Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 19/10/17
-
(ACC Blog) Protecting Our Heroes With High Performance Plastics
Oct 19, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steve Russell
This has been a difficult year for the many Americans who have experienced wildfires and storm-related flooding. So it’s also a fitting time to honor the heroes who put their lives on the line to protect us. They run into burning homes, brave floodwaters, battle raging wildfires, and help stop epidemics. -
(ACC Mentioned) Public Health Scientists Speak out Against Trump Nominee
Oct 19, 2017 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
More than 50 public health scientists from over 20 different universities have said that they are strongly opposed to the Trump administration’s nomination of Michael Dourson to lead the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) office of chemical safety and pollution prevention. -
(ACC Mentioned) APR Launches Campaign to Increase PCR Demand Among North American Manufacturers
Oct 19, 2017 | Waste Dive
By Cole Rosengren
APR has been active on multiple fronts recently, including a new international partnership to harmonize testing standards, and this continues that trend of collaboration. -
US Committee Delays Vote on Dourson Nomination
Oct 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has postponed a scheduled vote on nominees for several EPA positions, including the nomination of Michael Dourson to head the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. -
No Senate Confirmation? No Problem
Oct 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
President Trump is installing nominees at federal agencies to serve as "advisers" without a stamp of approval from Congress. -
EPA Names New Research Chief After Kavlock Announces Retirement
Oct 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA has named Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, currently director of its National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL), as acting research chief after Bob Kavlock, the research office's current acting chief, announced he plans to retire next month following a more than 40-year career at the agency. -
US EPA Issues 'Not Likely to Present Unreasonable Risk' Finding
Oct 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has issued a "not likely to present unreasonable risk" finding for a polymer, ruling on a pre-manufacture notice (PMN) under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C. -
CW US Summit: Stakeholders See Long-Term Success for LCSA
Oct 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Emily Chynoweth
Several speakers at Chemical Watch’s US Regulatory Summit have said they are optimistic for the success of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (LCSA). But they felt it would take years, if not decades to achieve its aims. -
Local Scientists Uncovered Cape Fear River GenX Story
Oct 19, 2017 | North Carolina Health Review
By Catharine Clabby
Mark Strynar and Andy Lindstrom have not had high profiles in the dramas playing out in public since chemical contamination of Cape Fear River drinking water was made public last June. -
(ACC Mentioned) Calif. City Bans Flame Retardants in Furniture, Children's Products
Oct 19, 2017 | Furniture Today
By Erin Berg
San Francisco has banned the sale of upholstered furniture and children’s products containing flame retardant chemicals. -
What You Need to Know About the 2017 NAS Report on Endocrine Active Chemicals and Low-Dose Effects
Oct 19, 2017 | Science 2.0
By Gregory Bond
In 2017 the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) published a report and strategy that it developed for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate the evidence that chemicals are capable of causing health effects at low-doses. -
US CPSC Votes to Ban Phthalates in Children's Products
Oct 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US Consumer Products Safety Commission voted 3-2 to finalise a regulation banning five phthalates in children's products on 18 October, despite the Republican commissioners’ arguments that the decision was not sufficiently supported by research. -
Missouri Court Reverses Johnson & Johnson Talc Verdict
Oct 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Johnson & Johnson has won the reversal of a $72m verdict in damages it was ordered to pay in its ongoing legal battle over talc. -
Retailer H&M Is First Downstream Company to Join ChemSec Marketplace
Oct 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Fashion retailer H&M is the first downstream company to sign up to NGO ChemSec’s online marketplace for safer alternatives. -
NGOs Urge Tighter Regulations for Microplastics
Oct 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
NGO umbrella group Rethink Plastics has called on the European Commission to implement immediate legislative measures to reduce microplastic pollution at the source. -
German Environment Agency Updates Criteria for 'Mobile' Chemicals in Water
Oct 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Emma Davies
Germany's federal environment agency (UBA) has updated its proposal for implementing criteria to identify persistent, mobile and toxic (PMT) substances, following comments from EU member states and industry. The revised document now includes a very persistent, very mobile (vPvM) category. -
Rac: Titanium Dioxide Carcinogenicity Applies to Other Particles
Oct 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
The titanium dioxide carcinogenicity profile applies to other substances with low solubility and toxicity, and that can be solid particles, according to an Echa science committee. -
Echa Round-Up
Oct 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa has received new intentions to harmonise the classification and labelling (CLH) of four chemicals from Germany. -
In Glyphosate Review, WHO Cancer Agency Edited Out 'Non-Carcinogenic' Findings
Oct 19, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Kate Kelland
The World Health Organization's cancer agency dismissed and edited findings from a draft of its review of the weedkiller glyphosate that were at odds with its final conclusion that the chemical probably causes cancer. -
Alaska's Ambitious LNG Project Needs 1 Good Customer
Oct 19, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
Alaska's hopes of building a $43 billion liquefied natural gas export project are colliding with the state's continued economic downturn, which could force officials to delay commercialization of Alaska's abundant North Slope natural gas reserves. -
PHMSA Wants More Comments on Gas Storage Rule
Oct 19, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Federal pipeline regulators are reopening the comment period for new rules on underground natural gas storage prompted by a massive gas leak in Southern California. -
Court Dismisses Challenge to Mountain Valley Water Permit
Oct 19, 2017 | E&E Energywire
A federal appeals court has dismissed environmentalists' lawsuit challenging a West Virginia water quality permit for the Mountain Valley pipeline. -
We Asked 4 Agency Bosses About Trump. They're Worried
Oct 19, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman
Take it from four former U.S. EPA chiefs — this is all going to get much worse before it gets better. -
Minn. Judge OKs 'Necessity Defense' for Climate Activists
Oct 19, 2017 | E&E Energywire
A Minnesota judge is allowing four protesters who shut off emergency valves on an Enbridge Energy Partners LP crude pipeline to use the "necessity" defense in their December trials. -
Environmentalists Fault Boiler MACT 'Work Practice Standards'
Oct 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
Environmental groups are rejecting EPA's criticisms of their challenge to the agency's industrial boiler air toxcs rule, disputing EPA's claims that they in fact agree with some of its assertions in support of its “work practice standards” that apply during periods of boiler startup and shutdown and are weaker than numeric emissions limits.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) Protecting Our Heroes With High Performance Plastics
Oct 19, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steve Russell
This has been a difficult year for the many Americans who have experienced wildfires and storm-related flooding. So it’s also a fitting time to honor the heroes who put their lives on the line to protect us. They run into burning homes, brave floodwaters, battle raging wildfires, and help stop epidemics.
To honor those who protect us, Plastics Make it Possible® on October 13 launched “Protecting Our Heroes: A Tribute to Safety and Innovation,” an online gallery, video, and traveling exhibit. The online gallery features a dozen everyday heroes from across the country, tells their personal stories of harrowing experiences on the job, and pays tribute to the brave women and men who protect us from harm day in and day out.
The video—viewed hundreds of thousands of times in its first week—profiles a search-and-rescue specialist who helps save victims in floods, a smokejumper who parachutes into remote locations to fight wildfires, and the nation’s first female bomb technician.
It’s also fitting to highlight the personal protective equipment (PPE) that helps these heroes do their jobs, much of which relies on high-performance plastics. The very nature of plastics—lightweight yet strong and tough—enables PPE that is easier to wear for longer periods of time and that helps protect against many risks, including bullets, heat, water, debris, and contaminants. High-performance plastics provide a critical combination of strength, durability, and mobility.
Many visitors to the pop-up exhibit in Boston were astonished that so much of the gear that protects our protectors is made with plastics. Several were particularly surprised to learn that so-called “bulletproof” vests worn by police and others are made with high-performance plastic fabrics that are lightweight and comfortable—and tough enough to provide reassurance and security.
As our nation responds to disasters, it is indeed fitting to pay tribute to those who protect us. And to the gear that helps protect them. These heroes do their jobs much more safely due to their innovative plastic protective gear. They rely on their gear to jump out of airplanes into wildfires, to detect bombs on the battlefield, and to make their way through flooded cities to save people from drowning. And to stop epidemics. Or even a bullet. And plastics makers are proud to have a role in protecting the brave Americans who protect us all.
The next “Protecting Our Heroes” pop-up exhibit will be at Greystone in Piedmont Park in Atlanta from October 20–22. And we are planning to host more exhibits in 2018.
In the meantime, I encourage you to watch our video and visit our online gallery at www.plasticsmakeitpossible.com/heroes.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2017/10/protecting-our-heroes-with-high-performance-plastics/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Public Health Scientists Speak out Against Trump Nominee
Oct 19, 2017 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
More than 50 public health scientists from over 20 different universities have said that they are strongly opposed to the Trump administration’s nomination of Michael Dourson to lead the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) office of chemical safety and pollution prevention. In a 17 October letter to leaders of the Senate environment and public works committee, they warn that installing Dourson at the helm of this office would ‘threaten the EPA’s ability to credibly and effectively address harmful chemical exposures’.
The committee was scheduled to consider Dourson’s nomination on 18 October, but that hearing was indefinitely postponed at the last minute after it was reportedly revealed that Dourson had already been installed at the EPA as a senior adviser. If the committee were to give the go-ahead for Dourson’s nomination, his confirmation would still require a majority vote in the Senate.
While major chemical industry players like the American Chemistry Council (ACC) have backed the nomination, environmental groups have repeatedly criticised Dourson for being too cosy with the chemical and tobacco industries, and have said the consulting group he runs is supported with funding from the ACC and other industry groups.
‘Dourson has built a career of abusing science to mischaracterise real-world chemical risks and in doing so has jeopardised public health, including the health of those most vulnerable among us like pregnant women and children,’ the letter from the scientists reads. ‘His numerous publications on chemicals, from 1,4-dioxane to perchlorate to chlorpyrifos, demonstrate his tendency to contort, distort, or dismiss scientific evidence that lead to assertions that chemicals are safe at levels orders of magnitude higher than have been deemed safe by authoritative bodies.’
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/public-health-scientists-speak-out-against-trump-nominee/3008157.article
-
(ACC Mentioned) APR Launches Campaign to Increase PCR Demand Among North American Manufacturers
Oct 19, 2017 | Waste Dive
By Cole Rosengren
Dive Brief: The Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR) recently announced a new Demand Champion Campaign to increase the use of polyolefin postconsumer resin (PCR) in North American manufacturing. The campaign will focus on "Work in Process" (WIP) items such as pallets, crates, totes, drums and trash cans. All companies have to do to join is sign a commitment letter saying they'll use specific WIP items at their facilities with PCR content. APR's first group of Demand Champions include Berry Global, Campbell Soup, Coca-Cola North America, Envision Plastics, Keurig Green Mountain, KW Plastics, Merlin Plastics, Plastipak/Clean Tech, Procter & Gamble and Target.
Dive Insight:
APR has been active on multiple fronts recently, including a new international partnership to harmonize testing standards, and this continues that trend of collaboration. The list of partner organizations involved in this latest campaign includes many of the top names involved in plastics recycling — The Recycling Partnership, American Chemistry Council, Closed Loop Fund, Foodservice Packaging Institute, Sustainable Packaging Coalition and Plastics Industry Association. All involved have a keen interest in expanding markets and proving the viability of PCR throughout the supply chain.
As outlined in the commitment letter, this ongoing campaign will help APR gather information about what's working and where new opportunities may be available. The organization suspects PCR use may not be widespread for these products, so the goal is "to demonstrate equal functionality with an intent to implement PCR into WIP items rapidly." This also been described as a way to create a more circular economy for packaging in North America, as China prepares to potentially cut off its intake of mixed plastic scrap by the end of the year. According to APR, about 60% of U.S. polypropylene scrap is currently exported to China with no one clear market available to fill that gap. A small number of municipalities and companies have already begun to drop certain plastics from their recycling programs in states such as Wisconsin and Oregon.
Talk of creating more domestic processing capacity and demand has become even more popular since China's summer announcement, but those goals often run up against the realities of financing and permitting. By taking the approach of working with large companies to stimulate that demand — and encouraging the creation of plastic products that will have longer lifespans than more disposable items — APR may have found one of the fastest ways to begin addressing this challenge in the short-term.
http://www.wastedive.com/news/apr-launches-campaign-to-increase-pcr-demand-among-north-american-manufactu/507616/
-
US Committee Delays Vote on Dourson Nomination
Oct 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has postponed a scheduled vote on nominees for several EPA positions, including the nomination of Michael Dourson to head the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
The committee's leadership did not say why they cancelled the vote on 17 October, the night before it was scheduled, but the move ignited speculation on what was happening behind the scenes.
Senator Tammy Duckworth (Democrat, Illinois) said on 18 October that she had placed a hold on the nominations of Dr Dourson and Bill Wehrum, who was named to lead the EPA's air and radiation office.
Senate rules allow any senator to block a nomination or bill from coming to a floor vote. It would take 60 votes, more than Republicans have, to overcome a hold, unless the Senate leadership finds a way to alter the rules.
However, potential Republican opposition could be a sign of an even greater roadblock for the nominees. The environment panel is divided 11-10 and it would only take one defection to defeat a nomination.
Senator Chuck Grassley (Republican, Iowa) told reporters this week that senators from midwestern corn-growing states might hold up EPA nominations over the Trump administration's proposal to reduce the amount of biofuel that gets mixed into gasoline and diesel. The most obvious target would be Wehrum, as the air office oversees the renewable fuel standard programme.
After a meeting on 17 October with a group of such senators, Senator Joni Ernst (Republican, Iowa), who sits on the environment committee, issued a statement that pointedly included no indication of how she would vote on the Wehrum nomination.
Also on 17 October, environmental advocates released a letter signed by more than 50 public health scientists from dozens of universities voicing their strong opposition to the Dourson nomination, saying that "Dr Dourson has built a career of abusing science to mischaracterise real-world chemical risks".
Environmental groups have campaigned against Dr Dourson's nomination since it was announced in July. Democrats on the committee sharply attacked his work for chemical industry clients hearing on October 4.
https://chemicalwatch.com/60220/us-committee-delays-vote-on-dourson-nomination
-
No Senate Confirmation? No Problem
Oct 19, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
President Trump is installing nominees at federal agencies to serve as "advisers" without a stamp of approval from Congress.
U.S. EPA was the latest to grab national attention after it became public that Trump's pick to lead the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Michael Dourson, was already working there.
And Susan Bodine, the president's choice for assistant administrator of enforcement and compliance assurance, began working at EPA last month as special counsel to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt on compliance.
But EPA is far from alone.
The Energy Department has hired at least three of Trump's nominees, including former energy lobbyists, lawyers and executives, without the Senate's blessing.
Currently serving as a senior adviser in a "limited capacity" to Energy Secretary Rick Perry is former energy lobbyist Mark Menezes, whom Trump nominated to serve as undersecretary for management and performance.
Also working as an adviser at DOE is David Jonas, Trump's pick to serve as general counsel. Former utility executive Bruce Walker, the nominee for assistant secretary for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, is also working at DOE, according to the agency's personnel registry made private earlier this year, in an unknown capacity.
To be sure, the practice isn't new — it's been occurring since the 1990s — and laws including the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 require nominees to remain an arm's length from the program and policy they could one day shape.
But watchdogs say figuring out who's been hired and how influential they may be is the tricky part.
Jeff Hauser, executive director of the Revolving Door Project at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said agencies often don't announce new hires, leaving the media to lean on the Freedom of Information Act, solid sources or Congress. And if there's no paper trail, it can be difficult to tell how much authority nominees are exerting within the agencies.
"It's very tough to conduct oversight without an organizational chart," he said.
Paul Light, a public policy professor at New York University, has one piece of advice for nominees who head to work before Senate confirmation: Steer clear of your future office.
"They may have no role whatsoever in the development of policies, the pursuit of administrative actions directly related to their job for which they've been nominated," he said. "You can have them down the hall, you can talk to them, but the biggest mistake they are likely to make is to believe they are already in office."
"If they do it," Light added, "they're in trouble."Joining early?
Why do nominees jump aboard ahead of time?
Perhaps they made a costly and difficult move to Washington or left their job to avoid a conflicting position, Light suggested.
But that's not always the case.
Dourson, for example, said he "accepted a new job" as explanation for leaving his post Oct. 16 with the University of Cincinnati, according to a document obtained by E&E News through an open records request.
Hauser said many nominees he's tracked initially worked on the transition teams as beachhead members.
Light said about 60 percent of Trump's nominees will end up coming from Washington — with K Street providing the largest source of candidates — as part of a trend that's grown stronger over past years.
With many of Trump's nominees having ties to the industries they will be regulating, calls are growing for greater oversight.
"You want to make it easier for them to say 'yes,' but you don't want to violate the constitutional principle of advise and consent," Light said, "nor are you allowed to violate the hands-off policies embedded in federal statutes and regulations."
The ethics obligations that nominees currently face under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, Hauser noted, are a direct response to then-President Clinton's decision to make Bill Lann Lee first assistant to the attorney general in charge of the Department of Justice's civil rights division.
Clinton named him acting assistant attorney general after the Senate declined to confirm Lee in that job.
In March, the Supreme Court found the law bars a president from appointing a person who's been nominated for a Senate-confirmed post to serve on a temporary basis in the same role (Greenwire, March 21).
In a 6-2 opinion, the court found the 1998 Federal Vacancies Reform Act bars the acting service of nominated officials except when a person is nominated by the president for reappointment to another term in the same office.Ethical safeguards
Watchdogs like Hauser are calling for greater transparency at federal agencies about who's hired, under what authority and which ethical restrictions new employees face.
When asked about Dourson's job description and duties, EPA did not immediately respond.
A spokeswoman for DOE said Menezes and Jonas are working "in a limited capacity as limited term [Senior Executive Service] appointees" and neither is fulfilling any duties of the offices for which they await confirmation but did not provide further detail.
One former DOE official said there are safeguards in place to ensure nominees don't cross ethical lines.
Jeff Navin, DOE deputy chief of staff during the Obama administration and co-founder and partner at Boundary Stone Partners, said any nominees who have a conflict of interest are required to report the issue and recuse themselves.
"That applies to political appointees like the secretary, down to any other rank-and-file official," he said. "The ethics office will ensure that the appropriate recusals and protections are in place, and if there are violations, they will be covered under federal ethics statutes."
Light suggested career staff will keep close watch. "I think the civil servants who are right [down] the hall are going to keep an eye out," he said.
While the DOE and EPA nominees raise questions, Hauser said there are more glaring violations in the federal government.
He pointed to Keith Noreika, a former financial industry lawyer who's now a special government employee at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency while also serving as the agency's head.
Senate Democrats have since asked the Treasury Department's Office of Inspector General to launch an investigation and force Noreika to either step down or become a permanent employee and face more stringent ethics requirements.
"To my knowledge, there's never been a head of a bureau like the Comptroller of the Currency who's a special government employee," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/10/19/stories/1060064115
-
EPA Names New Research Chief After Kavlock Announces Retirement
Oct 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA has named Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, currently director of its National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL), as acting research chief after Bob Kavlock, the research office's current acting chief, announced he plans to retire next month following a more than 40-year career at the agency.
Orme-Zavaleta will succeed Kavlock as the acting assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD).
“Jennifer Orme-Zavelata is moving from [her current post in Research Triangle Park, NC to EPA Headquarters] and will be taking over,” EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman says. “We appreciate Bob's service, hard work and dedication to the Agency over many years. All his EPA colleagues wish him all the best in his retirement.”
Kavlock and now Orme-Zaveleta have held the acting position because President Donald Trump has yet to select a nominee to fill the role in a permanent capacity, one of more than a dozen Senate-confirmed leadership positions at EPA.
Instead, Trump has appointed a deputy assistant administrator for ORD, Richard Yamada, a former House Science Committee staffer who has been at EPA since the summer. Yamada's position does not require confirmation.
While Orme-Zaveleta is currently director of the NERL within ORD, over her more than 30 years with EPA, she has also held positions in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and the Office of Water, according to her biography on EPA's website.
She holds a Ph.D. in wildlife science and public health from Oregon State University, and has focused on issues including “the evaluation of risks to human and ecosystem health, and the influence of environmental change on human health in response to a variety of stressors including synthetic organic and inorganic chemicals, radionuclides, microorganisms, and vector-borne disease.”
In an email announcing his retirement, Kavlock pointed to a series of priority science issues ORD is working to address, including “positioning ourselves to be the leaders in looking at the hazards and exposures of the [perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)] class of chemicals (likely the most dominant human health issue of the next 5-10 years), . . . [improving] the pace of chemical risk assessments, doing remarkable things with new sensor technologies, informing the needs of the regions and the states in helping them address environmental protection as part of cooperative federalism, supporting the Agency's transitioning to the new [Toxic Substances Control Act] activities, repositioning [the Integrated Risk Information System], supporting communities in having safe drinking water, shifting our air program to work more on wild fires from a public health perspective . . .”
“While it is hard to leave, I feel comfortable leaving ORD in very capable hands, as our Executive Council has really progressed in being more transparent and more corporate in its operations. We have a deep bench of leaders, and an impressive group of mid-career and more junior staff,” he wrote.
Kavlock's note did not address why he decided to retire now. Instead, he urged ORD staff to “always remember our mission and what brought you work at EPA to get you through whatever might be the rough days ahead.
Prior to his acting role, Kavlock served nearly six years as ORD's deputy assistant administrator for science. Before that, he was director of ORD's computational toxicology center, directing research efforts in 21st century toxicology approaches.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-names-new-research-chief-after-kavlock-announces-retirement
-
US EPA Issues 'Not Likely to Present Unreasonable Risk' Finding
Oct 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has issued a "not likely to present unreasonable risk" finding for a polymer, ruling on a pre-manufacture notice (PMN) under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C.
It is the first such determination since the EPA announced on 7 August that it had met its commitment to reduce the number of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) under review to 300. The agency also resolved 38 more PMNs by issuing 37 significant new use rules (Snurs) in September and one in October.
The PMN on generic terephtalic acid and alcohol ester polymer hydroxy glycol and 2-Ethylhexyl alcohol was submitted on 4 October 2016. The determination, made on 26 September, carried a polymer exemption flag. This requires that it be manufactured to meet the exemption criteria.
The EPA announced on 27 September that it received 49 new PMNs in July and 36 in June. In 54 of those 85 cases, the name of the manufacturer or importer was withheld as confidential business information (CBI).
It received 22 in May and 58 in April.
Notices of commencement (NOCs) were down to 17 in June and 20 in July, compared with 115 in May and 152 in April.
The EPA is accepting comments on the June and July submissions until 27 October.
https://chemicalwatch.com/60101/us-epa-issues-not-likely-to-present-unreasonable-risk-finding
-
CW US Summit: Stakeholders See Long-Term Success for LCSA
Oct 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Emily Chynoweth
Several speakers at Chemical Watch’s US Regulatory Summit have said they are optimistic for the success of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (LCSA). But they felt it would take years, if not decades to achieve its aims.
The reformed version of the Toxic Substances Control Act, which passed into law mid 2016, has managed to reach most of its key deadlines for rulemaking so far. However, concerns have been voiced regarding continued progress under the Trump administration.
Jim Jones (pictured), executive vice president of strategic alliances and industry relations for the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA), who previously led the US EPA's toxics programme, said: "I have been consistently optimistic about the prospect of this law." He said time will be the true test of its success, but from his many years of experience working with environmental statutes, he is fairly confident of the Lautenberg Act because it is well written, and includes robust safety standards and deadlines.
He noted a disconnect between federal and "retailer regulation", with companies, including Walmart, Target and CVS, forging ahead with various hazard-based schemes to remove chemicals of concern from products on their store shelves. He added that it is yet unclear, what these companies would do if suppliers did not conform to their chemical safety programmes.
Mr Jones also said robust regulatory activity continued at state level.
Jeff Morris, office director of the US EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (Oppts), said the agency is working with stakeholders "day-in and day-out, to get this business done ... and make this statute successful".
And Richard Denison, lead senior scientist, Environmental Defense Fund, said implementation of the LCSA "started strong, but had come off the rails". He is particularly concerned about nominations to the Oppts and transparency. However, he is still hopeful that in the long run the reformed law would result in significant improvement.
He accused industry – which supported the passage of the reformed law – of currently "grabbing everything it can".
Nicholas Ashford, professor of policy and direction of the technology and law programme at MIT, is similarly concerned. He asked: "Is the chemical industry ethical when it comes to public health?"
Dimitri Karakitsos, partner with the law firm Holland & Knight, who as a Republican staffer worked on the LCSA, said: "Despite the divisiveness we have in our government today, we are in such a better place with regards to this law."New chemicals programme
Greg Schweer, chief of the new chemicals management branch at the US EPA, announced that the agency will hold a stakeholder meeting in December, to discuss a document it is drafting around improvements to the new chemicals programme. A Federal Register notice is expected in the next couple of weeks. The draft document will be circulated ahead of the meeting.
The agency intends to improve communication and consultation through the pre-manufacturing notice (PMN) process. Mr Schweer provided details of what information companies should submit with their PMNs (Chemical Risk Manager will run a story on this next week).Non-animal testing strategy
As mandated under LSCA, the EPA is preparing a strategy on how it will develop and use non-animal test methods. Mr Morris said this entails bringing 21st century approaches to testing into the regulatory decision space so that scientific information could be gathered faster, better and cheaper, avoiding the use of animals. And that information can be used to provide better public health.
The agency will start stakeholder engagement next month, and plans a draft strategy by early next year. The final strategy has to be published in June 2018.Susceptible populations
The agency is also moving forward in the area of susceptible populations. Here, Mr Morris said that the focus is on workers. The EPA has been in discussions with Osha and Niosh; a particular target is consistency between evaluations done under reformed TSCA and occupational safety and health programmes.
https://chemicalwatch.com/60214/cw-us-summit-stakeholders-see-long-term-success-for-lcsa
-
Local Scientists Uncovered Cape Fear River GenX Story
Oct 19, 2017 | North Carolina Health Review
By Catharine Clabby
Mark Strynar and Andy Lindstrom have not had high profiles in the dramas playing out in public since chemical contamination of Cape Fear River drinking water was made public last June.
But without research the chemists from the Environmental Protection Agency started five years ago, all that followed may never have happened at all. That includes citizen outrage in and near Wilmington, water system moves to protect their customers, political spats, newly funded research, and multiple lawsuits.
Based at the EPA site in Research Triangle Park, Strynar and Lindstrom were the first to identify GenX and related chemicals in the Cape Fear, downstream from a chemical plant DuPont built in the 1970s and operated until 2015. GenX is one of many per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a family of engineered compounds with some possibly harmful to human health. GenX is among the engineered chemicals of this ilk that most drinking water treatment can’t touch.
“Detectives of the environmental world, especially when it comes to identifying emerging contaminants,” is how East Carolina University toxicologist Jamie DeWitt describes the work of environmental analytical chemists such as Strynar and Lindstrom.Origin story
Big news regarding GenX has emerged regularly since a Wilmington newspaper in June published word that GenX and related PFAS chemicals had been detected in the river water that feeds public water systems.
Chemours, the DuPont spinoff now operating the plant that released GenX, possibly for decades, has not said much publicly about the contamination. In its few statements the company has said GenX amounts released from its Fayetteville Works facility are small and pose no health threat.
But just this week, the Cape Fear Public Water Utility Authority filed a federal lawsuit against DuPont and Chemours, accusing them of “a conscious disregard of and indifference to the rights and safety of others” by polluting water, river sediments, soil and air. The companies released “fluoropollutants” for decades, despite knowing of potential health risks from such compounds, the utility charged.
And the state Department of Environmental Quality directed Chemours to provide bottled water to owners of nine more contaminated residential wells near the Bladen County Chemours plants. Testing of 35 residential wells near the plant in recent weeks has detected GenX at levels exceeding a state health guideline.
Strynar and Lindstrom, affiliated with the EPA’s National Exposure Research Laboratory, could not have envisioned any of that when they started dipping water sample containers into the Cape Fear River in 2012. They were on a specific mission, however.
The pair for years have participated in studies detecting human-made PFAS chemicals in everything from river water and household dust to human blood and food wrappers. A decade ago, they documented the success of a new method to detect various PFAS downstream of DuPont’s Fayetteville Works industrial campus in Bladen County.
“If you are going to find new things, you’re likely to find them around places where they make or use them. If you don’t find them at the source, you are not going to find them anywhere else,” Strynar said in an interview with NC Health News.Persistent chemicals
PFAS attract the attention of many environmental health researchersaround the world today. Used widely to make cookware, stain resistant fabric, solar power technology, firefighting foam and much more, the compounds degrade slowly, if at all, in nature. Some have been detected in waterways, wildlife and people all over our planet.
That raises alarms because studies have shown some PFAS may affect developing fetuses and children by affecting growth, learning, and behavior; decrease fertility and interfere with hormones; increase cholesterol; affect immune responses; and increase cancer risk.
DuPont and other U.S. companies voluntarily stopped making some suspect PFAS this decade, in particular, those featuring long molecular chains. That included perfluorooctanoic acid, known as PFOA, a longer chain chemical previously produced at Fayetteville Works. But scientists eager to assess risks from their replacement compounds are often in the dark about their structures, the very qualities that determine their environmental and health risks.
Companies submit such structures to EPA but they can be designated confidential business information under the Toxic Substances Control Act, a law passed in 1976 intended to give EPA power to require information about industrial chemicals and assess their potential risks before it gets into the environment.
“We took the approach that used our instruments and our chemical knowledge to figure it out rather than use information that had confidentially built into it,” Strynar said.
The scientists deployed a “non-targeted” strategy. They used a very sensitive (high-resolution) mass spectrometer, a device that sorts atoms by their mass, to reveal the building blocks of fragments of chemicals that they found in the river but which were unknown to them. Painstakingly, they used their experience with PFAS and computer-aided modelling to build a blueprint for polyfluorinated compounds with shorter molecular chains.
That led to the first detection of GenX in the environment.
They confirmed their finding using the description of the structure in documents DuPont had submitted to West Virginia regulators as part of a pre-manufacturing notice.
“It was a sort of ‘ah ha’ moment. ‘This is a real chemical…’” Strynar said. “Up to that point we were still grasping at straws.”
Strynar and Lindstrom described the research at scientific meetings in 2012 and 2014 before publishing the findings, including the structure, in 2015. Significant findings from others followed quickly. In 2015, researchers abroad detected the PFOA alternative GenX for the first time in waterways in China and Germany, for instance.
Closer to home, Strynar and Lindstrom collaborated with a North Carolina State University laboratory and found GenX in drinking water. At a Cape Fear Public Utility water intake from the Cape Fear, they detected an average GenX concentration of 631 parts per trillion (ppt) and levels as high as 4,500 ppt. That greatly exceeds the state Department of Health and Human Services’ 140 ppt health goal for GenX concentrations in water.
Using scientific expertise to pinpoint where these chemicals move once they’re released is vital, said Detlef Knappe, the N.C. State environmental chemist collaborating with the EPA chemists.
“We understand very little about the overall nature of what is being produced, how it is used, and where it might enter the environment,” Knappe said.Moving forward
Strynar and Lindstrom’s findings prompted DeWitt, the ECU toxicologist, to pursue a GenX study published in 2017 that found the compound leaves a body sooner and may be less potent than PFOA. That said, the chemical did generate some of the same physiological changes observed in lab mice after exposure to older generation PFAS compounds at lower concentrations.
“Without Mark and Andy’s work, I would not have performed a toxicity study with GenX when I performed it,” DeWitt said.
Dewitt hopes soon to work with the EPA pair directly to help assess whether GenX and related compounds can be detected in people living in the Cape Fear basin. N.C. State epidemiologist Jane Hoppin is awaiting approval of a National Institutes of Health grant expected to allow her, DeWitt, Strynar, Lindstrom and Knappe to measure the concentrations of GenX and related compounds in people’s blood and urine.
Studies by the EPA team has helped sell North Carolina environmental regulators on the need for more monitoring. That message is reinforced by Knappe’s finding in 2014 that another unregulated industrialchemical — 1,4 dioxane — was polluting Cape Fear River water feeding water supplies, including one serving Fayetteville.
DEQ has since expanded river water monitoring to look for 1,4 dioxane in the Neuse and Yadkin river basins. And the agency is developing a strategy for regular monitoring for emerging contaminants, something a newly appointed Science Advisory Board will assist with, DEQ communications director Jamie Kritzer said this week.
A monitoring program could reduce unpleasant surprises, suggested Strynar, whose laboratory tested Cape Fear water for DEQ in recent months as the agency pushed Chemours to stop releasing GenX, Nafionand related chemicals into the Cape Fear.
“They have asked us: ‘How do we not have this happen again?’” Strynar said, referring to DEQ officials. “The only way is to continue looking.”
Correction: An earlier version of this article misspelled Mark Strynar’s first name. It has been corrected.
https://www.northcarolinahealthnews.org/2017/10/18/local-scientists-uncovered-cape-fear-river-genx-saga/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Calif. City Bans Flame Retardants in Furniture, Children's Products
Oct 19, 2017 | Furniture Today
By Erin Berg
San Francisco has banned the sale of upholstered furniture and children’s products containing flame retardant chemicals.
The Board of Supervisors unanimously passed the legislation proposed by Supervisor Mark Farrell, and the ban will go into effect January 2019.
According to the San Francisco Examiner, the law would impact about 200 furniture retailers in San Francisco and 17 retailers of children’s products. The ban extends to online sales but does not apply to second-hand resales.
Studies have linked certain flame retardant chemicals to cancer, and in children, to birth defects and learning disabilities. The American Chemistry Council’s North American Flame Retardant Alliance have argued that the flame retardants provide a layer of fire protection.
In August Maine was the first state in the nation to ban the sale of upholstered furniture containing flame retardants, and earlier this month Rhode Island passed similar legislation affecting upholstered bedding and furniture. Both states’ laws will take effect January 2019.
California bans products containing more than 1/10 of 1% of the flame retardants pentaDBE or octaBDE and requires labeling on upholstered furniture whether it contains toxic flame retardant chemicals.
http://www.furnituretoday.com/article/547374-calif-city-bans-flame-retardants-furniture-childrens-products/
-
What You Need to Know About the 2017 NAS Report on Endocrine Active Chemicals and Low-Dose Effects
Oct 19, 2017 | Science 2.0
By Gregory Bond
In 2017 the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) published a report and strategy that it developed for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate the evidence that chemicals are capable of causing health effects at low-doses.
For this exercise, the NAS committee chose to define low dose as “…external or internal exposure that falls within the range estimated to occur in humans,” and only lightly touched on the separate, but related topic of non-monotonic dose response curves (NMDRs).
Low dose effects and NMDRs are often confused as they are frequently discussed together, e.g. in reference to the non-monotonic, low-dose hypothesis – the idea that the slope of the dose-response curve for some chemicals changes direction at low doses.
Before we can really dig into the NAS report on lose dose effects, first, it’s important to elaborate on this distinction. I will then explain how the NAS Low Dose committee report offers modest, but sound, guidance to the EPA regarding the use of systematic review and evidence integration to assist in the Agency’s hazard assessments and to evaluate the potential for chemicals to cause low dose effects.
Monotonic vs. non-monotonic dose response curves
A conventional assumption of toxicology is that the dose-response relationship between a chemical and an adverse health effect will have a monotonic shape: that is, the slope of the curve does not change sign.
On the other hand, non-monotonic dose response curves change sign at one or more inflection points. In the case of chemicals that are purported to exhibit a U-shaped curve, effects are suspected to be more prominent at low and high doses than they are at intermediate doses.
Some scientists have expressed a concern that evidence for such curves could be missed if the doses tested are not low enough, or if not enough doses are tested to reveal such a shape.
Although this non-monotonic, low-dose hypothesis is often discussed in relation to endocrine-related science, scientists at regulatory agencies across the globe, including the EPA and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), have argued that the hypothesis could, in theory, apply to all chemicals, regardless of the mechanism by which they cause toxicity.
Some of those same regulatory agencies also have conducted rigorous reviews and have been unable to validate the non-monotonic, low-dose hypothesis using reproducible, relevant testing.
For example, in 2013, EPA issued a draft report, State of the Science Evaluation: Nonmonotonic Dose Responses as They Apply to Estrogen, Androgen, and Thyroid Pathways and EPA Testing and Assessment Procedures, to evaluate the evidence on NMDR curves and to make judgments about EPA’s toxicity-testing practices and the implications for its risk-assessment procedures. The draft concluded that exposure to endocrine active chemicals (EACs) can result in NMDR curves for specific end points and that such curves were found more often in in vitro studies, at high doses, and for exposures of short duration. It also asserted that there was insufficient evidence that NMDR curves for adverse effects occur below thresholds derived from traditional toxicity testing.
This lack of evidence is not surprising, however, since the non-monotonic, low-dose hypothesisruns contrary to the well-established principle of dose-response relationships. In other words, “the dose makes the poison; dose differentiates a poison from a remedy.” This principle is the cornerstone of drug development in modern pharmacology as well as safety assessment in modern toxicology.
Request to evaluate evidence of low-dose adverse effects via endocrine mediated pathway
At the request of the EPA, the NAS convened an ad hoc committee of experts to make recommendations for a strategy to evaluate evidence of low-dose adverse human effects that act through an endocrine mediated pathway.
Unfortunately, the report mistakenly conflates endocrine activity with endocrine disruption and thus ignores the well-accepted WHO/IPCS definition of an endocrine disruptor, which requires making a distinction between mere activity and consequent causal effect.
Nevertheless, the committee was requested to perform systematic reviews of animal and human evidence for at least two chemicals and demonstrate how the results can be integrated and considered with other relevant data to draw conclusions about causal associations.
The two systematic reviews address animal toxicology and human epidemiology evidence linking exposure to:
· some phthalates to selected male reproductive disorders and diseases, and
· some polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) to selected neurobehavioral deficits and diseases.
Three key NAS low-dose report recommendations
The NAS Low Dose committee report makes some modest, but sound, recommendations to the EPA about an overall strategy for evaluating the potential for chemicals, including those that are endocrine active, to cause low dose effects.
More specifically, the committee outlines how the EPA can use systematic review and evidence integration methods to assist in its hazard assessments. The strategy comprises three broad phases:
1. Surveillance: described as detecting signals by searching, retrieving and re-evaluating existing data to look for evidence that a chemical may cause a health effect at low doses or that a health effect may have been missed by traditional toxicity testing methods;
2. Investigation and analysis of the evidence: the agency should analyze existing data, generate new data to fill gaps, conduct a systematic review of evidence, and integrate evidence from human and animal studies. An additional recommendation was to conduct meta-analysis, combining data from individual studies, if appropriate. One or more of these options might be needed to answer questions about potential signals.
3. Actions to take based on the evidence: possible actions include updating chemical assessments, regularly monitoring for new data, requiring new data or models to reduce uncertainties, or updating toxicity-testing designs and practice.Additional considerations, such as the public health significance and available resources, would also factor into the decision making.
The NAS report acknowledges that, while EPA is already conducting many activities consistent with this strategy, its efforts may not be aimed specifically at evaluating low-dose toxicity.
NAS committee makes three additional recommendations to EPA
Based on its experience conducting the two systematic reviews, the NAS committee made three further recommendations:
1. Systematic reviews should include meta-analysis of the animal and human evidence, if appropriate. The results of meta-analyses should be used to examine quantitative relationships between EACs and end points of interest to inform the confidence ratings of the bodies of evidence, and, if possible, to estimate benchmark doses.
2. EPA should develop policies and procedures to allow the agency to use and update existing systematic reviews. It is important that the existing systematic review’s study question directly addresses EPA’s topic of interest and that the methods are critically evaluated before the systematic review is used and updated.
3. Do more to support animal-to-human extrapolations. Pharmacokinetic data should be generated and used to develop models that make it possible to infer human internal doses (not just intake) from biomonitoring data and animal internal doses from administered doses.
With respect to the two case studies referenced above, the report repeatedly makes the point that existing toxicology methods did identify the hazard, but that they might not accurately predict the level of exposures at which humans are affected. This is because the animal toxicology studies measured the administered (i.e., external) dose, whereas the human studies (exposure biomonitoring and/or epidemiology) measured the internal dose.
The report is careful to note that the committee made no effort to conduct a risk assessment using the outcome of the case studies, and so their work was limited to assessing hazard potential only.
Concluding thoughts
In conclusion, the NAS Low Dose committee report makes some modest, but sound, recommendations to the EPA about an overall strategy for evaluating the potential for chemicals, including those that are endocrine active (EACs), to cause low dose effects. More specifically, the committee outlines how the EPA can use systematic review and evidence integration methods to assist in its hazard assessments.
As I have pointed out in this blog and in an earlier blog, systematic review has some obvious advantages in terms of improving transparency and objectivity in assessing the totality of relevant evidence applied to resolving environmental health questions.
However, it remains a highly subjective process, and further experience and discussion are needed to improve the methodology.
http://www.science20.com/gregory_bond/what_you_need_to_know_about_the_2017_nas_report_on_endocrine_active_chemicals_and_lowdose_effects-227514
-
US CPSC Votes to Ban Phthalates in Children's Products
Oct 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US Consumer Products Safety Commission voted 3-2 to finalise a regulation banning five phthalates in children's products on 18 October, despite the Republican commissioners’ arguments that the decision was not sufficiently supported by research.
And Republican Commissioner Joseph Mohorovic announced that he was leaving the CPSC in the middle of his term, which may leave Democrats in control longer than expected.
The commission issued a proposed rule in late 2014 to ban five phthalates in toys, and various other children's products, at levels greater than 0.1%. These are:
· diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP);
· di-n-pentyl phthalate (DnPP or DPENP);
· di-n-hexyl phthalate (DnHP or DHEXP);
· dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP); and
· diisononyl phthalate (DINP).
The rule expands an interim ban on DINP – which had applied only to toys that can be placed in the mouth – to all toys. It lifts interim bans on two phthalates, DNOP and DIDP, which the commission staff concluded have not been shown to have the antiandrogenic effects that the rule addresses.
DEHP, BBP and DBP were already banned above de minimis levels in children's products.
The CPSC agreed to vote on a final rule by 18 October to settle a lawsuit brought by NGOs.DINP ban questioned
Discussion focused on DINP, as it had in a hearing the previous week.
"I believe we should have lifted the interim prohibition on DINP," said the commission’s chairman, Ann Marie Buerkle (R).
She said the proposal was based on data concerning "a few individual women", and ignores trends in the most recent research. The rationale for expanding the DINP ban "amounts to nothing more than the observation that a child's exposure to phthalates can also result from handling or licking toys rather than placing in the mouth," she said.
Ms Buerkle added that while she disagrees with the conclusion, the reasoning behind it is superior to that underpinning the commission's decision in September to move toward a ban on organohalogen flame retardants in certain consumer products.
"There are similarities between phthalates" but the researchers examining the substances "did not treat them all the same", Ms Buerkle said.
Commissioner Robert Adler (D) said the approaches are similar in that they take aim at a class of substances to guard against "regrettable substitution". While DINP may be less toxic than some other phthalates, he said, it had become a popular alternative to its more toxic cousins.
"Merely because there is a reduced risk doesn’t mean there is no risk," Mr Adler said.Partisan balance shifting
After the vote, Mr Mohorovic announced that he is resigning, effective from 20 October. He will join the law firm Dentons, which focuses on consumer product regulation.
The Trump administration announced in September that it will nominate Dana Baiocco, a Boston-based product liability defence lawyer, to a seven-year term when the term of Commissioner Marietta Robinson (D) expires this month.
By law, the five-member CPSC cannot have more than three commissioners of the same party, but Ms Robinson can continue to serve until she is replaced. Mr Mohorovic's departure will leave Democrats with a 3-1 majority until confirmation processes – which congressional Democrats can opt to delay with procedural manoeuvres – run their course.
"It is my hope that the new [Republican] majority will resist the temptation to do unto others as has been done to them," Mr Mohorovic said, after offering effusive praise for Democrats who had been his colleagues. "Hyperpartisanship is disastrous for public policy," he said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/60219/us-cpsc-votes-to-ban-phthalates-in-childrens-products
-
Missouri Court Reverses Johnson & Johnson Talc Verdict
Oct 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Johnson & Johnson has won the reversal of a $72m verdict in damages it was ordered to pay in its ongoing legal battle over talc.
The 2016 verdict had been the first loss dealt to the consumer products conglomerate by a St Louis Missouri court. It concerned the family of Alabama resident Jacqueline Fox who claimed her death from ovarian cancer was linked to use of the company's talc-containing products.
The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District reversed the $72m verdict because it says the case should not have been tried in St Louis.
A Supreme Court ruling in the matter of Bristol-Myers Squibb v Superior Court of California found that state courts have limited authority to hear claims against companies that aren’t based within the jurisdiction, when the injuries did not occur there.
In light of this decision, the St Louis court declared a mistrial in the talc trial, this summer.
The Missouri appellate panel cited the Supreme Court decision in its ruling. Ms Fox, who died four months before trial, was one of 65 plaintiffs in her specific lawsuit. Only two of them were Missouri residents.
The cases of Fox and other plaintiffs from outside the state were joined with those of plaintiffs from Missouri, though each case resulting in a verdict has been tried individually.
"The fact that resident plaintiffs sustained similar injuries does not support specific jurisdiction as to non-resident claims," Judge Lisa Van Amburg wrote.
Businesses have long decried the practice of plaintiffs ‘venue shopping’ for courts more favourable to injury claims.
Johnson & Johnson has been ordered to pay $110m, $70m and $55m in three other cases – some with non-resident plaintiffs – heard in a St Louis court. And, in August, a California jury handed the company its largest loss by far, ordering it to pay $417m in damages.
The company has appealed all decisions and says it expects further legal victories.
"We’re pleased with the opinion of the Missouri court (...). In the cases involving non-resident plaintiffs who sued in the state of Missouri, we consistently argued that there was no jurisdiction and we expect the existing verdicts that we are appealing to be reversed," it said in a statement.
Ted Meadows, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told Reuters the ruling "represents a denial of justice for the Fox family". He said the family was considering an appeal.
Johnson & Johnson faces lawsuits from another 4,800 plaintiffs nationally who assert similar claims over its talc-based products. And it may also face a suit in the EU, pending the outcome of US trials.
Meanwhile, the FDA has begun a study exploring the potential link between talc in cosmetics and cancer. Results are not expected for a few years.
https://chemicalwatch.com/60266/missouri-court-reverses-johnson-johnson-talc-verdict
-
Retailer H&M Is First Downstream Company to Join ChemSec Marketplace
Oct 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Fashion retailer H&M is the first downstream company to sign up to NGO ChemSec’s online marketplace for safer alternatives.
The platform, launched in May, allows chemical manufacturers to advertise safer alternatives, allowing downstream users and brands to search for and buy substances.
Demand for the site originally came from the NGO’s business group, which H&M are a member of, along with companies such as Apple, B&Q, Boots and Ikea.Promising alternatives
H&M placed an advertisement on Chemsec’s platform, searching for bisphenol free thermal paper that "does not contain the same hazardous properties from a health and environmental perspective".
Anna Biverstal of H&M, told Chemical Watch there were "promising alternatives" posted on the marketplace, which the company plans to follow up.
She said: "It’s not always easy to find alternatives to those chemicals that you want to phase out."
It can be difficult, she added, to even know where to start looking. "I think the marketplace is a great initiative and tool that would make the search for alternatives, and connect to those providing the alternatives, much easier."
Other benefits of the site, she said, include the ability to search for alternatives and search by sector.
She said the marketplace allows downstream and upstream users of chemicals to communicate. "It also makes it possible to publish a request for an alternative that might not exist today, which means a request for innovation."
However, when using the site, downstream companies have to decide for themselves whether it is a good alternative, she added.
"You need to have knowledge of the different certifications and assessment methods to be able to make a decision."
The site could be instrumental in helping reduce hazardous chemicals used in the textile industry, she said.Detox aims
The Marketplace also fits with H&M’s commitment to Greenpeace's Detox campaign goals to reduce hazardous chemicals by 2020, alongside industry-wide schemes like Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC).
Ms Biverstal said that companies committed to Detox and ZDHC would have the opportunity to find possible alternatives to chemicals that need to be phased out from the textile supply chain.
ChemSec communications manager, Peter Pierrou told Chemical Watch that very little effort has been made so far in in engaging downstream users in the Marketplace project, instead the NGO has focused solely on getting chemical providers on board. "The fact that H&M are on the Marketplace already is actually more than we expected as of now," he said.
Chemsec is planning a bigger push towards downstream users but is focusing first on filling the Marketplace with more adverts from suppliers.
Mr Pierrou said: "We know that downstream users are frequenting the Marketplace already, browsing through the ads looking for safer alternatives. But they do so in the same manner that you and I would do when we go online shopping, without openly stating that they are looking for something."Textiles
Several large chemical suppliers in the textile sector have joined the Marketplace initiative including Huntsman, DyStar and Chemours. They are advertising alternatives that fulfil industry standards like Bluesign, the Global Organic Textiles Standard (GOTS) and the ZDHC Manufacturing Restricted Substances List (MRSL) to replace problematic chemicals, such as PFCs and chrome dyes.
According to Chemsec senior toxicologist, Anna Lennquist, textile brands understand the urgency of substituting hazardous chemicals.
She said: "I can instantly spot a number of potential game-changers among the new Marketplace ads, as several of them present alternatives to 'politically hot' chemicals – all of which pose serious threats to human health and the environment."
Franz Gruener, global marketing manager at Huntsman Textile Effects, said: "The opportunity to share our newest developments helps us to reach potential customers, who realise the need to implement chemical legislation in their day-to-day operations," he said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/60213/retailer-hm-is-first-downstream-company-to-join-chemsec-marketplace
-
NGOs Urge Tighter Regulations for Microplastics
Oct 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
NGO umbrella group Rethink Plastics has called on the European Commission to implement immediate legislative measures to reduce microplastic pollution at the source.
Its calls come after the Commission's public consultation on policy options to reduce microplastics entering the marine environment closed on 16 October.
The group says it wants action on microplastics to be included in the EU plastics strategy, scheduled for December.
Rethink Plastic says united European action is needed to:
· bring consistency to regulations;
· ensure a level playing field; and
· limit the consequences for economies and the environment.
Microplastics are found in personal care and cleaning products, such as toothpaste or exfoliating soap.
Earlier this week, UK cosmetics trade association CTPA asked the Commission to clarify whether Britain's proposed ban on plastic microbeads in cosmetic products complies with EU law.
https://chemicalwatch.com/60212/ngos-urge-tighter-regulations-for-microplastics
-
German Environment Agency Updates Criteria for 'Mobile' Chemicals in Water
Oct 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Emma Davies
Germany's federal environment agency (UBA) has updated its proposal for implementing criteria to identify persistent, mobile and toxic (PMT) substances, following comments from EU member states and industry. The revised document now includes a very persistent, very mobile (vPvM) category.
The agency first published its proposal to introduce a PMT classification for substances in drinking and ground water in May. The aim is for such compounds to qualify for inclusion on the REACH candidate list. The agency also hopes that chemical manufacturers and downstream users will adopt its proposed criteria and assessment procedure, to identify PM/PMT substances during product development.
Persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) substances and those that are very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) can qualify as substances of very high concern under REACH. The hazard posed by PM/PMT substances has an equivalent level of concern but the substances have different pathways for transport and exposure, says the UBA.
Humans are primarily exposed to PBT/vPvB substances through diet as they build up along the food chain. But PM/PMT substances circulate in the water cycle. Substances that are both persistent and mobile can reach drinking water sources and survive water treatment, says Dr Michael Neumann, scientific officer at UBA.Member state support
Echa's expert group for PBT substances has suggested that "in principle, there is general support to further discuss the merits of establishing such a concept". The expert group is currently considering UBA's revised proposals.
Although NGOs and member states are reported to be broadly supportive of the proposal, industry is not so keen. "Industry representatives have highlighted the difficulties with the proposed PM & PMT classifications to the REACH PBT expert group," says Graham Whale, a UK ecotoxicologist, speaking to Chemical Watch in relation to his work with Cefic and Ecetoc.
"These proposed classifications have raised concerns because they could lead to hazard-based restrictions on mobile substances that actually present no significant risk to the environment," he adds.
"Such a situation could arise, for example, if mobile substances that rapidly biodegrade in groundwater environments are found to fail laboratory-based biodegradation tests. This is apart from the concerns relating to which criteria would be used to define mobility and toxicity."
If the criteria can be agreed on, the next step is to see which substances fall under them, says Dr Neumann.
The comments from the Echa consultation are not available to the public. The UBA will publish the revised protocol on its website soon.
https://chemicalwatch.com/60218/german-environment-agency-updates-criteria-for-mobile-chemicals-in-water
-
Rac: Titanium Dioxide Carcinogenicity Applies to Other Particles
Oct 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
The titanium dioxide carcinogenicity profile applies to other substances with low solubility and toxicity, and that can be solid particles, according to an Echa science committee.
In its Opinion on the carcinogenicity of titanium dioxide, Echa’s Risk Assessment Committee (Rac) says that the profile is "not exclusively characteristic" for the substance. Instead it applies to a group of substances that can be "poorly soluble, low toxicity" (PSLT) particles.
Industry had argued that titanium dioxide should not be classified as carcinogenic because the proposed mechanism of toxicity is not related to the chemistry of the substance. Instead, the toxic effect is caused by physical characteristics, namely the size and shape of the particles and the poor solubility.
The same physical characteristics are common to many substances, industry had said. Therefore it would be inappropriate to use them as the basis for classifying any one particular substance.
But Rac says such physical characteristics are "intrinsic properties" as defined in EU classification, labelling and packaging guidance. Therefore they are relevant to the classification of a specific substance, in this case titanium dioxide. Equally, they would be relevant to the classification of other PSLT particle substances.
Asked what bearing this Opinion could have on such classification, Echa told Chemical Watch that it follows the same procedure, with the same steps, for every harmonised classification proposal submitted, "and they are all treated as individual cases". It added: "Rac assesses each proposal for harmonised classification, of any substance, on its own merits, and at the end of the process Echa provides an independent scientific opinion for the Commission’s decision making".
Rac concludes that titanium dioxide warrants a category 2 classification for carcinogenicity. A French proposal had argued for a category 1B classification, while industry argued that no classification was required.
The classification recommended by Rac is non-standard in several ways.
Generally classifications cover all exposure routes. But Rac says that the titanium dioxide classification should cover only exposure by inhalation. This would be to account for the absence of any experimental evidence that the substance is carcinogenic via oral or dermal exposure. "Based on the data available today, Rac considers it conclusively proven that no other route of exposure causes the carcinogenicity hazard," Rac said.
Furthermore, the classification explicitly excludes forms of the substance fulfilling certain fibre criteria from the World Health Organization, as well as forms with surface coatings. Rac says that such forms must be evaluated to determine whether the category should be higher and other routes of exposure included.Grouping nanomaterials
Last month, the EU-funded NanoReg project reported that engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) could be grouped according to their potential to cause inflammation. Kunal Bhattacharya at Stockholm’s Karolinska Institute led the research, which focused on immune cells.
They found that ENMs can cause inflammation without being cytotoxic. Multi-walled carbon nanotubes, zinc oxide, silver and silicon dioxide were most toxic to cells.
Single-walled carbon nanotubes, titanium dioxide, barium sulfate and cerium dioxide nanomaterials were not cytotoxic but caused inflammation.
"While the present results alone cannot be used for risk assessment of ENM effects, these studies nevertheless represent a first step towards grouping of ENMs on the basis of their inflammogenic potential," the research concludes.
https://chemicalwatch.com/60216/rac-titanium-dioxide-carcinogenicity-applies-to-other-particles
-
Oct 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
CLH intentionsEcha has received new intentions to harmonise the classification and labelling (CLH) of four chemicals from Germany. They are:
· melamine;
· 2,4,6-triisopropyl-m-phenylene diisocyanate;
· 3-aminomethyl-3,5,5-trimethylcyclohexylamine; and
· methyl-1H-benzotriazole.Submitted CLH proposal
The agency has received a CLH proposal for 1,2,4-triazole from Belgium. It proposes a future entry in Annex VI of the CLP Regulation of acute toxicity 4, H302, eye irritation 2, H319 and reproductive toxicity 1B, H360FD.Setac Europe conference case studies
Echa is seeking abstracts, presentations and posters on the topics it will be presenting at the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (Setac) Europe conference. These are:
· environmental exposure assessment;
· integrating higher-tier solutions;
· endocrine disruptors;
· substitution;
· nanomaterials; and
· examining the interface between statistical significance and biological relevance for toxicity.
The deadline for submission of abstracts is 29 November. The conference will be taking place in Rome from 13-17 May next year.OELs consultation
The agency has started a public consultation on scientific evaluation of occupational exposure limits (OELs) for acrylonitrile, benzene and nickel. The consultation period started last week. The acrylonitrile consultation closes on 10 November. The other consultations close on 7 November.CLH consultation
Echa has started a public consultation on the harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) of geraniol, citral and 2-butoxyethanol. The consultations close on 1 December.Guidance document: registering complex inorganic coloured pigments
The agency has contributed to a new guidance document on the registration of complex inorganic coloured pigments. The document was coordinated by Eurocolour, a sector group of Cefic and the umbrella organisation for manufacturers of pigments, dyes and fillers in Europe. It has been written to help companies with substance identification.
https://chemicalwatch.com/60194/echa-round-up
-
In Glyphosate Review, WHO Cancer Agency Edited Out 'Non-Carcinogenic' Findings
Oct 19, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Kate Kelland
The World Health Organization's cancer agency dismissed and edited findings from a draft of its review of the weedkiller glyphosate that were at odds with its final conclusion that the chemical probably causes cancer.
Documents seen by Reuters show how a draft of a key section of the International Agency for Research on Cancer's (IARC) assessment of glyphosate - a report that has prompted international disputes and multi-million-dollar lawsuits - underwent significant changes and deletions before the report was finalised and made public.
IARC, based in Lyon, France, wields huge influence as a semi-autonomous unit of the WHO, the United Nations health agency. It issued a report on its assessment of glyphosate - a key ingredient in Monsanto Corp's top-selling weedkiller RoundUp - in March 2015. It ranked glyphosate a Group 2a carcinogen, a substance that probably causes cancer in people.
That conclusion was based on its experts' view that there was "sufficient evidence" glyphosate causes cancer in animals and "limited evidence" it can do so in humans. The Group 2a classification has prompted mass litigation in the United States against Monsanto and could lead to a ban on glyphosate sales across the European Union from the start of next year.
The edits identified by Reuters occurred in the chapter of IARC's review focusing on animal studies. This chapter was important in IARC's assessment of glyphosate, since it was in animal studies that IARC decided there was "sufficient" evidence of carcinogenicity.Continue reading the main story
One effect of the changes to the draft, reviewed by Reuters in a comparison with the published report, was the removal of multiple scientists' conclusions that their studies had found no link between glyphosate and cancer in laboratory animals.
In one instance, a fresh statistical analysis was inserted - effectively reversing the original finding of a study being reviewed by IARC.
In another, a sentence in the draft referenced a pathology report ordered by experts at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It noted the report "firmly" and "unanimously" agreed that the "compound" – glyphosate – had not caused abnormal growths in the mice being studied. In the final published IARC monograph, this sentence had been deleted.
Reuters found 10 significant changes that were made between the draft chapter on animal studies and the published version of IARC's glyphosate assessment. In each case, a negative conclusion about glyphosate leading to tumors was either deleted or replaced with a neutral or positive one. Reuters was unable to determine who made the changes.
IARC did not respond to questions about the alterations. It said the draft was "confidential" and "deliberative in nature." After Reuters asked about the changes, the agency posted a statement on its website advising the scientists who participate in its working groups "not to feel pressured to discuss their deliberations" outside the confines of IARC.
Reuters contacted 16 scientists who served in the IARC expert working group that conducted the weedkiller review to ask them about the edits and deletions. Most did not respond; five said they could not answer questions about the draft; none was willing or able to say who made the changes, or why or when they were made.
The chairman of the IARC sub-group tasked with reviewing evidence of glyphosate's effect on laboratory animals was Charles Jameson, an American toxicologist. In testimony as part of personal-injury lawsuits against Monsanto in the United States, Jameson told lawyers for Monsanto he did not know when, why or by whom the edits had been made.
Monsanto is facing multiple legal claims in the U.S. from plaintiffs who allege glyphosate gave them or their loved ones cancer. Jameson is an expert witness for the plaintiffs. He did not respond to questions for this article.
Scott Partridge, Monsanto's vice president of global strategy, told Reuters the changes to the draft showed how "IARC members manipulated and distorted scientific data" in their glyphosate assessment.
IARC declined to comment.
Numerous national and international agencies have reviewed glyphosate. IARC is the only one to have declared the substance a probable carcinogen. Compared with other agencies, IARC has divulged little about its review process. Until now, it has been nearly impossible to see details, such as draft documents, of how IARC arrived at its decision.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) said that in its assessment of the weedkiller, the scientific decision-making process "can be traced from start to finish." Jose Tarazona, head of EFSA's pesticides unit, told Reuters: "Anyone can go to EFSA's website and review how the assessment evolved over time. So you can see clearly how experts … appraised each and every study and also how comments from the public consultation were incorporated into the scientific thinking."
In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency published a full 1,261-page transcript of a three-day scientific advisory panel meeting on its ongoing evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate in December 2016.
No such record of the deliberations behind IARC's monographs is published.
In a previous response to questions about the transparency of the IARC process, the agency's director, Chris Wild, referred Reuters to a letter in which he said his agency's assessments are "widely respected for their scientific rigor, standardized and transparent process." Wild also said IARC's methods are intended to allow scientists to engage in free scientific debate at its monograph meetings.
DELETIONS AND ADDITIONS
IARC says its working group scientists are selected for "their expertise and the absence of real or apparent conflicts of interest." For the panel that evaluated glyphosate and four other pesticides in what is known as IARC's Monograph 112, scientists from 11 countries met at the agency's headquarters in Lyon for a week-long meeting starting on March 3, 2015. The meeting "followed nearly a year of review and preparation" by IARC staff and working group members, "including a comprehensive review of the latest available scientific evidence," IARC said in a statement at the time.
In June, Reuters reported how the chairman of the IARC working group was aware of new data showing no link between glyphosate and cancer in humans, but the agency did not take it into account because it had not been published.
No drafts of IARC's glyphosate assessment have surfaced before. However, a draft was obtained by Monsanto as part of the legal proceedings in the United States. Reuters reviewed chapter 3, the section on animal studies, which is the only section no longer covered by a confidentiality order of the court.
The glyphosate review in IARC's Monograph 112 runs to 92 pages; the chapter on animal studies consists of just over 10 pages. Reuters has not seen any other sections of the draft and cannot say whether they also underwent significant edits.
In comparing draft and final versions of chapter 3, Reuters found that in several instances comments in the draft were removed; the comments noted that studies had concluded glyphosate was not carcinogenic. They were replaced in the final version with the sentence: "The Working Group was not able to evaluate this study because of the limited experimental data provided in the review article and supplemental information."
This sentence was inserted six times into the final version. Each time it replaced a contrary conclusion, noted in the draft, by the original investigators on the study being considered, such as: "The authors concluded that glyphosate was not carcinogenic in Sprague Dawley rats"; "The authors concluded that glyphosate technical acid was not carcinogenic in Wistar rats"; and "The authors concluded that glyphosate was not carcinogenic in CD-1 mice in this study."
Reuters also found changes to the conclusions and statistical significance of two mouse studies. These studies were cited in IARC's ultimate finding of "sufficient" evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in animals.
One edit concerned a 1983 study in mice. IARC's published monograph contains a fresh statistical analysis calculation as part of its review of that study. The original investigators found no statistically significant link between glyphosate and cancer in the mice. IARC's new calculation reached the opposite conclusion, attributing statistical significance to it.
This new calculation was inserted into the final published assessment, but was not in the draft version seen by Reuters. The change gave the working group more evidence on which to base its conclusion that glyphosate was probably carcinogenic.
In further discussion of the same 1983 study, IARC's final published report refers to expert pathologists on a panel commissioned to reanalyze the work of the original investigators. The IARC draft notes that these pathologists "unanimously" agreed with the original investigators that glyphosate was not related to potentially precancerous tissue growths in the mice. IARC's final report deletes that sentence.
Reviewing a second mouse study, the IARC draft included a comment saying the incidence of a type of animal cancer known as haemangiosarcoma was "not significant" in both males and females. IARC's published monograph, by contrast, inserts a fresh statistical analysis calculation on the data in male mice, and concludes that the findings were statistically significant.
INFLUENTIAL MONOGRAPH
IARC's assessment that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen is an outlier. In the 40 or so years since the weedkiller first came to the market, glyphosate has been repeatedly scrutinized and judged safe to use.
A year after IARC issued its evaluation, a joint United Nations and World Health Organization panel reviewed the potential for glyphosate in food to cause cancer in people. It concluded the weedkiller was "unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans."
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which first assessed glyphosate in the 1980s and has reviewed it several times since, says it has "low toxicity for humans." The European Food Safety Authority and the European Chemicals Agency, which advise the 28 members of the EU, have also assessed glyphosate within the past two years and ruled it safe.
But IARC's Monograph 112 has had great influence.
It is weighing heavily on a pending European Union decision – due by the end of the year and possibly to be made next week - on whether glyphosate should be relicensed for sale across the 28 member states. France, one of the bloc's agricultural powerhouses, has said it wants the weedkiller phased out and then banned, provoking protests by its vocal farmers, who argue glyphosate is vital to their business.
A failure to renew glyphosate's license by the end of the year would see an EU ban kick in on Jan. 1, 2018.
In the United States, Monsanto – the firm that first developed and marketed glyphosate - is facing litigation in California involving at least 184 individual plaintiffs who cite the IARC assessment and claim exposure to RoundUp gave them a form of cancer known as non-Hodgkin lymphoma. They allege Monsanto failed to warn consumers of the risks. Monsanto denies the allegations. The case is ongoing.
Members of the U.S. Congress, concerned about what they described as IARC's "inconsistent" standards and determinations for classifying substances as carcinogenic, last year launched investigations into American taxpayer funding of IARC. The investigations are ongoing.
In Europe, IARC has become embroiled in a public spat with experts at the European Food Safety Authority, which conducted its own review of glyphosate in November 2015 and found it "unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans."
With IARC monograph meetings, some outside observers are selected and allowed to witness proceedings, but they are banned from talking about what goes on. Journalists are generally not allowed in.
Last year, Reuters reported on an email sent by IARC to the experts on its glyphosate working group in which the agency advised them not to discuss their work or disclose documents. The email said IARC "does not encourage participants to retain working drafts or documents after the monograph has been published."
Reuters sent questions about the draft version of the glyphosate assessment to members of the IARC working group that assessed the herbicide as well as to the head of IARC's monograph program, Kurt Straif, and to Kathryn (Kate) Guyton, the staffer responsible for the glyphosate review. IARC responded by posting the following message on its website:
"Members of the IARC Monograph Working Group which evaluated glyphosate in March 2015 have expressed concern after being approached by various parties asking them to justify scientific positions in draft documents produced during the Monographs process. IARC would like to reiterate that draft versions of the Monographs are deliberative in nature and confidential. Scientists should not feel pressured to discuss their deliberations outside this particular forum."
IARC answered none of Reuters' specific questions about changes to the draft.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/10/19/world/europe/19reuters-who-iarc-glyphosate-specialreport.html?_r=0
-
Alaska's Ambitious LNG Project Needs 1 Good Customer
Oct 19, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
Alaska's hopes of building a $43 billion liquefied natural gas export project are colliding with the state's continued economic downturn, which could force officials to delay commercialization of Alaska's abundant North Slope natural gas reserves.
Alaska Gasline Development Corp. officials on Monday outlined the agency's plans to sign up potential customers and investors and to secure federal regulatory approval for the Alaska LNG project.
But at the same time, AGDC board Chairman Dave Cruz said that if a long-term natural gas contract isn't secured by the end of the year, the state agency won't ask the Alaska Legislature for additional funding for fiscal 2019, which begins in July 2018.
The agency currently has roughly $72 million in its bank accounts and is spending an average of $3 million per week. Meanwhile, the state of Alaska is struggling with a multibillion-dollar budget deficit created when world oil prices collapsed, slashing petroleum revenues coming to the heavily oil-dependent Frontier State.
At a four-hour-long joint hearing of the Alaska House and Senate resources committees, Cruz conceded that AGDC is unlikely to sign "a firm, fixed, take-or-pay contract" by the agency's self-imposed December deadline.
But he said AGDC officials would declare victory if they're able to sign a "letter of intent" with one of the potential Asian natural gas buyers that state officials are relentlessly courting. "A letter of intent by 12/31/17 is what the board truly wants to see," he said.
Lieza Wilcox, AGDC's vice president for commercial and economics, explained that a first contract would get the ball rolling for financing Alaska's massive LNG project, which would pipe natural gas from Prudhoe Bay to the Cook Inlet, where it would ship the fuel to buyers in Asia.
"The first serious buyer gives the confidence for the project to seriously start raising its capital," Wilcox explained at the Anchorage hearing.
"Once a project starts to catch some momentum and you have a reputable party that is interested ... that should give us a lot of confidence that we can ultimately achieve the end result, which is selling the entire project."
Despite those assurances, some Alaska state legislators were skeptical that a single letter of intent would provide enough impetus for the Alaska LNG project to attract new investors and obtain outside financing for the ambitious megaproject.
The lawmakers also peppered the AGDC staff with questions about the economic viability of the venture and its potential impact on the state's rocky finances.
Alaska state Senate Resources Committee Chairperson Cathy Giessel noted that the state of Alaska has spent roughly $700 million since 2000 on a variety of unsuccessful pipeline projects that sought to commercialize the state's 35 trillion cubic feet of proven natural gas reserves.
With the Alaska LNG project now facing low gas prices and a glut of fuel on the world market, Giessel said, "I hope that we're not budgeting for a project that could really sink the state financially."
AGDC took control of the Alaska LNG project in January after its former partners — Exxon Mobil Corp., BP Alaska and ConocoPhillips Co. — dropped out citing strong economic headwinds (Energywire, Feb. 6).
Alaska's proposed natural gas project would include a gas treatment plant on the North Slope, an 800-mile, 42-inch diameter gas pipeline running from Prudhoe Bay to the Cook Inlet, and a liquefaction plant and export terminal designed to produce up to 20 million metric tons of LNG each year.
It also would provide funding for a pipeline connection with natural gas fields at Point Thomson, located just west of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The pipeline is expected to carry 3.5 billion cubic feet of gas per day, with roughly 75 percent coming from the state's central Prudhoe Bay field and 25 percent from the Point Thomson site.Tax questions
The state took over the proposed Alaska LNG export project just after the industry-state coalition had completed the preliminary front-end engineering and design study phase of the project, known as pre-FEED work.
At the time, Exxon Mobil officials, who headed up the state-industry coalition, said the next stage of engineering and design work was expected to cost between $1 billion and $2 billion. Frank Richards, senior vice president of program management at AGDC, explained that the state couldn't afford to handle that expense on its own.
Instead, AGDC officials are focusing on clearing the federal red tape necessary to build the proposed LNG project. "We needed to de-risk the project somewhat," Richards said at the hearing. "And the greatest way to do that was to advance the regulatory and permitting stage. And that's what we've been focusing on for the last nine months."
In April, the agency filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to start the environmental impact statement process, which is expected to last at least two years.
At the time, AGDC asked the federal regulators to complete the EIS by the end of 2018, with the aim of beginning construction the following year. But the Alaska agency is still providing data that FERC officials need to begin the environmental assessment.
In September, the IRS ruled that AGDC qualifies as a tax-exempt political subdivision that is not required to pay federal income tax and can issue tax-exempt debt.
However, state lawmakers at the Anchorage hearing questioned whether outside companies that invest in the Alaska gas line project would be eligible for the same tax exemptions as the state.
More recently, AGDC has been working with the Trump administration to streamline federal permitting for the Alaska LNG project. The state gas project has been included in the newly created Federal Infrastructure Permitting Dashboard, an online tool for tracking the government's environmental reviews and authorizations for large infrastructure projects.
That federal effort, known as FAST-41, was created under the 2015 Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act. AGDC's Richards said that thanks to the dashboard project, the federal agencies are expected to post their schedules for reviewing the Alaska LNG project within the coming weeks.
Richards also said the state project is likely to benefit from President Trump's January executive order calling for faster federal permitting and environmental reviews for "high-priority" infrastructure projects.
AGDC officials are eager to move quickly on the proposed Alaska LNG export project to sell natural gas into the Asian markets in 2025, a time when many LNG contracts around the world are due to be renegotiated. At that point, they say, Alaska's project would have a good chance of attracting new customers.
AGDC's Wilcox said that other new LNG projects are also focused on selling their gas in 2025. "That's where every LNG project at the moment that's in development is trying to compete," she said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/10/19/stories/1060064029
-
PHMSA Wants More Comments on Gas Storage Rule
Oct 19, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
Federal pipeline regulators are reopening the comment period for new rules on underground natural gas storage prompted by a massive gas leak in Southern California.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration announced yesterday that it will take comment on the rules for 30 days after the notice gets published in the Federal Register. The public will be able to comment on concerns raised about the rules by several gas trade groups.
The agency has been working since early 2016 to write the regulations in response to a gas leak at the Aliso Canyon storage facility in Southern California. The agency adopted a set of interim final rules in January and planned to revise them within a year.
But PHMSA has already put parts of the rule on hold. The agency announced in June that it won't enforce parts of the newly written regulations while officials consider concerns raised by the groups, which include the American Gas Association, American Petroleum Institute and American Public Gas Association (Energywire, July 21).
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/10/19/stories/1060064009
-
Court Dismisses Challenge to Mountain Valley Water Permit
Oct 19, 2017 | E&E Energywire
A federal appeals court has dismissed environmentalists' lawsuit challenging a West Virginia water quality permit for the Mountain Valley pipeline.
The Tuesday decision from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes after the state Department of Environmental Protection voluntarily withdrew the permit, finding that further evaluation was necessary to decide whether the $3.7 billion project would degrade West Virginian streams and waterways.
Environmentalists had argued that the DEP had not evaluated the project in accordance with a state policy establishing specific standards for impacts on water quality.
The case's dismissal came less than a week after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the pipeline project (Ken Ward Jr., Charleston [W.Va.] Gazette-Mail, Oct. 18). — DI
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/10/19/stories/1060064007
-
We Asked 4 Agency Bosses About Trump. They're Worried
Oct 19, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman
Take it from four former U.S. EPA chiefs — this is all going to get much worse before it gets better.
President Trump once remarked that he "could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters." In these political times, when in Congress not one Republican is to the left of a Democrat and not one Democrat is to the right of a Republican, the regulatory mission of EPA is being taxed by the growing gulf between parties.
"The more I see about how persuaded people are becoming of the wisdom and positions of their own tribe, the more concern I have about our ability to speak to people who don't accept us. I honestly don't know," said William Reilly, President George H.W. Bush's EPA chief. "Can we recover from this?"
EPA has been fully politicized, an outgrowth of an increasingly partisan country. It's an agency without a natural constituency — we all breathe air, we all drink water, we all feel the effects of climate change — but it has many enemies on the right who feel its very existence is an intrusion. It's a symbol of the regulatory overreach that Trump has vowed to defeat. That climate change has become the defining environmental issue of this era has deepened the polarization around the agency.
"It's sort of indicative of the problems with this current administration. The president in particular, he does so many things that are controversial in the course of a 24-hour cycle that the stuff happening at EPA is below the radar," said two-time former EPA Administrator Bill Ruckelshaus, a Republican. "That's too bad because it's unlikely to trigger the type of demand from the public like in the 1970s that their health and environment be protected. I think they will figure it out, but it will take a long time, and a lot of damage will be done. And that's the thing about climate change — it's time-limited."
It wasn't always like this, the ex-EPA chiefs said. When rivers needed cleaning, air needed clearing and soil needed cleansing, people called on EPA to do its job. But as the agency has increasingly emphasized addressing climate change, after claiming victories in clearing the rivers, air and soils for which it was created, its divisiveness has grown.
Four former agency administrators said that restoring faith in EPA might take an environmental catastrophe. And they're not sure that will be enough, given the partisan reactions to the lead poisoning crisis in Flint, Mich. Americans have become too tribal, they said, and the anti-regulatory mantra too strong among the political right. At the same time, the visible ills that EPA was created to solve — smog-choked cities, oil-slicked rivers — have largely been remedied. The agency now seems like a nuisance to conservatives who want less government. Just listen to the cheers generated by Trump's EPA bashing at his rallies, the former officials said. That sentiment has been climbing. Who's to say when it will peak?
"It's clearly more antagonistic," Ruckelshaus said of Republicans' attitude toward EPA. "If [Trump] can get a positive response from his so-called base, he keeps doing it. He keeps making the charges."
In the context of climate change, that could be consigning the United States — the world's second-largest greenhouse gas emitter — and the world to a perilous fate.
"We're victims of our success because the air is cleaner, the water is purer and the environment is better protected. But that can start to reverse itself," said Christine Todd Whitman, who ran EPA under President George W. Bush. "It's one of those things that I don't want us to have to reach another crisis in order to deal with it. Americans respond well to crises, but [climate change] is an incremental one, so this is going to affect a lot of lives in the process."'Easy to hate'
While all politics is more partisan these days, EPA is an acute example, Whitman said. It's also a key agency through which Trump can fulfill his campaign promises.
In part, that's a product of gridlock. Congress is unlikely to reopen bedrock environmental laws because no one wants to cast a vote removing air, water and public health protections. So policy change at EPA is subject to executive authority.
What's resulted is a pingpong effect, said David Konisky, an associate professor at Indiana University's School of Public and Environmental Affairs. As U.S. politics has grown more polarized, those swings have been sharper. EPA is a talking point for reining in regulations, a "scapegoat for any sluggishness in the economy," he said. That's a huge shift from the bipartisan consensus in the 1970s on the need for environmental protection, he added.
The dramatic shift under Trump is in some ways a response to how aggressively President Obama used executive authority under EPA to tackle climate change. Congress didn't move on legislation to regulate greenhouse gases after the agency determined that those pollutants endanger public health. The Supreme Court upheld that ruling.
But lawmakers did try. And it seemed to intensify partisan divisions. The failure of greenhouse gas cap-and-trade legislation in 2010 in part gave rise to the tea party, which helped defeat GOP lawmakers who were once vocal on climate, or kept them silent on the matter. So that led to climate regulations. Obama's Clean Power Plan, the rule that aimed to slash power-sector emissions 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, became a conservative bogeyman for unwanted government intervention.
"They didn't act. EPA would have been much happier had Congress acted. They didn't want to do this regulation. But because the Supreme Court held up the endangerment finding, they had to act," Whitman said. "Regulations are always easy to hate. And you've always had a contingent in the Democratic Party that thought you could never regulate enough and Republicans who never wanted to regulate anything. But the majority has always been in the center."
Observers of EPA history note that current EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt isn't the first to try to dismantle the agency. President Reagan's EPA chief, Anne Gorsuch Burford, disagreed with the agency's purpose and wanted to gut its regulations from the inside. But scandal, internal strife and, ultimately, Congress led to her ouster.
But that was then. Such a chain of events is unlikely under Trump and Pruitt. We are in a period during which 65 percent of conservative Republicans think stricter environmental laws and regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy, according to a Pew Research Center survey.
On top of that, much more money has been poured into environmental fights — especially on climate change — to harden right against left.
"Unlike the Gorsuch term, where there was a Congress that was willing to hold her and the agency accountable for her actions, we don't have a Congress today that's willing to do the same," Konisky said.Diluting environmental goals
Events in the past two weeks underscore how much of a political football EPA has become.
On Tuesday, Pruitt floated the idea of banning scientists from federal science advisory panels if they've received research grants. Pruitt suggested they could be biased, echoing House Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who has pushed legislation to that effect. Doing so would effectively disqualify some of the most knowledgeable subject-matter experts in the field, many of whom get EPA grants to conduct work at major research universities, according to observers.
On Monday, Pruitt heralded the end of a practice known on the right as "sue-and-settle." Conservatives and industry had long accused the Obama administration of acting in cahoots with environmental groups by encouraging them to sue for not enforcing environmental laws and then settling those cases behind closed doors. Environmental groups call this fiction.
And last week, Pruitt announced the rollback of the Clean Power Plan in a ceremony with Kentucky coal miners. Afterward, he told agriculture and industry representatives that they "count more" than the environmental groups with which he's rarely met.
This was a celebration of removing environmental protections by a man leading an agency whose mission is to protect the environment.
"This is a very different era. There's nothing traditional about the current approach that the president is taking and the EPA administrator is taking. There's been language used that essentially delegitimized the efforts," Reilly said. "Always to question and to reduce the environmental goals and performance objectives — that is all new."
That's not to say EPA has been universally beloved until now. Carol Browner, who led the agency under President Clinton, said the growing anti-regulatory sentiment among Republicans was strong in the 1990s when then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) pushed his "Contract With America."
Most Americans opposed what House Republicans were trying to do, Browner said of the 1990s. She said most Americans similarly object to what Pruitt and Trump are doing today. (Pew found that 59 percent of respondents believed environmental regulations and laws are worth their cost.)
But back then, it was largely a matter of getting the message out when it hadn't gotten much attention. Now, Browner acknowledges, the flow of information is so fast and compartmentalized that countering the narrative — and reaching across partisan divides — is inherently more complicated for an agency like EPA.
"Having fought through the Gingrich stuff, it was really rough. It was a different time. No one could tweet. I don't even think I had a BlackBerry at EPA," Browner said. "The ability for information to move is very different these days. The ability to target audiences is different these days, and that's what the Trump administration is very good at."A really strange time
Still, EPA's defenders have been able to use the same tools to play defense. Despite Trump's insisting on a 31 percent cut to EPA's budget, enough Republicans joined Democrats to block many of those changes.
To those like Browner and John Walke, a former EPA attorney who is now at the Natural Resources Defense Council, Congress' refusal to take Trump and Pruitt's budget to the president's desk hints that brighter days await.
"The Trump administration and Trump's EPA are aberrations. I think there are good-faith Republican environment and energy experts who cringe daily at the nihilism and the excesses and the extremism of the Trump administration," Walke said.
Such Republicans do exist, even if they're fewer in number than when the burning Cuyahoga River and Rachel Carson's pesticides exposé "Silent Spring" galvanized a nation into action. The House Climate Solutions Caucus, which consists of 30 Republicans, signals that some middle ground exists between Republicans and Democrats.
Transforming those GOP lawmakers into votes and platforms that advance environmental causes, however, is a long slog, Reilly said. It's also a function of the political times that have sent Trump and Pruitt into office.
"Those of us who have conversations with members of Congress," Reilly said, "who privately concede that what the mainstream science says is true but consider that it would put their primary elections in doubt ... some of those people are going to have to reconsider."
Trump and Pruitt play to the same base that might challenge a climate-conscious Republican, meaning such voters are unlikely to accept EPA as a positive force for society. On top of all that, climate change is a slower-moving, less tangible environmental challenge than the ailments caused by soot and toxic waste.
"I don't get the sense that in their actions they really believe in regulation. They would prefer to see it go away," Ruckelshaus said. "But they do feel it necessary to describe what [Pruitt] is doing as protecting clean air and clean water. But that's not what he's actually doing."
Few think Trump and Pruitt can be convinced to act proactively for environmental reasons, unlike previous GOP administrations. Reagan negotiated the Montreal Protocol, the international treaty to reduce pollution that degraded the ozone layer. And while it's true Republican presidents have signed most of the nation's major environmental laws — President Nixon created EPA and signed the Clean Air Act, and Bush the elder greenlighted its expansion — those also came with a Democratic Congress.
Those Republican presidents also had personal motivations. Nixon wanted to distract the nation from the Vietnam War and box out one of his biggest Democratic presidential challengers on the environment, then-Sen. Edmund Muskie of Maine. Bush senior wanted to make an example of Democratic opponent Michael Dukakis, and he sought to embarrass the former Massachusetts governor by taking a boat across Boston Harbor to accuse the Democratic front-runner of ignoring pollution.
The difference between those periods and now, however, is reflective of politics writ large. As the nation goes, so too will EPA.
"I was preceded by a Republican and followed by a Republican. While we didn't agree on everything, we all agreed on the mission of the agency," Browner said. "That is not what we have right now. I think we are living in a really, really strange time."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/10/19/stories/1060064023
-
Minn. Judge OKs 'Necessity Defense' for Climate Activists
Oct 19, 2017 | E&E Energywire
A Minnesota judge is allowing four protesters who shut off emergency valves on an Enbridge Energy Partners LP crude pipeline to use the "necessity" defense in their December trials.
That rare form of legal defense is raised when defendants argue that they acted illegally in order to avert a greater harm. In this case, Seattle-area activists Emily Johnston and Annette Klapstein, along with two others who filmed them, will seek to link carbon-intensive emissions from the pipeline's Canadian oil-sands crude to the exacerbated harm of natural disasters due to climate change.
"It looks like we're going to be able to bring in all our experts and present our evidence of how dire climate change is, so we're pretty excited about that," said Klapstein, who is a retired lawyer.
Klapstein and Johnston are facing felony charges that could land them in prison for over 20 years, although prosecutors say they would likely be sentenced to no more than a year if convicted.
The case differs from that of another activist who took part in the same Climate Direct Action-coordinated campaign to shut down five pipelines in Midwestern and Western states.
In that instance, Seattle resident Michael Foster was barred from using the necessity defense and was convicted on Oct. 6 of shutting down valves on the Keystone pipeline in North Dakota. His sentencing is due Jan. 18 (Steve Karnowski, AP/Spokesman-Review, Oct. 17). — DI
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/10/19/stories/1060064005
-
Environmentalists Fault Boiler MACT 'Work Practice Standards'
Oct 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
Environmental groups are rejecting EPA's criticisms of their challenge to the agency's industrial boiler air toxcs rule, disputing EPA's claims that they in fact agree with some of its assertions in support of its “work practice standards” that apply during periods of boiler startup and shutdown and are weaker than numeric emissions limits.
In an Oct. 16 letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, environmental groups in Sierra Club v. EPA respond to an Oct. 13 EPA letter to the court in which the agency claimed that environmental groups had failed to question some of the basic assumptions underlying its use of work practice standards.
The letters seek to clarify points raised by a three-judge panel of the court at oral argument Sept. 15, at which judges sought to understand EPA's rationale for allowing the work practices in the boiler maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rule.
In their new letter, environmentalists refute EPA's claim that they “do not challenge any aspect” of EPA's assertion that “emissions cannot be reliably measured during the entire [startup] period because of the unstable nature of the combustion.” EPA allows boilers to begin compliance with numeric emissions standards either four hours after startup, or once the boiler creates useful thermal energy.
The groups say, “To the contrary, petitioners expressly challenged this claim as to the four-hour extended startup period” in their briefs. They say that because EPA offers an option for boilers to comply with numeric emissions standards less than four hours after startup, it “necessarily concedes” that at least some boilers can engage controls and measure their emissions sooner than four hours after startup.
The groups further dispute EPA's characterization of their position with respect to “clean fuels,” such as natural gas, that boiler operators must use in the startup phase before the boiler is operating under stable conditions with its regular, dirtier fuel, such as coal.
EPA appears to assert that boilers need to burn “dirty” operating fuel during the transition phase before pollution controls are engaged, they say. However, EPA's own statements in the administrative record for the boiler MACT rulemaking contradict this, the groups say.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/environmentalists-fault-boiler-mact-work-practice-standards
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested