Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 28/9/17
-
(ACC Blog) Federal Court Says Soda Warning Labels Are Unconstitutional
Sep 28, 2017 | American Chemical Matters
In a victory for all Americans who believe they have a right to consumer information that is accurate and based on fact, a federal appeals court unanimously ruled last week to block a San Francisco ordinance that it said likely violates the First Amendment right to free speech. -
(ACC Mentioned) Top 10 Reasons to Reject Trump’s Chemical Safety Nominee
Sep 28, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber
Next week, a key Senate committee will consider the nomination of Michael Dourson to oversee chemical safety at the Environmental Protection Agency. Here are the top 10 reasons senators should reject his nomination. -
Industry Gains Clout Within Pruitt's EPA
Sep 28, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken an industry-friendly turn under the Trump administration. -
Michael Dourson’s Toxic Wake: Locations Across the US Contaminated by Eight Chemicals “Blessed” by Trump EPA Toxics Nominee
Sep 28, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Samantha Lovell
Next Wednesday, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of Michael Dourson – who has made a career as a chemical industry hired gun – to lead the EPA toxics office. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump-Pruitt EPA Vets Industry Anti-Scientists for SAB
Sep 28, 2017 | National Resources Defense Board
By Jennifer Sass
The Pruitt-Trump Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is sweeping out the old and inviting in the new, with a fresh slew of Science Advisory Board (SAB) members. As per normal, EPA initially invited public suggestions for nominees and then issued a long list of nominees (132 individuals) for public comment, before making its final selection of the approximately 50 final members. -
(ACC Mentioned) Pregnant Women and Children Urged to Avoid Toxic Flame Retardants
Sep 28, 2017 | Consumer Affairs
By Mark Huffman
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued a guidance, saying pregnant women and young children should avoid exposure to flame retardants often found in a wide range of consumer products. -
CPSC Warns Manufacturers, Consumers About Flame Retardants
Sep 28, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The Consumer Products Safety Commission has urged manufacturers to stop using organohalogen flame retardants in certain items and encouraged consumers to demand products free from them. -
CPSC Warns Consumers: Avoid Toxic Flame Retardants
Sep 28, 2017 | National Resources Defense Council
By Daniel Rosenberg
Today’s Federal Register contains a notice from the Consumer Product Safety Commission that everyone should read. In two pages, the CPSC warns consumers that dozens of related chemicals, called organohalogens (including the brominated flame retardants, BFRs), are too toxic to be used in baby products and home furnishings any longer. -
Citing Risks to Kids, Feds Call for Flame Retardant Limits
Sep 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
The Consumer Product Safety Commission is urging manufacturers, retailers and consumers to avoid exposing pregnant women and kids to a broad class of chemicals that are commonly added to foams, textiles and plastic in a bid to improve resistance to fire. -
Walmart Announces Updated Safer Chemicals Policy to Restrict Toxic Chemicals
Sep 27, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Mike Schade
Today Walmart, the world’s largest retailer, announced an updated Sustainable Chemistry policy to eliminate toxic chemicals in thousands of products such as household cleaners, cosmetics and skincare items, and infant products. -
Walmart Pushes Companies to Get Products Verified by EWG
Sep 28, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis
Walmart, the biggest brick-and-mortar retailer in the world, announced this week it is encouraging all companies that sell personal care products in its U.S. stores to get the EWG VERIFIEDTM seal. -
Echa's Risk Committee Focuses on Occupational Exposure for Carcinogens
Sep 28, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa's Risk Assessment Committee (Rac) is evaluating dossiers on worker exposure for three genotoxic carcinogens, as part of the European Commission's efforts to set binding occupational exposure limits (OELs). -
European Parliament Committee Blocks EDC Criteria
Sep 28, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Rebecca Zainzinger
Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) today voted to object to the European Commission's proposal for scientific criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). -
PHMSA Nominee Dodges Pipeline Questions
Sep 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
The Trump administration's nominee to lead the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration easily navigated a confirmation hearing before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee yesterday, highlighting his four decades of experience in the rail industry and deflecting questions about the agency's role in pipeline oversight with promises to study up. -
NTSB Turning to Voluntary Recommendations
Sep 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Safety watchdogs at the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) are starting to favor recommending voluntary measures to industry rather than demanding regulatory changes, an agency pipeline official said. -
Senators Omit Climate Threats in National Security Hearing
Sep 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Adam Aton
Senators ignored climate change yesterday at a hearing on threats to the United States. But its effects got plenty of attention. -
Seattle Goes Strawless to Cut Plastic Pollution
Sep 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Rob Hotakainen
They're calling it Strawless in Seattle, a campaign to get people to "stop sucking" on plastic and help marine life at the same time.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Industry and Association News
-
(ACC Blog) Federal Court Says Soda Warning Labels Are Unconstitutional
Sep 28, 2017 | American Chemical Matters
In a victory for all Americans who believe they have a right to consumer information that is accurate and based on fact, a federal appeals court unanimously ruled last week to block a San Francisco ordinance that it said likely violates the First Amendment right to free speech.
The ordinance in question requires fixed advertising (billboards, bus stops, etc.) for sodas and other sugary non-alcoholic drinks to include a health warning that the court said are “deceptive.” The warning label is required to cover 20 percent of the ads and state: “WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay. This is a message from the City and County of San Francisco.”
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the First Amendment rights of companies who make those drinks and want to advertise their products were likely violated by the ordinance because the label is misleading, inaccurate and controversial. The court wrote that it is unconstitutional for “the state to require corporations to provide one-sided or misleading messages” and the message “is deceptive in light of the current state of research.”
In the opinion, the court also pointed out that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concluded that added sugars are “generally recognized as safe” and “can be a part of a healthy dietary pattern when not consumed in excess amounts.”
A growing problem
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. In fact, it is another example of cities and states mandating or proposing to mandate that certain products carry warning labels that are not backed by science and that imply dire health effects will materialize by using a product.
Consider Hawaii where state lawmakers introduced a bill requiring permanent warning labels on cell phones to address unfounded concerns about radiation. The law was proposed even though the Federal Communications Commission says there is “no scientific evidence to date that proves that wireless phone usage can lead to cancer or a variety of other health effects, including headaches, dizziness, or memory loss.” Other agencies, including the FDA and National Cancer Institute came to similar conclusions.
Notice a pattern of lawmakers disregarding science?
Back in California, the state’s infamous Proposition 65 law, which requires warnings on anything that contains one of almost 900 substances, zeroed in on coffee and french fries. What triggered the warning labels for them? It’s a naturally occurring substance called “acrylamide,” which can cause cancer at extremely high doses. You would have to eat 182 pounds of french fries a day to even reach the level that could cause cancer. Does the label explain that fact? Nope.
When was the last time you ate 182 pounds of french fries in a day? Probably never since the US Department of Agriculture estimates that the per capita consumption of frozen fried potatoes is 50 pounds per year.
Among other controversial additions to the Prop 65 list of substances “known to the State to cause cancer” is glyphosate, which was added this year. Glyphosate is a chemical used in pesticides, and it was added solely on a conclusion reached by the International Agency for Research on Cancer—which has its own troubled history—that the chemical was “probably carcinogenic.”
The problem with that determination is that multiple other studies, international organizations and countries have found that the glyphosate is not a carcinogen. This is another case of science being brushed aside.
The solution
Mandated product warnings that aren’t based on science don’t benefit anyone. They’re misleading to consumers—and potentially counterproductive if consumers shy away from safe and healthy products. But it’s not just good policy based on science that we’re talking about here.
As this most recent case shows, the Constitution itself says that manufacturers shouldn’t be forced by the government to say things about their products that are flatly wrong and misleading to consumers. The bottom line is we deserve information about the products we buy that is accurate and based on fact.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2017/09/federal-court-says-soda-warning-labels-are-unconstitutional/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Top 10 Reasons to Reject Trump’s Chemical Safety Nominee
Sep 28, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber
Next week, a key Senate committee will consider the nomination of Michael Dourson to oversee chemical safety at the Environmental Protection Agency. Here are the top 10 reasons senators should reject his nomination.
1) He’s industry’s favorite scientist for hire.For decades Dourson has been the go-to guy for Monsanto, Dow, Koch Industries and other companies.
2) He’s argued for weak safety standards. Dourson has consistently twisted the science to argue for chemical safety standards far weaker than standards proposed by the EPA and other federal or state environmental health agencies.
3) He greenwashed DuPont’s Teflon chemical. Dourson argued for a standard for PFOA, the cancer-causing compound once used to make Teflon, that was more than 2,000 times weaker than the safety standard recommended by the EPA.
4) He greenwashed rocket fuel. Dourson also argued for a weaker safety standard for perchlorate. It is a jet fuel chemical that harms the development of babies’ brains.
5) He greenwashed 1,4-dioxane. Dourson argued for a standard for 1,4-dioxane that was 1,000 times weaker than the safety standard recommended by the EPA. The likely carcinogen is found in drinking water and cosmetics.
6) He greenwashed the “popcorn lung” chemical. Dourson argued for a safety standard for diacetyl, the food additive that gives microwave popcorn its buttery flavor and causes lung disease in workers, that was 40 times weaker than the safety standard recommended by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
7) He defended a pesticide that harms kids’ brains. On behalf of Monsanto and Dow, Dourson argued in defense of chlorpyrifos, a controversial crop chemical that lowers IQ. He also sought weaker standards for other pesticides linked to cancer.
8) The EPA will review many of the chemicals he’s greenwashed. If confirmed, Dourson will oversee EPA reviews of chemicals he’s previously reviewed for industry interests. This includes TCE, 1,4-dioxane, chlorpyrifos and 1-brompropane.
9) He downplayed the risks of second-hand smoke. Dourson defended his work for the tobacco industry by saying: “Jesus hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors.”
10) He created a bogus chemical website for kids. With funding from the American Chemistry Council, Dourson created a "Kids + Chemicalsafety” website to downplay the risks chemicals pose to children. The site has since been taken down.
http://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2017/09/top-10-reasons-reject-trump-s-chemical-safety-nominee#.Wc0fcrIjHIU1)
-
Industry Gains Clout Within Pruitt's EPA
Sep 28, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken an industry-friendly turn under the Trump administration.
Administrator Scott Pruitt is moving to address several top priorities of the energy, agriculture and automotive sectors and has been meeting frequently with industry representatives, according to his schedules. He has also chosen people with close industry ties for important positions.
It’s a major shift from the Obama administration, when business groups felt that they were shut out of the process.
“It was the Obama administration that abandoned a successful, consensus-based energy strategy that had prevailed throughout the entire post-war period, one that encouraged all energy sources,” said Luke Popovich, spokesman for the National Mining Association.
“The current administration is simply returning to this time-tested approach. Americans are now more likely to benefit from a more secure and resilient grid built on baseload power as well as renewable power.”
The mining association has advocated against the EPA’s rules on toxic water pollutants from coal-fired power plants; its Clean Water Rule, which would have put small waterways under the EPA’s jurisdiction; and its Clean Power Plan, which would have limited carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, among others.
Pruitt has delayed or worked to roll back all of those policies. He also spoke to the group’s leadership in April.
Environmental groups have gotten less attention from the EPA. They fear the agency’s core mission is taking a back seat to the interests of industry.
“This man’s entire career has been devoted to dismantling the EPA, going after the fundamental environmental laws that we all count on to protect public health,” said Liz Perera, climate policy director at the Sierra Club. The group has not met with Pruitt since he was confirmed in February.
“What does surprise us is that the public isn’t as outraged as they should be, and they don’t know.”
The EPA released Pruitt’s meeting schedules from April to September on Friday. The calendar shows that Pruitt has met frequently with industry groups or companies with interests at the EPA, like the American Gas Association, the Auto Alliance, Valero Energy Corp. and state agriculture associations.
“As EPA has been the poster child for regulatory overreach, the Agency is now meeting with those ignored by the Obama administration,” Liz Bowman said. “As we return EPA to its core mission, Administrator Pruitt is leading the agency through process, the rule of law and cooperative
federalism.”At times, Pruitt’s meetings preceded major decisions favorable to those groups or companies. For example, he met with leadership of the Pebble Limited Partnership shortly before withdrawing a proposal from the Obama administration to pre-emptively block a major mining project the company planned in Alaska.
While environmental groups are getting less face time at the EPA, they have not been shut out.
Pruitt’s calendar shows that he has met with officials from the Nature Conservancy, the Audubon Society and Trout Unlimited, as well as Bob Perciasepe, an EPA deputy administrator under President Obama and current head of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.
Pruitt also met in May with leaders from the American Academy of Pediatrics, which advocates for stronger air pollution rules.
In line with the rest of the administration, Pruitt’s biggest focus at the EPA has been reducing regulations. Frequently, he’s taken those actions after receiving an industry request.
His decision not to further restrict the use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos came after pleas from industry. So did his delays of Obama’s methane regulations for oil and natural gas drilling, his postponement of Obama’s rule on chemical plant safety plans and his embrace of industry-supported regulations governing how the agency will review chemicals for safety.
And as Pruitt and Trump move to fill out leadership roles at the 15,000-person agency, they are often recruiting people who have been in the trenches battling EPA regulations.
Michael Dourson, tapped to lead the chemical safety office, has run an organization that conducts industry-friendly analyses of chemicals.
William Wehrum, slated to be the top air regulator at the EPA, is an attorney at Hunton & Williams, representing major business clients who are fighting EPA rules.
Elizabeth Bennett, meanwhile, was recently put in charge of public engagement. She previously lobbied at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.
Business leaders say Pruitt is striking an effective balance and keeping necessary rules and programs in place.
“We have been pleased with the response from EPA regarding eliminating duplicative and ineffective programs as well as regulatory requirements that needlessly delay infrastructure projects,” said Dave McCurdy, president of the American Gas Association.
“We have also highlighted for them programs we believe are vital to maintain, like the Greenhouse Gas Inventory.”
But Pruitt’s actions at the EPA suggest nothing less than an industry takeover.
“The American people expect their public officials to be working on behalf of all of them and not a select few, but with the Trump EPA you see meeting after meeting with industry and then Pruitt acting in their favor,” Liz Purchia, the EPA’s top spokeswoman under Obama, said of Pruitt’s schedule.
“It’s not much of a vision for the agency, it’s just trying to dismantle any action that was done under the Obama administration.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/352790-industry-gains-clout-within-pruitts-epa
-
Sep 28, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Samantha Lovell
Next Wednesday, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of Michael Dourson – who has made a career as a chemical industry hired gun – to lead the EPA toxics office.
In past blogs, we have documented deep concerns about Dourson’s extensive, longstanding ties to the chemical industry in addition to his earlier work for the tobacco industry. Dourson and his company Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA) were paid for their work by more than three dozen companies or trade associations, involving at least three dozen different chemicals.
Several recent news stories and reports have identified examples where Dourson or TERA helped industry play down health concerns about chemicals, including Dourson’s work in West Virginia involving the “Teflon” chemical PFOA and his study funded by Koch Industries in Chicago involving petroleum coke.
To illustrate the real-world impacts of his work, we have identified locations across the country where eight of the chemicals that Dourson has “blessed” have stirred concerns from residents about polluted water, soil, and air or poisoned residents and workers.
Using local and national news articles, and limiting our search to only eight of the many chemicals Dourson has been paid by industry to study, we identified 107 locations in 49 states. Each location is a place where a news story refers to one of the eight chemicals polluting the water, soil, or air or poisoning residents or workers in the area.
Our results – displayed in the map below – are by no means comprehensive, and represent only a fraction of locations affected by chemicals Dourson has worked on for industry clients. The map reveals that the entire country has experienced direct impacts from chemicals that Dourson has argued should have less health-protective standards.
While we didn’t identify a contamination location involving one of the eight chemicals in North Dakota, residents are still likely impacted by many of these chemicals. And, given Dourson’s work on chemicals like flame retardants that have pervaded every home in America, no one can escape the impacts of the chemicals Dourson has “blessed.”
For a full list of the news articles and chemical contamination locations by state, click here. In addition, Environmental Working Group (EWG) has posted interactive maps showing the extent of tap water contamination with 2 of these chemicals, 1-4 dioxane and PFOA, across the nation.
A few examples of the stories represented by the points on the map above include:
· 1,4-dioxane in southeastern Los Angeles County, California: Based on testing by the U.S. Geological Survey reported by EWG, southeastern LA County is one of the hot spots for 1,4-dioxane contamination in tap water across the country. Concentrations found in area water systems ranged from 4-14 times the EPA’s cancer risk level.
· 1-Bromopropane (1-BP) in North Carolina: From the 1990s through the 2000s, OSHA found employees at Royale Comfort Seating Plants in North Carolina were exposed to dangerous levels of 1-BP while working. As of 2011, the company had paid nearly a half-million dollars in court settlements and necessary upgrades.
· Alachlor degradates in Wisconsin groundwater: Statewide testing in Wisconsin revealed degradation products of alachlor –which is a widely used herbicide – across the state in groundwater and wells. The “ESA” degradate of alachlor was the second most commonly detected pesticide in the wells tested.
· Chlorpyrifos in Kauai, Hawaii: EPA filed a complaint with the pesticide producer, Syngenta, in 2016 following a pesticide poisoning on a farm in Kauai. Several farmworkers were hospitalized after dangerous exposure to chlorpyrifos.
· Perchlorate in the Southwest: In 1997, EPA discovered high perchlorate levels in the lower Colorado River and Lake Mead, which provides drinking water to millions in the region. The contamination came from two perchlorate manufacturing facilities in the area, and efforts to clean up the tainted surface water and groundwater are ongoing.
· Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in Hoosick Falls, NY: High levels of PFOA were discovered in the Hoosick Falls community’s groundwater, originating from the Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics facility. In 2017, EPA added the location to the Federal Superfund List.
· Petroleum coke (Petcoke) in Plaquemines Parish area, Louisiana: United Bulk, a coal export facility, was sued in 2014 for discharging coal and petcoke from its facility in Plaquemines Parish into the Mississippi River. The lawsuit was settled in 2015.
· Petcoke in Chicago, Illinois: In 2013, Chicago residents reported concern over windblown dust from piles of petcoke owned by KCBX terminals – a Koch subsidiary – on the city’s Southeast side. One of the facilities has since closed and the other no longer stores petcoke in the open.
· Trichloroethylene (TCE) in the Cheyenne area, Wyoming: TCE was found in the groundwater around several of the Atlas Missile sites – used during the Cold War to hold and prepare nuclear missiles – in the early 2000s. A plume from one site had concentrations of TCE approximately 48,000 times the legal limit.
Senators on the EPW committee should ask tough questions of this nominee next Wednesday, and communities affected by Dourson “blessed” chemicals should urge their Senators to oppose Dourson’s appointment.
We need strong leadership in the EPA toxics office to ensure successful implementation of the newly reformed TSCA and to protect the health of all Americans from toxic chemicals and pesticides.
Otherwise, with Michael Dourson in charge, we’ll just see an even bigger toxic wake.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/09/28/michael-doursons-toxic-wake-locations-across-the-us-contaminated-by-eight-chemicals-blessed-by-trump-epa-toxics-nominee/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump-Pruitt EPA Vets Industry Anti-Scientists for SAB
Sep 28, 2017 | National Resources Defense Board
By Jennifer Sass
The Pruitt-Trump Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is sweeping out the old and inviting in the new, with a fresh slew of Science Advisory Board (SAB) members. As per normal, EPA initially invited public suggestions for nominees and then issued a long list of nominees (132 individuals) for public comment, before making its final selection of the approximately 50 final members.
The list of nominees includes climate-deniers and many people with financial ties to the regulated chemical industry and that would directly and significantly benefit from lax or failed environmental safeguards.
We recognize that industry experts often have information of value to the deliberations of the SAB and the policies of EPA, including for example, technical, scientific, and market data. If industry representatives have relevant contributions to the SAB then invitations to address the committee during public meetings are appropriate.
In our comments to EPA, we emphasized that the SAB would benefit greatly from members with first-hand knowledge and experience in the way that workplaces and communities experience the issues, policies, and subjects that are the deliberations of the SAB. These include for example workers, union health and safety representatives, industrial hygienists, nurses, community health experts, and social scientists. It also includes tribal representatives, environmental justice representatives, and spokespersons for susceptible populations. Such experts bring a field expertise that is tremendously valuable to ground-truth EPA policies and practices.
There are some great candidates on EPA’s list – solid scientists that believe in an EPA where the “E” and “P” really matter. EPA doesn’t have to select an industry-biased financially conflicted Science Advisory Board – and it shouldn’t if it plans to follow its own ethics guidelines! We will be watching.
Some of the representatives of the chemical industries include:
Richard Belzer - Frequent consultant and collaborator with the regulated chemical industry. Although his bio says that he is a “regular contributor to scholarly professions through journal peer review and service to professional societies” he seems to have very few actual publications. A search on PubMed, the NIH library of over 10 thousand scientific and medical journals, turned up only three publications with his name in the last fifteen years.
James Bus - Frequent consultant and collaborator with the regulated chemical industry. Employed by Exponent, Inc, whose clients include many regulated chemical manufacturers and users. Exponent has a portion of its practice dedicated to “Chemical Regulation and Food Safety” where it promises its clients, “high-quality, creative, and practical solutions to problems that affect our clients' ability to conduct business globally”, including access to its staff of “technical and regulatory consultants”. The Exponent website says, “We assist chemical manufacturers, pesticide registrants, grower/commodity groups, and trade associations in dealing with issues that affect their ability to do business effectively…We specialize in resolving difficult pesticide and non-pesticide issues involving the U.S. EPA...”. All these client services are directly financial impacted by EPA actions and SAB deliberations. That is, weakening or avoiding EPA regulations would directly financially benefit Exponent’s clients; placing Exponent staff on the SAB provides a means for Exponent to deliver on these promises to their industrial clients.
John Graham - Founding director of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis which was partially supported by tobacco, chemical, pharma and other industries. According to a website that is no longer publicly available, the Center receives unrestricted grants from 3M, American Chemistry Council, BP America, BASF, Chevron Texaco, Dow Chemical Co, DuPont Agriculture Products, DuPont de Nemours, Electric Power Research Institute, Eastman Chemical Company, ExxonMobil Corporation, FMC Corporation, General Motors, Kraft Foods, Monsanto. Subsequently, as a political appointee under President GW Bush Graham defended the controversial “senior discount” in risk assessment, which essentially devalues the benefits of clean air and safe drinking water for older Americans, weakening environmental safeguards. Recently he defended fracking, writing that, “objective risk assessments suggest that risks are low and controllable through best risk management practices” in a paper funded by his own industry-funded Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.
Michael Honeycutt - The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) under Honeycutt has downgraded the toxicity of about two-thirds of the 45 chemicals it has evaluated through its risk assessment program since 2007, resulting in weakened environmental safeguards, according to a 2014 investigation by the Center for Public Integrity. In a 2015 report co-authored by Honeycutt titled, “Lowering the Ozone Standard Will Not Measurably Improve Public health,” the authors write, “The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality argues that the thoughtful integration of scientific data does not support the assumption that tightening the ozone standard will result in measurable health benefits.” Honeycutt has repeatedly made public statements and testified in Congress to dispute the harmfulness of smog (ground-level ozone) and soot (PM2.5) air pollution. His outlier views on these subjects have been rejected repeatedly and emphatically by EPA’s Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, the Scientific Advisory Board and a vast body of medical science.
Jeffrey Lewis - Employed by Exxon Mobil, one of the largest chemical manufacturers in the country, which has a direct financial interest in EPA policies and SAB deliberations. ExxonMobil has had over 160 environmental violations since 2000, resulting in penalties totaling $670 million dollars. In addition to a long rap sheet of environmental regulatory and criminal violations, in 2015 Exxon was shown to have intentionally misled investors and the public about the financial risks of climate change, while funding climate-deniers and fighting climate-related legislation despite evidence in their own corporate documents acknowledging the real dangers of climate change.
Kimberly White - Employed by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the trade organization for the chemical manufacturing companies including ExxonMobil. The ACC and its member companies have a direct and very substantial financial interest weakening or destroying EPA policies and regulations that would safeguard human health and the environment from toxic industrial products and pollution. For example, EPA enforcement actions in 2014 targeted Shell and DuPont – both ACC members - for dangerous air toxics released during industrial flaring at their refineries and chemical plants; this was noted to be particularly harmful to the health of minority and low-income communities living nearby. ACC member company Arkema Inc recently made national news after it had explosions and toxic chemical spills associated with the flooding from Hurricane Harvey in Texas, initiating an investigation by the Chemical Safety Board. Weakening EPA rules and regulations would bring an immediate and substantial financial benefit to these chemical companies and other ACC members.
In addition to the above chemical industry employees and consultants, a dozen of the candidates are climate science deniers.
As reported in E&E, by News Reporter Scott Waldman (Sept 14, 2017), the following anti-science climate-deniers are also on EPA list of nominees being considered:
Joseph D'Aleo runs climate skeptic websites and has appeared as a speaker at Heartland conferences. D'Aleo said his priority on the board would be attacking the endangerment finding, the legally binding document that holds that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases harm human health and must be regulated by the executive branch. He said he wants to challenge the finding because it could otherwise be used later to build back Obama-era environmental regulations. "We're going to push for reconsideration, start from scratch and put together the best science," he said. "If CO2 is not a serious pollutant, let's focus the attention of the EPA on other issues."
Edwin Berry funded his own climate research and says human carbon dioxide emissions do not cause climate change. He has compared those who believe in human-caused climate change to "Aztecs who believed they could make rain by cutting out beating hearts and rolling decapitated heads down temple steps." On his Twitter account, he has called Islam "a death cult" and has encouraged motorists to drive into protesters. Berry, in an email to E&E News, described his tweet as a joke and said he does not advocate violence…. Berry, who confirmed that he and a number of other skeptics were nominated by Heartland, said he wants to use his position on the board to show that humans barely contribute to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, which he claimed are mostly driven by natural factors. "Let's get over this whole thing about climate change being an important thing, because in fact we humans have a negligible impact on climate," he said.
Alan Carlin, a retired EPA employee who is affiliated with Heartland fought the agency's crafting of the endangerment finding. Carlin, an economist, was at the center of a political firestorm under Obama after he produced a widely criticized 93-page report comprising cherry-picked scientific data and blog entries concluding that regulating carbon dioxide was "the worst mistake that EPA has ever made."
Kevin Dayaratna, a statistician at the conservative Heritage Foundation: His report was cited by Trump as a reason to withdraw from the Paris climate accord. It claimed that the agreement could shrink U.S. gross domestic product by $2.5 trillion within two decades (though Trump stated the impact as coming within a decade). The report was criticized by some as being misleading, because that amount is less than 1 percent of the aggregate GDP over that period and the report did not account for the cost of taking no climate change action. Dayaratna was invited to attend Trump's withdrawal announcement in June in the White House Rose Garden.
Paul Driessen, a senior policy adviser at the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a libertarian environmental think tank: His organization handed out leaflets at a climate protest this year in Washington, D.C., that said, "CO2 is not the 'control knob' of the climate." He also co-founded Climate Exit, or "Clexit," which criticized the science behind the Paris climate agreement and holds that spiking levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide benefit the Earth. "The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade," the group stated in its founding statement. "Man does not and cannot control the climate."
Gordon Fulks, a physicist and adviser to the Cascade Policy Institute, an Oregon-based libertarian think tank: He has denied that net sea ice melt is occurring and that the Earth is warming. He has said those who express concern about climate change are like a "societal pathogen that virulently spreads misinformation in tiny packages like a virus."
David Legates, a professor of climatology at the University of Delaware: He has denied that human-caused climate change could have catastrophic consequences and has co-authored climate research claiming polar bears are not harmed by human-caused climate change that was quietly funded, at least in part, by Koch Industries Inc.”
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jennifer-sass/trump-pruitt-epa-vets-industry-anti-scientists-sab
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pregnant Women and Children Urged to Avoid Toxic Flame Retardants
Sep 28, 2017 | Consumer Affairs
By Mark Huffman
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued a guidance, saying pregnant women and young children should avoid exposure to flame retardants often found in a wide range of consumer products.
The guidance urges consumers to check any children's products such as furniture, mattresses, and the plastic cases on electronic devices for a class of flame retardants known as organohalogens.
This comes a week after the CPSC granted a petition to move forward on new rules that could ban flame retardants altogether.
The North American Flame Retardant Alliance, part of the American Chemistry Council, expressed "extreme disappointment" last week after the CPSC vote. In a statement, the trade group charged the agency failed to consider the fire safety of consumer products.
"There is no reason CPSC commissioners should have to choose between chemical safety and fire safety, as they can have both," the organization said.
Environmental and public health organizations have lobbied for banning organohalogens for the last few years. The Green Science Policy Institute says toxic flame retardants can be associated with chronic diseases like cancer, and have been linked to developmental issues in children.
Sending a signal
"The CPSC recommendation in the Federal Register should send a signal to manufacturers to limit use of all flame retardants in products where they do not provide a fire safety benefit," said Dr. Arlene Blum, Executive Director of the Green Science Policy Institute.
Earthjustice, another environmental group that has been widely critical of organohalogens, says the CPSC is sending a clear message to manufacturers -- make sure chemicals in consumer products, including flame retardants, do not pose a health threat.
“Consumers can’t shop their way out of the problem, which is why a ban is needed," said Eve Gartner, Earthjustice co-counsel. "Today’s warning is a good interim step.”
Rachel Weintraub, legislative director and general counsel at Consumer Federation of America (CFA), cautions that consumers still need to be cautious and shop with care until these chemicals are banned.
Flame retardants in TVs
In a recent report, the environmental group Toxic Free Future said toxic flame retardants continue to be used in many television sets. Specifically, the report alleges that 11 out of 12 TV sets examined had flame retardant concentrations of up to 33 percent of the weight of the plastic case. The report said eight of the TV sets used flame retardants that were "of high concern."
TV sets made by Element and Samsung, the researchers claim, contain the PBDE flame retardant deca-BDE, despite its being banned in Washington, Maine, Oregon, Vermont, and Maryland. The researchers said only one TV in the study, made by Insignia, did not contain any of the flame retardants in the test.
The practice of incorporating flame retardants in consumer products – including children's sleepwear – came in the 1970s after a series of tragic fires.
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/pregnant-women-and-children-urged-to-avoid-toxic-flame-retardants-092817.html
-
CPSC Warns Manufacturers, Consumers About Flame Retardants
Sep 28, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The Consumer Products Safety Commission has urged manufacturers to stop using organohalogen flame retardants in certain items and encouraged consumers to demand products free from them.
The CPSC published a guidance document on 28 September, following up on its historic 3-2 vote a week earlier to move towards a ban on the whole OFR category of chemicals. It will apply to:
· children's products;
· upholstered residential furniture;
· mattresses; and
· the external casings of electronics devices.
The CPSC has not yet banned household products containing the substances or required precautionary labelling, said a Federal Register notice, which announced the publication of the guidance.
However, "based on the overwhelming scientific evidence presented to date", the commission voted to grant a petition by NGOs to initiate rulemaking under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) and directed staff to convene a Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel, "to further study the effects of OFRs as a class of chemicals on consumers' health".
In the notice, it says it "considers the use of OFRs in children's products, upholstered furniture sold for use in residences, mattresses and mattress pads, and plastic casings surrounding electronics to be ill-advised and encourages manufacturers to eliminate using them in such products.
"Further, the commission recommends that, before purchasing such products for resale, importers, distributors and retailers obtain assurances from manufacturers that such products do not contain OFRs."
Finally, it recommends that consumers – especially those who are pregnant or with young children – inquire and obtain assurances from retailers such products do not contain the substances.
"We applaud the CPSC’s action today to warn consumers about these harmful chemicals while the agency moves forward with a ban," said Eve Gartner, co-counsel for Earthjustice.
However, the NGO's statement noted that is impossible for consumers to know for sure if products contain OFRs "because in most cases manufacturers aren’t required to disclose their use of the chemicals".
"Consumers can’t shop their way out of the problem, which is why a ban is needed," Ms Gartner said. "Today’s warning is a good interim step."
Granting the petition and publishing the warning, is likely to be the last official action of the panel's Democratic majority. It will flip to Republican control, once the Senate confirms President Trump's nomination of product liability defence lawyer Dana Baiocco to replace a commissioner whose term expires on 30 September.
https://chemicalwatch.com/59607/cpsc-warns-manufacturers-consumers-about-flame-retardants
-
CPSC Warns Consumers: Avoid Toxic Flame Retardants
Sep 28, 2017 | National Resources Defense Council
By Daniel Rosenberg
Today’s Federal Register contains a notice from the Consumer Product Safety Commission that everyone should read. In two pages, the CPSC warns consumers that dozens of related chemicals, called organohalogens (including the brominated flame retardants, BFRs), are too toxic to be used in baby products and home furnishings any longer.
These toxic and highly persistent chemicals have been foisted on the public for decades by chemical manufacturers as flame retardants, although their ability to actually increase fire safety is marginal at best. Unfortunately, while this class of chemicals lacks fire safety ability, it is increasingly proving its ability to cause health harms to people and wildlife, something the chemical industry continues to deny.
CPSC’s public warning notice recommends that manufacturers, importers and retailers stop using or selling products containing those flame retardants.
The consumer product categories discussed in the warning notice are:
· Children’s toys and child care articles;
· Mattresses and mattress pads;
· Upholstered household furniture (the CPSC does not have jurisdiction over office furniture, but the flame retardants aren’t any safer in those);
· The outer plastic casings for electronics (as opposed to the inner workings on electronics).
Here is part of what CPSC says about the recognized health risks posed by these toxic flame retardants:
“The known adverse health effects of these chemicals to consumers include: reproductive impairment (e.g., abnormal gonadal development, reduced number of ovarian follicles, reduced sperm count, increased time to pregnancy); neurological impacts (e.g., decreased IQ in children, impaired memory, learning deficits, altered motor behavior, hyperactivity); endocrine disruption and interference with thyroid hormone action (potentially contributing to diabetes and obesity); genotoxicity; cancer; and immune disorders. These chemicals have a disproportionately negative health effect on vulnerable populations, including children.”
Wow. OK, so those toxic chemicals in our consumer products threaten the healthy development of our children, but will we actually be exposed to them? Here’s what the CPSC says:
“Scientific evidence to date demonstrate that OFRs [the flame retardants], when used in non-polymeric, additive form, migrate from consumer products, leading to widespread human exposure to mixtures of these chemicals. Exposures to OFRs occur because of the semi-volatile property of these chemicals that results in migration of the chemicals and the chemicals’ absorption into household dust and other surfaces where they persist in the environment. At this time, there is no known way to direct consumers to use affected products in a manner that would guarantee reducing exposures to the American population to an acceptable level. Numerous peer-reviewed, published studies show that the vast majority of consumers have measurable quantities of OFRs in their blood.”
The Safety Commission’s notice comes one week after it voted (3-2) to proceed with a rulemaking to ban the use of the entire class of organohalogen flame retardants (in their additive, non-polymeric form) from all four product categories. Because that rulemaking will likely take years to complete, the Commission resolved to issue a public warning immediately and to request that manufacturers of the products “eliminate the use of such chemicals in these products.” The Commission’s vote was in response to a petition filed in 2015 by a collection of consumer, health, labor and environmental groups including Consumer Federation of America, Earthjustice, International Association of Firefighters, Learning Disabilities Association, and Green Science Policy Institute. The groups petitioned the CPCSC to declare the four categories of consumer products containing the toxic flame retardants to be “banned hazardous substances” under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. The Commission held two sets of hearings on the petition, in December 2015 and earlier this month. NRDC testified in support of the petition at both hearings (see Sass and Rosenberg testimonies), along with dozens of other experts and concerned Americans.
One of the most important aspects of the petition, and the Commission’s actions are its treatment of the organohalogen flame retardants as a class. The Commission recognized the overwhelming evidence that for those members of the class of flame retardants for which information is available, they are associated with a range of adverse health effects and that they should be treated (and banned) as a class, rather than treated individually—an approach that would likely ensure endless substitution of one flame retardant for another, with no meaningful health protection for the public.
Regulating chemicals as a class has plenty of precedent—for PCBs, PFCs, CFCs, asbestos, dioxins and others, but the chemical manufacturers tried to dissuade the CPSC by suggesting that by banning the flame retardants as a class it was striking out into uncharted territory. The Commission wasn’t buying it (the votes in support of initiating the rulemaking and issuing the notice were 3-2).
But that won’t be the end of the story. A strong attempt to block the Safety Commission’s actions can be expected. Stay tuned for the chemical manufacturers’ reaching deep into their usual bag of tricks: cutting off funding for the Commission via appropriations’ “riders,” legislative attempts to overturn the Commission, and legal challenges in court.
The amount of political pressure that the chemical manufactures bring to bear on government agencies like the CPSC, the EPA and the FDA on a daily basis cannot be overstated. They employ and deploy an army of lobbyists, scientists and consultants-for-hire all for the sole purpose of preventing any action by the government to protect the public from their toxic products, or even to warn them of the dangers they pose.
The three members of the Commission who voted to take action to inform and protect the public from toxic flame retardants—Robert Adler, Marietta Robinson, and Elliott Kaye—deserve recognition and thanks from all consumers who want their families to be protected from toxic chemicals in their homes, and want them out of their bodies.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/daniel-rosenberg/cpsc-warns-consumers-avoid-toxic-flame-retardants
-
Citing Risks to Kids, Feds Call for Flame Retardant Limits
Sep 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
The Consumer Product Safety Commission is urging manufacturers, retailers and consumers to avoid exposing pregnant women and kids to a broad class of chemicals that are commonly added to foams, textiles and plastic in a bid to improve resistance to fire.
"The Commission has serious concerns regarding the potential toxicity of [organohalogen flame retardants] OFRs, and the risks of exposure, particularly to vulnerable populations," posed by flame retardants in certain products, CPSC said in a guidance document published today in the Federal Register.
The products include upholstered furniture sold for use in residences, mattresses and mattress pads, plastic casings surrounding electronics, infant or toddler products, and children's toys and products other than children's car seats.
The guidance is an interim step by the five-member commission. Last week, it voted 3-2 to ban the use of the entire class of chemicals, which are also referred to as halogenated flame retardants, in those consumer goods. The historic vote established a panel that is currently crafting rules for CPSC to consider (Greenwire, Sept. 21).
In the meantime, "the Commission requests that manufacturers of children's products, furniture, mattresses, and electronics casings eliminate the use of such chemicals in these products," the guidance said.
"The Commission also recommends that, before purchasing such products for resale, importers, distributors, and retailers obtain assurances from manufacturers that such products do not contain OFRs," CPSC added. "Finally, the Commission recommends that consumers, especially those who are pregnant or with young children, inquire and obtain assurances from retailers that such products do not contain OFRs."
Halogenated flame retardants are often released by the products that contain them, leading to human exposures. Even at low levels, the flame retardants have been linked to reproductive impairment, decreased IQ in children, diabetes, obesity, cancer and immune disorders.
Environmental and public health groups celebrated the commission's first step toward restricting the use of halogenated flame retardants in household settings.
"The warning issued today by the CPSC will help protect consumers from chemicals that pose a serious health threat," said Rachel Weintraub, legislative director and general counsel at the Consumer Federation of America, in a press release. "However, until these chemicals are banned, consumers still need to be cautious and shop with care."
The CFA and Earthjustice prompted today's action by asking CPSC in 2015, on behalf of a coalition of groups, to add certain products that contain halogenated flame retardants to its list of "banned hazardous substances."
But the North American Flame Retardant Alliance, a component of the American Chemistry Council industry group, slammed the guidance and vowed to push back on the commission's move.
"Today's actions from CPSC are misguided and could jeopardize the safety of products in the future," the alliance said in a statement.
"Fortunately, the guidance CPSC has issued is non-binding," they added. "We will actively communicate with the affected manufacturing sectors and businesses to clarify CPSC's actions merely constitute a recommendation and that the guidance needs to be evaluated based on the state of the science and the need to fully consider all aspects of product safety, including fire safety."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/09/28/stories/1060062031
-
Walmart Announces Updated Safer Chemicals Policy to Restrict Toxic Chemicals
Sep 27, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Mike Schade
Today Walmart, the world’s largest retailer, announced an updated Sustainable Chemistry policy to eliminate toxic chemicals in thousands of products such as household cleaners, cosmetics and skincare items, and infant products. This policy includes new goals for the company to restrict over 2,700 harmful chemicals in household products by 2022, increase transparency of ingredients globally, and encourage suppliers to certify their products to credible third-party standards such as EPA Safer Choice. The updated policy applies to 90,000 products from 700 suppliers.
Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Mind the Store Campaign Director Mike Schade issued the following statement in response:
“We commend Walmart for updating its safer chemicals policy and setting new goals with a clear timeframe for suppliers to reduce the use of millions of pounds of toxic chemicals. The company continues to show impressive leadership in leveraging its influence to transform the marketplace. Walmart’s new policy will increase transparency around chemicals in products and drive the elimination of dangerous chemicals in household cleaning, cosmetics, and infant products. This will send ripple effects throughout global supply chains. We hope Walmart’s new policy will help inspire other major retailers to follow suit and mind the store.”
Last November, the Mind the Store campaign released a report card evaluating the largest retailers’ safer chemicals programs. Walmart is the latest retailer to announce progress in restricting harmful chemicals. Since January, Best Buy, Costco, CVS, and Target have all announced new initiatives to address harmful chemicals in products.
http://saferchemicals.org/newsroom/walmart-announces-updated-safer-chemicals-policy-to-restrict-toxic-chemicals/
-
Walmart Pushes Companies to Get Products Verified by EWG
Sep 28, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis
Walmart, the biggest brick-and-mortar retailer in the world, announced this week it is encouraging all companies that sell personal care products in its U.S. stores to get the EWG VERIFIEDTM seal. Walmart’s push for companies take the steps to become EWG VERIFIEDTM is part of its larger sustainability initiative.
“This announcement by Walmart is terrific news for its millions of loyal customers, and for all consumers throughout the U.S. who want and deserve the safest products for themselves and their families,” said Nneka Leiba, deputy director of research at EWG. “EWG is honored that Walmart sees the tremendous value of the EWG VERIFIEDTM program in moving the market toward healthier, more sustainable products.”
“The inclusion of third party validators, like EWG VERIFIEDTM, in Walmart’s sustainable chemistry policy will help the retail giant meet the growing consumer demand for safer products,” Leiba added.
http://www.ewg.org/release/walmart-pushes-companies-get-products-verified-ewg#.Wc0fe7IjHIU
-
Echa's Risk Committee Focuses on Occupational Exposure for Carcinogens
Sep 28, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa's Risk Assessment Committee (Rac) is evaluating dossiers on worker exposure for three genotoxic carcinogens, as part of the European Commission's efforts to set binding occupational exposure limits (OELs).
The Commission is modernising occupational safety and health (OSH) legislation and amending the carcinogens and mutagens directive (CMD), which includes setting binding OELs for tens of additional carcinogens.
The Commission's Directorate-Genderal for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion has a Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits (Scoel) that is working with Rac on the binding OELs.
Rac's work is purely to discuss the science of potential OELs its chair, Tim Bowmer, said.
At the European Commission's request, Echa has compiled dossiers on:
· nickel and its compounds;
· benzene; and
· acrylonitrile.
The dossiers include fresh risk assessments for carcinogenicity, focusing on the workplace, as well as information on uses. Rac is examining whether these chemicals fit with group C genotoxic carcinogens with 'practical thresholds', according to Scoel methodology. Group A substances are non-threshold genotoxic carcinogens, while group D covers non-genotoxic carcinogens with a 'perfect' threshold.
Nickel and benzene are particularly complex cases Dr Bowmer says. "Not only is genotoxic and carcinogenic mode of action complicated but the usage and exposure of the substances are also very extensive," he said.
Rac will advise the Commission on any risks that would remain if particular OELs are recommended. It is due to report to the Commission by 26 March 2018.
In June, Rac adopted scientific opinions on occupational exposure for two other carcinogens: MOCA, and arsenic and its inorganic salts. Diisocyanates restriction
At its September meeting, Rac also discussed a German REACH restriction dossier for diisocyanates. The proposed restriction is unusual because it mainly involves training in appropriate risk management measures to ensure that workers are not exposed to the respiratory sensitisers, which cause asthma.
The high volume chemicals are widely used by companies of all sizes, from SMEs to industrial giants, in applications including spray paints and polyurethane foams
"The diisocyanates are difficult to measure in the workplace and the range of usage is very big," said Dr Bowmer.
Rac members are looking for certainty on who will take responsibility for implementation and how enforcement can best be achieved, he said.
Rac is due to adopt the dossier at its next meeting.Lead in shot
Rac also began to discuss another unusual REACH restriction: lead in gun shot. Between 400,000 and 1,500,000 birds are thought to die each year from swallowing lead shot, according to the Annex XV restriction report. The annual consumption of shot cartridges in Europe is estimated to be between 600 and 700 million units, corresponding to up to 21,000 tonnes of lead dispersed in the environment.
The proposed restriction would forbid hunters from using lead shot in wetland areas.
Although lead shot is already regulated in many member states, not all of them have not taken action. The committee agreed that "there is a risk that needs to be addressed", said Dr Bowmer.Classification and labelling
Finally, Rac adopted 10 opinions for harmonised classification and labelling (CLH), including cobalt metal and titanium dioxide (by written procedure).
In two CLH cases, Rac agreed on classification for reproductive toxicity, despite the fact this was not in the original proposals.
First, the committee decided that a herbicide called halosulfuron-methyl should be classified as Repro 1B for development, although the Italian proposal had only listed aquatic toxicity. "We felt that there was enough evidence that it should be fully classified," Dr Bowmer said.
Secondly, in a case proposed by Austria, Rac opted for Repro 2 for fertility for metaldehyde, which is used to kill slugs and snails.
https://chemicalwatch.com/59568/echas-risk-committee-focuses-on-occupational-exposure-for-carcinogens
-
European Parliament Committee Blocks EDC Criteria
Sep 28, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Rebecca Zainzinger
Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) today voted to object to the European Commission's proposal for scientific criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).
An objection to the draft criteria was put to the Parliament's environment committee (Envi) by two MEPs, Jytte Guteland from the Socialists & Democrats alliance and the GreenLeft's Bas Eickhout. It was adopted, with 36 MEPs voting in its favour and 26 against.
Ms Guteland and Mr Eickhout argued that the Commission exceeded its powers by introducing a controversial derogation for non-target organisms, which was fiercely criticised by NGOs after member states adopted the proposal in July.
As it stands, the plant protection products (PPP) Regulation says an active substance may only be approved if it is not considered to have endocrine disrupting properties that may cause adverse effects in non-target organisms, unless their exposure is negligible.
But the Commission's proposal - which would see the PPP Regulation fall in line if adopted - says that substances, whose intended mode of action is to target harmful organisms via their endocrine system, may be approved - regardless of their effects on non-target organisms of the same taxonomic phylum.
This "creates a loophole and changes an essential element of the regulation; a violation of the powers conferred to" the Commission, Ms Guteland told the Envi.
The European Parliament's legal service has confirmed that the Commission has exceeded its mandate, according to Mr Eickhout, who said such a change to the PPP Regulation would have to go through a different legislative process with the approval of both the European Parliament and Council.Delays ahead
MEPs backing the criteria said it would be irresponsible to delay their adoption any further. Although "not perfect", the Commission's proposal would allow the European Union to implement the "strictest legislation in the world" for EDCs, said Angélique Delahaye from the Christian Democrats.
"To protect citizens, let’s not get bogged down on another ten years of debate," she said. "We need strict, clear rules to protect health, and industry needs to know how to develop safer products for the future."
And the European Commission said its proposal presents "the best possible compromise" after a long and complicated process. Going back to the drawing board would mean that the interim EDC criteria remain in place for a long time, it told the Envi.Reactions
The European Crop Protection Association (Ecpa) said it is "surprising that the institution that has been putting the most pressure on the Commission to come forward with criteria, is the one that is making moves to reject them".
"A further protracted debate on this issue does nothing to build confidence or trust in industry or the institutions," said ECPA public affairs director Graeme Taylor.
The Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) said it welcomed the vote. Execute director Génon K. Jensen said it is "an inspiration for the millions of citizens who expect Europe to take the lead to create a toxic-free environment and to prioritise the health of future generations over the commercial interests of the pesticides industry."
"It is now for the rest of the European Parliament to up their game and live up to these expectations, by rejecting criteria that are insufficient, not grounded in science, and unlawful," she said.
The proposals will be put to a vote in the European Parliament plenary next week.
https://chemicalwatch.com/59590/european-parliament-committee-blocks-edc-criteria
-
PHMSA Nominee Dodges Pipeline Questions
Sep 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
The Trump administration's nominee to lead the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration easily navigated a confirmation hearing before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee yesterday, highlighting his four decades of experience in the rail industry and deflecting questions about the agency's role in pipeline oversight with promises to study up.
Howard "Skip" Elliott shared the floor during the two-hour confirmation hearing with three other nominees for positions at the Commerce Department and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. He fielded a handful of questions about PHMSA's work on rail safety and a backlog of pipeline-related regulations and initiatives.
In an opening statement, Elliott said he looked forward to "delivering safety enhancements that protect the public and the environment, while allowing for the uninterrupted, multimodal transportation of energy products and other hazardous commodities that are necessary and essential to our daily lives." He pointed to his experience responding to hazardous material incidents in the rail industry as the basis for a strong emphasis on inspections and worker training.
Faced with questions about the challenges that face the agency in overseeing pipelines, though, Elliott said he was still learning the basics.
Sen. Ed Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who is an outspoken critic of the fossil fuel industry, asked Elliott if he was prepared to work quickly to harmonize PHMSA's reporting on the leakage of natural gas from pipelines with those of the Energy Information Administration as required under a 2016 safety law.
Elliott responded that a meeting with Markey last week "was really my first exposure to the topic of lost and unaccounted-for natural gas," promising to "look into this with great haste."
Markey also pressed Elliott to provide unredacted pipeline spill response plans to the committee, an issue that he said the committee had pursued on a bipartisan basis last year, to no avail. The nominee said he would look into why the agency has not shared the information.
In response to a question from Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) on what he would do to fulfill a series of pipeline safety and other mandates that remain unaddressed since passage of the Pipeline Safety Act in 2011, Elliott again promised to get up to speed quickly.
"If I am confirmed, one of the top priorities will be to work with PHMSA staff and this committee to understand which of those mandates are most critical ... to ensure that those that have the greatest impact to safety can be completed," he said.
Asked by E&E News to address how he would, if confirmed, address the president's 2-for-1 regulatory reform order, Elliott deferred all questions to PHMSA's congressional affairs staff. The order says that for every new regulation agencies publish, they must eliminate two existing rules (Climatewire, Jan. 31).
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/09/28/stories/1060061929
-
NTSB Turning to Voluntary Recommendations
Sep 28, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Safety watchdogs at the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) are starting to favor recommending voluntary measures to industry rather than demanding regulatory changes, an agency pipeline official said.
"With NTSB regulatory recommendations, we're getting diminishing returns," Robert Hall, the agency's director of railroad, pipeline and hazardous material investigations, told a conference of state pipeline officials here. "There is definite shift in the NTSB to move toward industry recommendations."
Hall made his remarks at the end of a series of presentations to the state officials about "safety management systems," an effort to get companies to move past minimum regulations and instill a culture of safety.
He traced the trend back to an 800,000-gallon pipeline spill near Kalamazoo, Mich., in 2010, which was followed a few weeks later by a fatal pipeline blast in San Bruno, Calif. In its report on the spill, NTSB recommended that the American Petroleum Institute (API) develop a safety management system for pipelines.
It was a "deliberate move" to make the recommendation to industry, Hall said, rather than federal pipeline regulators at the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).
That resulted in API's new Recommended Practice 1173, which according to API literature "establishes a pipeline safety management systems (PSMS) framework" for operators.
PHMSA officials have been promoting the safety management system concept at the national meeting of the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives, being held here at the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium. But Alan Mayberry, a top career official, stressed that the agency doesn't intend to add the voluntary guidelines practice to agency regulations.
"We believe in it so much, we don't need to regulate right now," said Mayberry, associate administrator for pipeline safety. "We want people to want it and not force it down throats."
He noted the agency could still order compliance with the standard as part of a corrective order.
But some pipeline officials have taken a skeptical view of "SMS," as safety management systems are called. Some see it as simply another buzzword. Others fear it's destined to be incorporated into federal regulations.
"The underlying concern is that someday this is going to be a regulation," said Leo Haynos, chief of gas operations and pipeline safety at the Kansas Corporation Commission.
But Massoud Tahamtani, director of the Virginia State Corporation Commission Division of Utility and Railroad Safety, said SMS helps to forestall federal regulations by making accidents less likely.
"When bad things happen, we lose control," Tahamtani said. Pointing to Hall, he said an accident could lead NTSB to push for stricter federal rules.
Hall said NTSB has been happy with the results of its recommendation to API.
"It's working from our perspective," he said. "I don't see us changing with the next big accident."
NTSB did recommend regulatory changes to PHMSA after the 2010 pipeline spill. But Hall said the request to API was a key recommendation.
Some aspects of an oil pipeline rule expected later this year grew from the Michigan spill, such as requirements for leak detection. And Hall noted that NTSB is still pushing for a recommendation derived from the San Bruno tragedy to remove a "grandfather clause" exemption and require older pipelines to undergo certain types of pressure testing.
But the length of time it takes to change regulations has NTSB looking for ways to make faster improvements in safety, Hall said.
"They're hard to get done," he said, "and you're getting to more prescriptive, tiny little things that you're asking to change."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/09/28/stories/1060061927
-
Senators Omit Climate Threats in National Security Hearing
Sep 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Adam Aton
Senators ignored climate change yesterday at a hearing on threats to the United States. But its effects got plenty of attention.
Lawmakers grilled acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke on the crisis unfolding in Puerto Rico, where Hurricane Maria has left 3.5 million Americans without easy access to electricity or clean water. Senators also spent time talking about terrorism driven by Middle Eastern instability. Neither Democrats nor Republicans mentioned climate change's effect on either problem, even though experts point to connections with both.
When it comes to hurricanes, scientists say warmer waters and higher sea levels could make storms more destructive. Researchers warn against blaming any particular storm on climate change, and data on hurricanes are particularly sparse. But the past few decades have seen an uptick in hurricane activity, and most researchers agree there's evidence that human activity has worsened the storms (Greenwire, Aug. 29).
"In my memory, I can't remember three major disasters like this, just back-to-back — y'know, Houston, Florida and now Puerto Rico," said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), referring to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria — a trio of storms that turned this hurricane season into one of the most damaging in history.
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) also marveled at the strength of this year's hurricanes.
Johnson, chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, was asked after the hearing if climate change could be exacerbating threats to the United States. He smiled and said, "No."
Some foreign policy experts have also looked at climate change for empowering terrorist organizations, especially in countries where the government cannot guarantee adequate food and water for its people. Droughts and famine — worsened by climate change — give more leverage to insurgent groups like the Islamic State group.
But officials and senators devoted more attention to terrorists' ability to project influence through the internet and cover their planning behind encryption.
Military gains against the Islamic State group have not diminished its ability to threaten Americans, National Counterterrorism Center Director Nicholas Rasmussen told senators. "All of this underscores our belief that there is not a direct link between ISIS's battlefield position in Iraq and Syria and the group's capacity to inspire external attacks," he said.
Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Nigeria have all struggled with water problems exacerbating terrorism, which then metastasizes across borders, according to a report released this summer by the Center for Climate and Security.
After the hearing, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) said climate change is "one of the greatest threats we face to national security."
But she didn't mention it during the hearing, instead focusing on the Trump administration's decision to rescind protections for undocumented immigrants brought into the country as children.
Most of the Democrats on the panel hail from red or purple states, and they focused on what federal law enforcement is doing to combat white supremacists and the Trump administration's plans for a wall along the Mexico border.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/09/28/stories/1060061977
-
Seattle Goes Strawless to Cut Plastic Pollution
Sep 28, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Rob Hotakainen
They're calling it Strawless in Seattle, a campaign to get people to "stop sucking" on plastic and help marine life at the same time.
Organizers said the city has eliminated more than 2 million plastic straws this month, relying on more than 150 businesses, restaurants and other venues that promised to offer "sustainable alternatives."
"I am so proud of what Seattle has accomplished," said Dune Ives, executive director of the nonprofit Lonely Whale Foundation, which organized the campaign.
He called it "just a first but successful step, and we look forward to taking this campaign to other cities so that together we can achieve a strawless ocean."
Seattle Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson is part of the campaign, too. At an event Tuesday night, Wilson said the elimination of 2 million straws "has shown just how powerful, and how necessary, teamwork is for success, from individual to institution."
"Plastic pollution is choking our ocean, harming sea life and putting our own health at risk," Wilson said. "That's why I decided to accept Lonely Whale's challenge and lead our team to fight for our ocean."
The Lonely Whale Foundation said it is already planning for a 2018 "Strawless Ocean" tour. Among the possible next stops: London, San Francisco, Dublin and Chicago.
The issue has aroused attention on Capitol Hill.
In July, at a hearing of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said that the United States is "barreling toward a crisis of global proportions," with oceans awash in trash, and the nation not doing enough to limit the use of plastic or recycle its waste (E&E Daily, July 26).
David Balton, deputy assistant secretary for oceans and fisheries at the State Department, told the panel that plastic use may double by 2025 and quadruple by 2050, leading to a dramatic increase in trash, unless changes are made.
"Without action, there could be 1 ton of plastic for every 3 tons of fish by 2025," he said. "By 2050, there could be more plastic than fish — by weight — in the ocean."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/09/28/stories/1060062011
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Industry and Association News
Add recipients
Suggested