3, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Polly-Anna Ashford
Having investigated the fate of microplastics in different wastewater treatment processes, scientists in the US found that most plants are not designed to fully remove the small litter particles.
Microplastics are tiny particles (<5 mm in size) that arise from the degradation of larger plastics in the ocean as well as direct release from common household products such as toothpaste. Their full potential impact on aquatic ecosystems is still unknown, but they can be ingested by small organisms and may release harmful chemicals.
Melissa Duhaime and colleagues from the University of Michigan now compared the effectiveness of wastewater treatment plants using three different clean-up methods. Interestingly, the majority of particles in all outflow streams were thin textile fibres rather the spherical microbeads found in beauty products, which were easier to remove.
The researchers found that membrane bioreactors, in which waste is digested by bacteria and then filtered through a ceramic membrane, removed the highest amount of small waste particles (>99%). However, only 1% of wastewater in the US is treated this way, and the scientists call for greater regulation of the industry to ensure that changes to wastewater treatment plant design are made.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/halting-the-flow-of-microplastics-/1017634.article
-
Will the Pipeline Fight Affect Future Permitting?
Nov 3, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Tiffany Stecker
The rulemaking for the next round of the five-year nationwide permits from the Army Corps of Engineers was expected to be a relatively low-profile process.
Then the Dakota Access pipeline controversy erupted.
The 1,172-mile-long, $3.8 billion pipeline from Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners has attracted massive attention over the last several months, sparking heated protests and an extensive consultation process between the Obama administration and tribes around the country.
President Obama on Tuesday said the Army Corps of Engineers could reroute the pipeline to avoid areas that are sacred to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (Greenwire, Nov. 2).
At issue is the Army Corps' approval of the crossing under Nationwide Permit 12, a type of general permit that allows developers of utility lines to dig near rivers, streams, wetlands and other water bodies in compliance with the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act.
Nationwide Permit 12 was used to approve the pipeline's crossing through Lake Oahe, a dammed lake on the Missouri River in North Dakota near areas culturally significant to the Standing Rock Sioux.
The tribe has said that the Army Corps in its permit review looked at only the Lake Oahe crossing and related impacts on the tribe, instead of the broader impacts of the length of the pipeline.
And that distinction could affect a suite of permitting guideline revisions set to take effect next year.
"That's maybe something that will come out of these consultations — how should we be looking at large infrastructure permitting?" said Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy, who oversees the Army Corps, in a recent interview.
With the current crop of nationwide permits guidelines set to expire next year, the 2017 rules for the permits were sent to the White House Office of Management and Budget on Friday. That proposal would update 50 nationwide permits for activities that affect mining, farming, commercial development, and oil and gas pipelines. It also includes a popular new permit to fast-track "living" shorelines, structures to control coastal erosion using vegetation and the natural environment (Greenwire, May 23).
The current consultation process between the 567 federally recognized tribes and leaders in the departments of the Interior, Justice and the Army pertains generally to tribal input on infrastructure. But the general conditions of the nationwide permits have been discussed at length, said Maranda Compton, an of-counsel attorney in Van Ness Feldman LLP's Native Affairs practice group.
"The fact that nationwide permits have come up repeated is telling in their relevance and importance, at least in the eyes of the tribes," said Compton, adding that "nationwide permitting, when used in a tribal consultation process, creates an unclear role for the tribes."
The Standing Rock Sioux did comment on Nationwide Permit 12, but most other tribes didn't weigh in, said Compton. The current consultation, in which officials will meet with tribes eight times around the country, could spark a change to the general conditions or a change in the timing of consultations, said Compton.
The National Wildlife Federation, a critic of Nationwide Permit 12, began to advocate for changes in the program around 2010, when the Keystone XL pipeline was undergoing federal review, said Jim Murphy, senior counsel for NWF.
"We think the way that it's currently written is contrary to the Clean Water Act," said Murphy. The review process for Nationwide Permit 12 takes into account individual impacts, but not the cumulative effects of construction on wetlands, streams and other water bodies protected by law.
For utility lines crossing a single body of water more than one time at different locations, or multiple bodies of water at separate allocations, each crossing is considered individually.
Compared with the process for individual permits, the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act reviews of projects that fall under a nationwide permit are limited, said Murphy.
NEPA requires federal agencies to undergo assessments for major projects with potential impacts to the environment. NHPA mandates that agencies take into account the effects of construction to areas of historic significance.
But a rewrite of the nationwide permitting program is easier said than done, said Larry Liebesman, a senior adviser with Dawson & Associates, a government affairs firm that works closely with the corps. The standards that guide the permitting process have a long history, and are unlikely to be significantly modified in the upcoming round of nationwide permits approval.
"I find it highly unlikely that this is going to result in a wholesale change" in how the corps has applied its standards historically, said Liebesman.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/11/03/stories/1060045247
-
Pipeline Expert Slams Corps' Dakota Access Environmental Review
Nov 3, 2016 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Elana Schor
An independent pipeline expert and outside adviser to the DOT found the Army Corps of Engineers' review of the Dakota Access pipeline "seriously deficient" and unable to justify its conclusion that the project would not pose a potentially serious spill risk, according to a report released today by environmentalists.
Richard Kuprewicz, whose consulting firm has worked for the pipeline industry as well as green groups, warned that the broad environmental assessment crafted by the pipeline company for the Corps failed to fully gauge the impact of a possible oil leak and reached conclusions about the landslide risk to the pipeline that verged on "downright false."
The report by Kuprewicz, who also serves on the liquid pipelines advisory committee for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, also found that the assessment's claims of rapid control-room detection of any potential leaks from Dakota Access was insufficiently supported in the report. That warning is similar to concerns raised by green groups and residents of the Nebraska Sandhills region during the height of the controversy over Keystone XL's passage through that environmentally sensitive area.
The Standing Rock Sioux's tribal chairman, David Archambault, seized on the report to urge the Obama administration to order a full-scale environmental impact statement on Dakota Access. President Barack Obama said late Tuesday that the Corps is looking at a possible re-route of the pipeline, and that a decision is not expected for several more weeks.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard#ixzz4OyA2BJFj
-
Where are the Methane Risks for Investors? This Guide Helps Them Find Out.
Nov 3, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Sean Wright
A year ago, a hidden methane leak at SoCalGas’ Aliso Canyon facility drew global attention after ballooning into one of the largest environmental disasters in United States history.
Over the course of three and half months, 109,000 metric tons of methane – a potent climate pollutant – leaked into the atmosphere, costing more than $21 million in wasted natural gas. Total estimated losses to the company and its insurance providers so far: $717 million.
Such dollar figures will catch investor attention. A loss of a valuable resource, in addition to the overall business risk associated with an environmental catastrophe, is not something they wish for. Investors want stability and predictable returns – and they hate waste.
Amazingly, it remains unclear who’s liable for what in the Aliso Canyon leak case, even as lawsuits pile up. Lax or non-existing policies have created uncertainties – not just for local residents and lawyers, but also for those who invest in oil and gas companies.
New guide helps investors ask the right questions
Understandably, investors have raised concerns over the past year about large and small methane leaks across the entire natural gas and oil supply chain. So we recently teamed up with Principles for Responsible Investment to help them better manage methane risks, a potent form of carbon risk that literally leaks away shareholder value.
The outcome is a how-to guide that shows them how companies should measure and report emissions, and what management practices help operators keep more product in the pipe.
A number of investors globally have already committed to using this timely new risk management tool. It’s not hard to understand why.
400 gas storage sites in 30 states pose risk
Aliso Canyon was an outsized example of leaks that continue to occur across the natural gas value chain each and every day.
To this day, there are no sufficient state or national rules requiring operators of 400 similar facilities in 30 states to check equipment for damage. It means that nobody knows how big of a risk any of these gas storage facilities pose.
Accidents aside, natural gas leaks throughout the global oil and gas system cost operators an estimated $30 billion in annual losses, while adding to climate change.
Such leaks are also drawing the scrutiny of regulators and undermining the ability of natural gas to play a role in the transition to a lower carbon energy economy – all significant concerns for investors.
By pushing companies to give accurate information about their methane emissions, investors can begin to understand the extent of the problem, while identifying opportunities for enhanced methane management and climate leadership. Our new guide can help them do exactly that.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2016/11/03/where-are-methane-risks-investors-guide-helps-them-find-out
-
The Natural Gas Model for Emissions Compliance
Nov 3, 2016 | Breaking Energy (in Real Clear Energy)
By Mark Green
In recent months we’ve posted a number of times about how increased U.S. use of natural gas is lowering carbon dioxide emissions by the electricity-generation sector while also making our air cleaner by helping reduce criteria pollutants. Looking ahead, using abundant natural gas offers states a path to continue reducing emissions in a way that’s clean, reliable and affordable.
That’s what ICF International modeling (on behalf of API) found. ICF analyzed each of the pathways under EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan (CPP), as well as one in which market forces determine the fuel generation mix and new capacity additions – as opposed to government-mandated choices. Key findings:
Natural gas in the U.S. power sector will drive emission reductions even without the CPP.
Modeled CO2 emissions under the API reference case – which assumes no CPP, business-as-usual load and natural gas levels in the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) 2015 Annual Energy Outlook high-resource case – are 30 percent lower than 2005 CO2 emission levels.
Total production costs are lowest when market forces drive the future resource mix to achieve compliance – instead of relying on government mandates for energy efficiency or renewables.
Within each of the EPA-defined compliance pathways, the lowest cost solution to meeting compliance also includes the most natural gas generation.
At the core of the analysis is the fact that America’s natural gas resource base has been underestimated, and that when realistic resource levels are factored in, abundant natural gas is the key to lowest-cost emissions reduction.
Above we see that, estimates of recoverable domestic natural gas have grown no matter who has done the estimating. Over the past three years actual U.S. natural gas production has exceeded EIA’s annual high gas resource base projections:
This is due to improved technology by industry, increased efficiency and production growth in response to demand from the marketplace. The fact is most published assessments of the CPP don’t reflect a high-resource reality. As states and regions mull CPP compliance, they should consider the realistic size of the domestic natural gas base.
Under every compliance pathway, the lowest-cost market forces path has the highest natural gas generation:
The increased renewable mandates, which force 161 GW of additional renewable capacity, result in an additional 373 TWh of renewable generation. Yet, only 50 GW of additional natural gas combined cycle capacity could produce that same level of incremental generation.
API Chief Economist Erica Bowman said abundant domestic natural gas is driving “affordable emissions reduction.” The U.S. is leading the world in energy-related CO2 reductions, with carbon emissions at their lowest level in 22 years. Bowman said a number of people are getting the size of the natural gas resource base wrong. Bowman:
“Producers have found a way, even in this really tough price environment for them, to be efficient, to be innovative, to pull up that natural gas … We’re going to continue having low prices because we keep gaining in that efficiency.”
Amy Farrell, market development senior director, said the analysis offers states and others looking to future compliance, a significant data point to consider as they work out their individual compliance strategies. Farrell:
“It tells states … to recognize, at least from our model, when you mandate or have the government pick the pathway, it is more expensive in setting up your compliance path in a way that allows market forces to drive the lowest cost generation path.”
Marty Durbin, market development executive director:
“Instead of telling states what to do … we want to make sure they understand and have confidence in the affordability of natural gas, and correct assumptions is one of the things we do (in the modeling). One of the concerns is that they’ve got such a variety of choices … you could actually see them increase consumer costs, add risk to grid reliability and still not meet the emissions reductions goal. … To quote President Obama a couple weeks ago at South by South Lawn, there’s a world as we want it to be, and there’s a world as it is. We’re showing a pathway, a low-cost option, that can drive emissions while continuing to power the economy, with lower costs to the consumer.”
http://breakingenergy.com/2016/11/01/the-natural-gas-model-for-emissions-compliance/
-
Colonial's Fatal Blast is the Most Serious in a String of Incidents
Nov 3, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan and Mike Lee
The Colonial pipeline, disrupted this week by a fatal explosion and fire in Alabama, has had 183 reports of problems since 2005, according to federal records.
But at least until a spill on the major fuels artery in September, none were deemed serious by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and none involved injuries or fatalities. Company officials said most of the incidents occurred at facilities — only 10 percent were in the pipeline right of way.
The Monday blast and the fire it started closed one of Colonial's two liquid fuel lines. The September spill caused gasoline shortages and price hikes in the Southeast, and the new disruption has raised concerns that they could happen again. Company officials have said the line could reopen as early as Saturday.
The explosion occurred Monday in rural Shelby County, southwest of Birmingham. Authorities were letting the fire burn itself out. It was still burning yesterday, though it had reportedly diminished in size.
The 5,500-mile Colonial pipeline system, put in service in 1963, is the largest U.S. refined products pipeline system. It runs between Houston and the New York City area and can transport up to 100 million gallons of fuel a day.
Koch Industries Inc., the private Wichita, Kan.-based company whose owners have courted controversy with large political contributions, is the largest of five shareholders in the pipeline.
The explosion occurred when a track hoe hit the pipeline Monday afternoon. The nine-member crew was working on the pipeline as part of the repairs from the leak in September. One worker, whose name has not been released, was killed. Five others were injured (Greenwire, Nov. 2).
Colonial has had six other excavation incidents since 2005, none involving injuries or fatalities, PHMSA records show. Three were flagged as "significant." None were in Alabama.
The pipeline company, based in the Atlanta suburbs, got a warning letter from PHMSA in October 2015 after a spill for having an unqualified worker performing tasks at its facility near Jackson, La. Earlier this year, the agency sent a similar warning letter asserting that the company had failed to do required inspections for 42 mainline valves. In both cases, PHMSA opted not to pursue enforcement actions.
The 183 incidents since 2005 have caused about $45 million in property damage and released nearly 200,000 gallons of hazardous liquids. In that time, PHMSA has proposed $381,000 in penalties. The most common cause, cited in 114 cases, was "material/weld/equipment failure."
"That number of incidents on a pipeline is an unusually large number," said Richard Kuprewicz of Accufacts Inc., a pipeline incident investigator with 40 years' experience. But he added that without a detailed look, he couldn't judge how problematic the record of incidents is.
He said it's a "fair question" for people to ask why the operator has had two disruptive accidents in as many months. But he said investigators likely won't be able to say for months whether they reflect deeper problems with control of the system or they're a run of bad luck.
"We just don't have the evidence," Kuprewicz said.
The company's spill record is in the middle of the pack compared to operators of similar pipelines, according to researchers at the Pipeline Safety Trust.
On an incident-per-mile basis, Colonial is better than the national average for the last 10 years and the amount spilled is smaller than other pipelines, said PST Executive Director Carl Weimer.
"Not sure that means they are safer or that the national averages are not a high bar to beat," Weimer said.
Before 2006, Colonial had several high-profile spills and leaks going back to the 1980s. In 1980, the pipeline developed two leaks simultaneously at a site near Manassas, Va. About 8,000 barrels of jet fuel was spilled into a creek. An investigation found that corrosion had eaten through most of the pipe, and a National Transportation Safety Board report said that the Transportation Department and the pipeline industry should jointly research ways to reduce corrosion.
NTSB records indicate Colonial had a string of spills in the late 1990s in Tennessee and Georgia.
Company officials have defended their safety record.
"We have robust system integrity, inspection and maintenance programs that meet or exceed all federal regulatory requirements," a company spokesman said in a statement. "When incidents do occur, we investigate and determine the cause alongside government regulators, and take corrective actions based on lessons learned to minimize the likelihood of similar events happening again in the future."
PHMSA issued a statement saying its personnel are on-site and investigating the blast.
"If PHMSA determines the operator has violated any Federal pipeline standards, the agency can issue an enforcement action, levy civil penalties, or refer the case for criminal investigation," the statement said.
Democratic leaders on the House Energy and Commerce Committee urged the Department of Transportation yesterday to investigate the pipeline company (Greenwire, Nov. 2). The letterfrom House Democrats also noted a 4,000-gallon spill September 2015 spill near Centreville, Va., and incidents in North and South Carolina and Virginia.
Click here, here, here and here to see NTSB's reports on earlier spills.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/11/03/stories/1060045211
-
UPS Opposes STB's Proposed Reciprocal Switching Rule
Nov 3, 2016 | Progressive Rail Roading
United Parcel Service (UPS) will consider ending its use of railroads for the transportation of containers and trailers if theSurface Transportation Board (STB) adopts new regulations that allow for competitive or "reciprocal" switching, the company said in a letter to the board.
UPS late last week wrote to the board to express its opposition to the STB's proposed rule that would require reciprocal switching, which would allow shippers to switch cargo among large railroads if the shippers can show the arrangement is necessary to provide competitive rail service.
In its letter addressed to STB Chairman Daniel Elliott III and board members Deb Miller and Ann Begeman, UPS noted that it has been using truck-rail intermodal service for nearly 40 years. If finally implemented, the STB's proposed reciprocal switching rule would "lead to decreased network velocity, diminished capital investments into the freight-rail network and deteriorating rail intermodal service levels," UPS Vice President-Corporate Transportation Kenneth Buenker wrote.
Ultimately, if rail intermodal service levels fall below UPS standards, "we would have no business option but to move these containers and trailers back onto the highway," the letter stated.
The letter also noted that UPS moves 3,000 containers and trailers on the rail network each business day, making it one of the largest corporate customers of the Class Is.
The STB's proposed rule involves "reciprocal" or "competitive switching," which refers to a situation in which a railroad that has physical access to a specific shipper facility switches rail traffic to the facility for another railroad that does not have physical access, according to the STB. The second railroad pays the railroad that has physical access, typically in the form of a per-car switching charge.http://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/UPS-opposes-STBs-proposed-reciprocal-switching-rule--49977
-
EPA Rule Proposal Keeps Focus on Background Ozone
Nov 3, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
For U.S. EPA, background ozone remains a forefront issue.
That's the message the agency seeks to convey in draft regulations released yesterday for implementation of its 2015 ozone air quality standard. Once made final, the rule will set requirements for states with areas that don't comply with the latest threshold; for some, background ozone &mdash or "U.S. background" (USB), as EPA calls it &mdash is a serious concern.
After hosting a workshop in Phoenix on the topic this past February, EPA "continues to refine and conduct its national and global model simulations to better characterize USB and is actively evaluating the need for further guidance and/or rules to address USB based on feedback received," the agency said in the proposed rule.
Last month, EPA officials wrapped up their first update since 2007 to the "exceptional events" guidance designed to give states a pass on air pollution exceedances, such as those resulting from wildfires and stratospheric ozone intrusions, outside of regulators' control.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy's decision in October of last year to cut the ground-level ozone standard from 75 parts per billion to 70 ppb heightened concern over background ozone, particularly among regulators in the West, where USB levels tend to be higher.
Besides the exceptional events guidance, EPA also cites Clean Air Act provisions that factor in emissions from rural and international sources as options for addressing background ozone. But a survey released in June 2015 by the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies, which currently includes 20 states, found "significant limitations," including "a lack of familiarity with those tools as they relate to ozone" and outdated guidance on how states are supposed to make use of them.
Ozone, a lung irritant that can trigger asthma attacks and aggravate other respiratory ailments, is spawned by the reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunlight. While most violations of federal benchmarks result from emissions sources within the United States, foreign sources can also play a role, EPA said in the draft implementation regulations released yesterday, adding that the agency will continue to work "to better understand the extent and implications of transboundary flows of air pollutants and, where possible, to mitigate their impact on U.S. domestic air quality."
The proposed regulations will have a 60-day public comment period when published in theFederal Register (E&ENews PM, Nov. 2). They generally follow the model that EPA adopted for implementation of the previous 75 ppb ozone standard set in 2008, according to the agency.
In an interview this morning, Clint Woods, the association's executive director, called their release "highly relevant" but added that states are also looking forward to revised federal guidance on air quality models and other issues that will come into play in working toward compliance with the more stringent ozone standard.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/11/03/stories/1060045244
-
Climate Diplomats to Meet on Implementing Paris Accord
Nov 3, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The top climate change diplomats from the world’s nations will meet next week in Morocco to start discussing how to implement last year’s Paris climate agreement.
The conference, dubbed the 22nd Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or COP 22, will start the day before Election Day in the U.S., when voters could decide to elect Republican nominee Donald Trump, who has pledged to pull out of the pact.
Trump’s candidacy and a high-profile court battle over the future of President Obama’s Clean Power Plan are two major clouds over the conference, as diplomats from around the world fear the United States will not up to its commitments under the nonbinding accord.
But the Obama administration’s main representatives to the meeting aren’t deterred.
“I think there is a great deal of interest, not just domestically, but internationally, in terms of what the election outcome will be,” John Morton, director for climate and energy at the White House National Security Council, told reporters Thursday. “The candidates have very different views on climate.”
But Morton said countries around the world are starting to see the “inevitability” of transitioning toward clean energy, no matter what happens in the United States.
“We will continue to see countries moving forward at a fast clip, irrespective of what happens next Tuesday,” he said.
Jonathan Pershing, climate envoy at the State Department, said there are procedures for pulling out of the pact, as Trump has promised, but stressed the benefits of remaining in it.
“At the moment, I don’t think that’s very likely. My sense is frankly that there are going to be huge domestic advantages to staying in this agreement and to doing the work that we’ve agreed to do,” Pershing said, saying the United States sees investment opportunities and reduced impacts of climate change from the pact.
Nearly 200 nations struck the deal last December, making it the first global climate pact that put developed and developing countries on a similar footing.
It is due to take force Friday. But its emissions limits are not binding, so a future president could simply not try to meet the United States’s pledge of a 26 percent to 28 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Pershing and Morton said the top goals for the Obama administration at the meeting in Marrakech revolve around implementing the pact, with a goal of finalizing guidelines for emissions reporting and other major questions by 2018.
“We are working to develop the rules and the guidelines that will give more flesh on the framework we developed in Paris,” Pershing said.
But he also wants to make sure world leaders know the United States remains committed on climate change, no matter what happens with domestic policy.
“We are seeking to make the world aware that we are continuing to prioritize this issue,” he said. “Paris is not the end. Paris is a step. This is the first phase of the implementation agenda.”
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/304160-climate-diplomats-to-meet-on-implementing-paris-accord
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested