Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 05/02/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Doubles Down on its Revisionist History of the Lautenberg Act’s Reforms to New Chemical Reviews Under TSCA
Feb 5, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Last August, Scott Pruitt announced that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would reverse course in its conduct of risk reviews of new chemicals under the reforms made in 2016 to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by the Lautenberg Act. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry, NGOs Spar Over EPA's Plan For TSCA Alternate Test Strategy
Feb 5, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Industry, environmentalists and animal welfare groups are weighing in on EPA efforts to produce a strategic plan, required by the new toxics law, to guide the agency's adoption and use of "new alternate methods" (NAM) for toxicity testing, with the groups' longstanding views on how chemicals should be regulated driving disagreements in the comments. -
(ACC Mentioned) CAPHR Coalition Applauds House Science Committee Hearing on IARC’S Troubled Monographs Program
Feb 5, 2018 | American Chemistry Council
The U.S. House Science, Space and Technology (SST) Committee announced it will hold a full committee hearing to examine the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) Monographs Program and review of glyphosate at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, February 6. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry, Lawmakers Step Up Iarc Monograph Campaign In US
Feb 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A. Miller
As an oversight hearing on the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Iarc) monograph programme prepares to meet, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) has announced it has gathered a coalition of industry and business interests to advocate for "reform." -
(ACC Mentioned) After Three Failed Tries, Polystyrene Foam Ban Back Before City Council
Feb 5, 2018 | Baltimore Brew
By Fern Shen
For thousand of years – intact, or in shreds – those plastic foam cups and take-home containers used by restaurants and convenience stores are going to live on in the environment. -
Peer Review Panel Agrees Carcinogenicity of Antimony Trioxide
Feb 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
A US peer review panel has voted to accept the three key outcomes of a draft assessment of antimony trioxide that concludes the substance is 'reasonably anticipated' to be a human carcinogen. -
Pruitt Picks Veteran Lawyer to Help Lead 'War on Lead'
Feb 5, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has brought on a longtime agency attorney to help coordinate EPA's anti-lead effort with other federal agencies. -
Every Parent Concerned About Their Kids’ Health Should Read This Book
Feb 5, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Nneka Leiba
If the Environmental Working Group were to assign a book for parents and expectant parents, it would be “Children and Environmental Toxins: What Everyone Needs to Know®.” -
‘Don't Panic' – Echa, Cefic Address 'Missing' REACH Substances
Feb 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa has told industry to not be alarmed about a potential shortfall in the estimate of up to 25,000 new substances it expects to be registered by the REACH deadline of 31 May. -
Week Ahead: Feds to Unveil Annual Energy Outlook
Feb 5, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is due to roll out its important annual report on the state of energy in the United States and where it is headed. -
Tax Law Boosts Oil Majors During Tepid Earnings Season
Feb 5, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee and Saqib Rahim
The three biggest U.S. oil companies announced nearly $9 billion in paper profits thanks to the tax law that passed in December, underscoring the Trump administration's claim that the plan would help bring jobs and economic growth back to the country. -
The Challenge Facing US Shale Companies as Oil Prices Recover: Produce More Crude or More Cash?
Feb 5, 2018 | Platts
As oil prices recover from the lows of 2014, US shale producers face a choice: continue to invest in record production or start returning cash to investors who helped them weather the downturn. -
Permian: Getting to Look a Lot Like Saudi Arabia
Feb 5, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Wael Mahdi
The U.S.'s Permian Basin is looking like Saudi Arabia, with as much as 1 million barrels of spare oil capacity ready to go into production, according to Nansen Saleri, former head of reservoir management at Saudi Aramco, the world's largest crude exporter. -
New Jersey Governor Backs Frack Ban in Delaware River Basin
Feb 5, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Two weeks after taking office, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy said he would join his Democratic counterparts from Delaware, New York and Pennsylvania in support of a ban against hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in the Delaware River Basin. -
Leave Oil and Gas Guidelines Alone, Greens Tell Trump Admin
Feb 5, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Environmental groups, armed with research showing the oil and gas industry's contribution to ozone-forming emissions, are pressing the Trump administration to leave U.S. EPA pollution control guidelines alone. -
15 Tribes Call for Halt of Wash. LNG Plant
Feb 5, 2018 | Spokane Spokesman-Review (In E&E Greenwire)
The Puyallup Tribe and 14 other Northwestern tribes are asking Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) to halt a proposed Puget Sound Energy Inc. liquefied natural gas plant on Tacoma's Tideflats. -
Developers Scramble to Save Pipeline from Shutdown
Feb 5, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Developers of a natural gas pipeline on the verge of shutdown are angling for an eleventh-hour fix to keep their project on track. -
Texas Company Slapped with Felony Charges of Dumping Toxins
Feb 5, 2018 | Houston Chronicle (In E&E Greenwire)
A Houston chemical company, along with its owner and general manager, are facing felony charges over accusations of dumping benzene and other toxic chemicals into a hidden storm drain. -
U.S. Official Says Positive Train Control Could’ve Prevented Amtrak Crash in South Carolina
Feb 5, 2018 | New York Daily News
A locked switch forced an ill-fated Amtrak train to go onto a side track and crash into a freight train, something officials said a life-changing technology still could've prevented. -
White House Adviser Walks Back Assurances on HFC Amendment
Feb 5, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Eric Wolff
An adviser to President Donald Trump on Monday walked back assurances from the State Department that the U.S. supported a treaty to limit chemicals linked to climate change, saying the administration is still developing a recommendation for the president. -
Skeptic's Retreat Sparks Questions About Alternative Science
Feb 5, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Robin Bravender and Zack Colman
Under President Trump, the left has lost some big climate battles: The president promised to exit the Paris climate treaty, the Clean Power Plan is doomed and critics of mainstream climate science hold top jobs. -
Ewire: CEQ Nominee's Withdrawal Clears Path for EPA Picks
Feb 5, 2018 | Inside EPA
Kathleen Hartnett White, the controversial nominee to head the White House Council on Environment Quality (CEQ), has asked the Trump administration to withdraw her nomination, clearing the path for the Senate to consider nominees to be the next EPA deputy administrator and chief financial officer (CFO). -
No Children Because of Climate Change? Some People Are Considering It
Feb 5, 2018 | The New York Times
By Maggie Astor
Add this to the list of decisions affected by climate change: Should I have children? -
Snyder Orders All Government Facilities to Recycle
Feb 5, 2018 | Detroit Free Press (In E&E Greenwire)
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) wants to greatly expand recycling across the state.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Feb 5, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Last August, Scott Pruitt announced that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would reverse course in its conduct of risk reviews of new chemicals under the reforms made in 2016 to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by the Lautenberg Act. The changes will effectively return the program to its pre-Lautenberg state – under which few chemicals were subject to any conditions and even fewer to any testing requirements – or make it even weaker.
In December, despite indicating it had already made the changes Pruitt had previewed, EPA held a public meeting and accepted public comments on the changes. EDF filed extensive written comments, as did many other stakeholders.
Undeterred by the facts, ACC persists in its wishful thinking that the law’s provisions on new chemicals are meant to maintain the status quo and that this is what stakeholders wanted.
Among them was, of course, the American Chemistry Council (ACC). While I won’t describe those comments at any length here, ACC’s primary thesis was that the Lautenberg Act made no significant changes to the new chemicals provisions of TSCA, and that this was in keeping with the wishes of Congress and an acknowledgment that the program has always worked just fine.
If this thesis sounds familiar, it should: ACC has basically echoed this talking point ever since the Lautenberg Act was signed into law nearly 20 months ago. In seeking to support its case, one of the most outlandish of ACC’s arguments is this one: ACC asserts that it was the TSCA reform bill passed by the House of Representatives in June 2015 that “led to” the final bill that became the new law, and that because the 2015 House bill made no changes at all to the new chemicals section of TSCA, that is evidence that this was what Congress intended.
In fact, at least with respect to new chemicals, it was the Senate bill – which made extensive changes to the new chemicals section of TSCA – that was reflected in the final bill that became law. Indeed, Congress expressly rejected the House bill’s decision not to touch these provisions, by instead adopting virtually all of the changes made to these provisions by the Senate bill.
Nonetheless, undeterred by these facts, ACC persists in its wishful thinking that the law’s provisions on new chemicals are meant to maintain the status quo and that this is what stakeholders wanted.
This new round of public comments on the law’s effect on new chemical reviews under TSCA played out almost exactly a year after the first round in December 2016-January 2017. In that earlier round, ACC also insisted that Congress intended no significant change to those reviews. In response, EDF included in our comments 23 pages of statements from both members of Congress and stakeholders. The statements demonstrate both that the law was intended to and did make major changes to new chemical reviews under TSCA, and that many stakeholders had emphasized the need for those changes.
Given ACC’s continued state of denial and perpetuation of its revisionist history of this issue, I feel compelled to include the content of those 23 pages here. Here you go:
Appendix A is a sampling of excerpts from various factsheets and statements, from members of both the majority and minority, which indicate that the changes to the new chemicals provisions of TSCA were among the most significant reforms of the Lautenberg Act.
Appendix B provides witness statements from House and Senate hearings records from the 113th and 114th Congresses. These statements, made by a wide array of stakeholders – from health organizations, labor, environmental groups, and state governments, as well as then-current senior EPA management – identified concerns with the old new chemicals program or embraced the reforms in the new law.
Notably, this includes a statement from ACC’s own CEO and President Cal Dooley lauding the Senate bill’s new chemicals provisions (which were virtually entirely adopted in the new law) as significant and necessary to restore public confidence.
Appendix A:
Quotations from Members of Congress and the President
on TSCA’s New Chemicals ProvisionsFrom the S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee majority document: REFORMING THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT, Q&A"How will TSCA reform strengthen oversight of chemicals used in millions of everyday products? …Ensuring EPA makes an affirmative finding of safety of new chemicals before they come to market."
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/aa2ac4d1-15bb-4e71-9588-909d49bdcff2/tsca-reform-marketing-packet-5.19-final.pdf [page 4]From the website of Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) on the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemicals Safety for the 21st Century Act:
“We're exposed to hundreds of chemicals in our daily lives. Nearly 1,000 chemicals go on the market each year. But only a handful had ever been reviewed for safety — out of the more than 85,000 in commerce. As a result, we didn’t know the full impact of these chemicals on our health . . . .
The new law: …Requires the EPA to review and approve the about 1,000 new chemicals that come on the market each year;”
http://www.tomudall.senate.gov/chemicalsafety/
The following are in chronological order:From a March 10, 2015 press release from Senator Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV) upon her cosponsorship of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act:
“The new Udall-Vitter bill builds on and strengthens the 2013 proposal by . . . mandating that new chemicals cannot be manufactured until the EPA has approved them.”
From the release that describes the legislation:
“Mandates safety reviews for new and existing chemicals . . .Requires a safety finding for new chemicals before they can enter the market.”
https://www.capito.senate.gov/news/press-releases/capito-co-sponsors-frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-for-the-21st-century-actFrom a March 10, 2015 press release from Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) upon introduction of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.
“The new Udall-Vitter bill builds on and strengthens the 2013 proposal by . . . mandating that new chemicals cannot be manufactured until the EPA has approved them. . . .
Core provisions of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act: . . .
Mandates safety reviews for new and existing chemicals . . .Requires a safety finding for new chemicals before they can enter the market.”http://www.tomudall.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1880From a March 10, 2015 press release from Senator David Vitter (R-LA) upon introduction of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act:
“Core provisions of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act: . . .
Mandates safety reviews for new and existing chemicals . . .Requires a safety finding for new chemicals before they can enter the market.”
https://www.vitter.senate.gov/newsroom/press/vitter-udall-introduce-landmark-legislation-to-protect-our-families-from-toxic-chemicals [Link appears to have been removed upon Sen. Vitter’s departure from the Senate]From the December 18, 2015, statement on the Senate floor by Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) upon Senate passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE S8872, December 18, 2015:
“. . . In 2009 the Obama administration laid out six essential principles for TSCA reform. The bill we passed last night meets all six of those principles, and I will go through each one individually. . . .
Principle No. 2, manufacturers should provide EPA with the necessary information to conclude that new and existing chemicals are safe and do not endanger public health or the environment.
Our bill gives EPA new authorities to develop testing data and requires a finding of safety before new chemicals—as many as 1,500 a year—enter the market. The finding on safety needs to be done not like it is done today but before they enter the marketplace.”
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2015/12/18/senate-section/article/s8872-2?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Udall+Lautenberg%22%5D%7D&r=5From remarks made by Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) at a December 22, 2015, bipartisan press conference following Senate passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemicals Safety for the 21st Century Act:
“As many as 1,500 new chemicals come on the market each year, but there is no cop on the beat making sure they're safe for consumers or our environment. This bill will require the EPA to test all of them, make sure they’re safe and put the focus where it ought to be — on how these chemicals affect the most vulnerable in New Mexico and across the country.”
https://www.booker.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=350From a May 20, 2016 EPW Committee majority press release announcing a bipartisan, bicameral deal on TSCA reform with quotes from Members involved in the agreement – a quote from Senator Tom Udall (D-NM):
"The new law will protect the most vulnerable, ensure EPA is testing all new chemicals and has the authority to take action if chemicals are unsafe. . .”
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/5/bicameral-bipartisan-deal-reached-on-tsca-reformFrom a May 24, 2016 House floor statement by Representative Gene Green (D–TX 29th) upon House passage of the TSCA Modernization Act, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H3028-H3029, May 24, 2016:
“This bipartisan, bicameral legislation will reform our broken chemical safety law for the first time since 1976, and directly addresses TSCA’s fundamental flaws. . . The most notable improvements in the bill are . . . requiring a safety finding before new chemicals are allowed to go to market. . .”
https://www.congress.gov/crec/2016/05/24/CREC-2016-05-24-pt1-PgH2989-2.pdf [page 40]From a May 24, 2016 House floor statement by Representative Frank Pallone (D-NJ 6th) upon House passage of the TSCA Modernization Act, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H3026, May 24, 2016:
“Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is a step forward in reaching this important goal. Let me briefly describe some of the improvements. . . It will ensure that new chemicals are reviewed and regulated, if necessary, before they go on the market . . .”
https://www.congress.gov/crec/2016/05/24/CREC-2016-05-24-pt1-PgH2989-2.pdf [page 38]From a June 7, 2016 statement on the Senate floor by Senator David Vitter (R-LA) upon passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, 2016 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE S3513, June 7:
“Very soon, the EPA will be required to determine that all chemicals are safe before they go to the market.”
https://www.congress.gov/crec/2016/06/07/CREC-2016-06-07-pt1-PgS3511.pdf [page 3]From a June 7, 2016 statement on the Senate floor by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) upon passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, 2016 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE S3515, June 7, 2016:
“The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act will tremendously improve how we regulate toxic chemicals in the United States — those that are already in products and should no longer be used and those new chemicals that are invented that should be thoroughly examined before they end up in products — and make sure that toxic chemicals don't find their way into our classrooms, into our bedrooms, into our homes, into our workplaces.”
https://www.congress.gov/crec/2016/06/07/CREC-2016-06-07-pt1-PgS3511.pdf [page 3]From a June 7, 2016 Senate floor statement by Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) upon final passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE S3513, June 7, 2016:
“Today, the old TSCA allows new chemicals to go to market without any real review, an average of 750 a year. Very soon, the EPA will be required to determine that all chemicals are safe before they go to the market.”
https://www.congress.gov/crec/2016/06/07/CREC-2016-06-07-pt1-PgS3511.pdf [page 3]From a June 7, 2016 statement for the record by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Senator Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Senator Tom Udall (D-NM), and Senator Jeffrey A. Merkley (D-OR), CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE S3516, June 7, 2016:
“As the lead Senate Democratic negotiators on H.R. 2576, (hereinafter referred to as the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act), we submit the following additional views that describe the intent of the negotiators on elements of the final bill text. . .New Chemicals
While existing TSCA does not preclude EPA from reviewing new chemicals and significant new uses following notification by the manufacturer or processor, it does not require EPA to do so or to reach conclusions on the potential risks of all such chemicals before they enter the marketplace. EPA has authority to issue orders blocking or limiting production or other activities if it finds that available information is inadequate and the chemical may present an unreasonable risk, but the burden is on EPA to invoke this authority; if it fails to do so within the 90-180 day review period, manufacture of the new chemical can automatically commence. This bill makes significant changes to this passive approach under current law: For the first time, EPA will be required to review all new chemicals and significant new uses and make an affirmative finding regarding the chemical's or significant new use's potential risks as a condition for commencement of manufacture for commercial purposes and, in the absence of a finding that the chemical or significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, manufacture will not be allowed to occur. If EPA finds that it lacks sufficient information to evaluate the chemical's or significant new use's risks or that the chemical or significant new use does or may present an unreasonable risk, it is obligated to issue an order or rule that precludes market entry or imposes conditions sufficient to prevent an unreasonable risk. EPA can also require additional testing. Only chemicals and significant new uses that EPA finds are not likely to present an unreasonable risk can enter production without restriction. This affirmative approach to better ensuring the safety of new chemicals entering the market is essential to restoring the public's confidence in our chemical safety system.”
https://www.congress.gov/crec/2016/06/07/CREC-2016-06-07-pt1-PgS3511.pdf [page 6]From a June 7, 2016 statement on the Senate floor by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) upon passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE S3535, June 7, 2016:
“. . . the Lautenberg act gives the EPA enhanced authority to require testing of both new and existing chemicals, requiring safety reviews for all chemicals in active commerce and a safety finding for new chemicals before they are allowed on the market.”
https://www.congress.gov/crec/2016/06/07/CREC-2016-06-07-pt1-PgS3534-3.pdf [page 1]From a June 8, 2016 press release from Senator Corey Booker (D-NJ) upon final passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act:
“I am proud of the long-overdue improvements I fought to include in this bill, including provisions that . . . give more scrutiny to new chemicals before they come on the market. . .”
https://www.booker.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=433From a June 22, 2016 press release from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) upon the signing of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act:
“The Lautenberg Act mandates review of all chemicals currently in commerce and requires review of new chemicals before allowing them into the marketplace. . . . ‘The bill the President signed today is an historic step forward for public health and our environment,’ said Whitehouse. ‘For the first time, Americans will know that the chemicals they encounter in everyday products are reviewed for their safety.’ ”
https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/whitehouse-attends-signing-of-the-frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-for-the-21st-century-actFrom a June 22, 2016 statement of President Barack Obama at the signing ceremony for the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act:
“The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century will make it easier for the EPA to review chemicals already on the market, as well as the new chemicals our scientists and our businesses design.”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/06/22/remarks-president-bill-signing-frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-2st
Appendix B:
EPA and Stakeholder Testimony on TSCA’s New Chemicals Provisions
at TSCA Hearings in the 113th and 114th CongressesI. U.S. House of Representatives (in reverse chronological order)
April 29, 2014 Tuesday
CHEMICALS IN COMMERCE ACT;
COMMITTEE: HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE;
SUBCOMMITTEE: ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY
Statement of James Jones Assistant Administrator Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The new chemicals provisions in Section 5 of the current discussion draft also do not align with the principles, in that they do not require that the EPA conclude that new chemicals are safe and do not endanger public health or the environment, elements of Principle 2 and another keystone of a credible chemical safety program. In addition, the risk management authorities for new chemicals in the current discussion draft are weaker than those in TSCA.
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20140429/102160/HHRG-113-IF18-Wstate-JonesJ-20140429.pdf [page 5]
***
April 29, 2014 Tuesday
CHEMICALS IN COMMERCE ACT;
COMMITTEE: HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE;
SUBCOMMITTEE: ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY
Statement of Andy Igrejas Director Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
3) The draft continues to weaken EPA authority over new chemicals.
The chemical industry has long argued that TSCA's current new chemicals program works, while public health and environmental advocates have argued that it is inadequate. It is perplexing, therefore, that the draft continues to weaken the new chemicals program as opposed to improving it.
First, the draft eliminates current TSCA authority to require testing or impose requirements on the basis that the new chemical may be produced in substantial quantities and result in significant or substantial human exposure or environmental release.
Secondly, it eliminates the authority to impose workplace safety requirements on manufacture and processing of the new chemical, an important aspect of EPA's new chemicals program that has added to public health protection.
The new draft restores one element of the existing law that was removed in the previous draft, which is welcome, but the net effect of the discussion draft is still to undermine EPA's authority over new chemicals.
Most Americans are surprised when they learn that chemicals can enter the marketplace without having to demonstrate that they are safe. It is unthinkable that, in the name of reform, Congress would undermine the limited oversight authority that currently exists.
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20140429/102160/HHRG-113-IF18-Wstate-IgrejasA-20140429.pdf [page 5]
***
March 12, 2014 Wednesday
CHEMICALS IN COMMERCE ACT;
COMMITTEE: HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE;
SUBCOMMITTEE: ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY
Statement of Anna Fendley, MPH Member United SteelworkersNew Chemicals
The new chemicals program under TSCA is the part of the program that allows EPA to review information about a chemical prior to it going on the market. The CICA would weaken the existing provisions in TSCA for oversight of new chemicals. Real reform would require that companies be required to provide the data EPA needs to assess a chemical's safety and that new chemicals be shown to meet a health-only safety standard before they go on the market as a way to protect health and improve confidence in the safety of new chemicals.
Section 5 of CICA makes it nearly impossible for EPA to require companies to submit health and safety information for new chemicals before they go on the market. EPA must complete a review of the premanufacture notice and make a safety determination (using the "unreasonable risk" standard) within 90 days or the company can put the product on the market and states are preempted from acting on the chemical. Manufacturers are not required to provide safety data for the chemical, and EPA does not have the ability to compel testing before the chemical goes on the market at the end of the 90 day review period. Additionally, there are a number of problematic exemptions in Section 5(f) that manufacturers and processors can claim to avoid providing information to EPA. The exemptions would, however, allow for problematic worker exposure to potentially harmful chemicals.
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20140312/101890/HHRG-113-IF18-Wstate-FendleyMPHA-20140312.pdf [page 7]
***
March 12, 2014 Wednesday
CHEMICALS IN COMMERCE ACT;
COMMITTEE: HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE;
SUBCOMMITTEE: ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY
Statement of Michael Belliveau President and Executive Director Environmental Health Strategy Center
The House Discussion Draft would roll back existing TSCA authority on new chemicals, chemicals in products, and testing of chemicals, which are among the few areas where the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been able to make limited progress using outdated policy tools.
[cont.]
EPA has required testing of chemicals for only about 200 of the 62,000 chemicals 'grandfathered in' when TSCA was signed into law in 1976, and fewer than 15% of new chemicals have adequate health and safety data. The large number of poorly tested chemicals in everyday products alarms parents nearly as much as the known hazardous chemicals that are still in widespread use.
Arguably, the correct policy response would be to require chemical manufacturers to provide minimum data sets for all chemicals, sufficient at least for screening level assessments of hazard, exposure and risk. That's the policy principle embodied in the 2007 REACH legislation in Europe, which warns of "no data, no market," and is similar in principle to the data requirements now imposed by Walmart and Target, among others, who are requiring suppliers to provide information on chemicals.
[cont.]Both Bills Roll Back Current Law: Weakening the Review of New Chemicals
Under current TSCA 5(e), EPA may restrict manufacturing of new chemicals pending the development of testing information, if the new chemical may present an unreasonable risk to human health and the environment or will be produced in substantial volumes and have substantial environmental release or significant or substantial human exposure. Most new chemicals lack adequate data to make that determination, minimum data sets are not required, and EPA has only 90 days to complete its initial review b before manufacturing of the new chemical can begin. However, EPA has often mustered its limited TSCA authority to enter into negotiated consent agreements with chemical manufacturers that require additional testing, worker protections, restrictions on environmental releases and pollution control equipment for new chemicals.
The Chemicals in Commerce Act would significantly curtail EPA's authority to review and regulate new chemicals. Both the House and Senate bills raise the bar higher before action can be taken, requiring EPA to determine whether or not the chemical is likely to result in an unreasonable risk of harm to human health and the environment. 5(c)(3). Further, because of the lack of a health- based safety standard in the House bill (see #1 above), EPA must now weigh costs and benefit factors before taking action on a new chemical under the House bill.
Both bills further limit EPA's authority to require testing of new chemicals that lack sufficient data to determine whether or not they are "likely" to present an unreasonable risk. This roll back eliminates EPA's ability under TSCA 5(e) to block manufacturing of the chemical until such additional testing information is developed. Under the House bill, in evaluating a new chemical during the 90-day pre-manufacturing review period, if EPA determines that additional information is needed to make an "unreasonable risk" determination, the agency can request that the manufacturer submit such additional information. 5(c)(2)(B). EPA can extend the review period for the development of additional information but only "by agreement with the submitter." 5(c)(2)(B)(ii). If the submitter is not cooperative, it is free to submit a notice of commencement of manufacture pursuant to 5(c)(4) unless EPA determines that the chemical is "likely" to present an unreasonable risk. But if data are inadequate to support such a determination, the new chemical enters commerce with poorly understood hazards.
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20140312/101890/HHRG-113-IF18-Wstate-BelliveauM-20140312.pdf [page 2]
***
February 4, 2014 Tuesday
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT;
COMMITTEE: HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE;
SUBCOMMITTEE: ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY
Testimony of Jennifer Sass, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council and, Professorial Lecturer, George Washington University
Generally speaking, any substance on the TSCA inventory can be manufactured or processed for any use, and in any amount, without requiring any reporting to, or registration with, EPA. This is a central reason why EPA and the public have so little idea of what chemicals are used in what amounts, for what purposes, and in what products. It is also a major reason why reporting, testing, assessment and regulation authorities need to be strengthened by Congress to inform and protect the public.
Substances on the inventory – whether grandfathered “existing chemicals” or those approved in the new chemicals program based on particular assumptions about uses and production volumes may subsequently be adopted for other uses and at much higher production levels that greatly expand the potential for environmental or human exposure. One disturbing example that illustrates this fact is the persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic flame retardant Firemaster 550, promoted by its manufacturer as a “safe substitute” for certain PBDE flame retardants that were being phased out after they had been identified in the blood and breast milk of most Americans as well as wildlife at the North Pole. Now Firemaster 550 is being ubiquitously found in house dust and wildlife. Some of the chemical components of Firemaster 550 had been on the TSCA inventory for decades before showing up in the mix of this particular flame retardant.
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20140204/101706/HHRG-113-IF18-Wstate-SassJ-20140204-U2.pdf [page 12]
***
February 4, 2014 Tuesday
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT;
COMMITTEE: HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE;
SUBCOMMITTEE: ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY
Statement of Jerome Paulson, MD, FAAP Chairperson, Council on Environmental Health, Department of Federal Affairs American Academy of Pediatrics
[Recommendations]
5) Companies must develop a public information document for each new chemical marketed. This document should be in lay language and approved by EPA before the chemical is marketed. A companion document should be updated with each new formulation every three years.
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20140204/101706/HHRG-113-IF18-Wstate-PaulsonJ-20140204-U1.pdf [page 6]
***
November 13, 2013
COMMITTEE: HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE
SUBCOMMITTEE: ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY
Questioning of Jim Jones, EPA:
SHIMKUS: Senate Bill 1009, in your opinion, strengthen EPA's ability to prevent dangerous new chemicals or those with inadequate information from entering the market?
JONES: Yes, Congressman.
The — to clarify, the existing statute does not require EPA to make an affirmative finding of safety to — for a new chemical, as 1009 requires an affirmative finding on the part of the EPA before a new chemical can enter the market. As it relates to data generation, interestingly, my attorneys have read the bill to provide EPA with the ability to require the generation of data if necessary to make a finding.
There are other stakeholders who are not reading that provision the same way, which to me is an indication that there may be a need for clarification around that.
[cont.]
SHIMKUS: Many witnesses have testified before our committee on the strengths and successes of existing TSCA, Section 5, provisions for new chemicals, and new uses of existing chemicals. Notwithstanding Senate 1009 makes changes to Section 5, do you consider these changes appropriate?
JONES: You know, I think it is surprising to most people that we do not need to affirmatively determine safety before a chemical enters the market, so I think that that change is an important one, that the Agency affirmatively say, yes, this chemical is safe before it enters the market.
SHIMKUS: Could these changes negatively impact innovation in the United States?
JONES: So I don't — you know, when people talk about innovation, which we are very sensitive to at EPA and try to facilitate it, I don't think they think of it as innovation of unsafe things. So I don't view a requirement that the Agency affirmatively determines something meets a safety standard as impacting innovation in a negative way. I actually think it will facilitate innovation, because innovation should be around safe things.
SHIMKUS: Right. I appreciate that.
***
LATTA: One is, do you believe that the categories that this bill creates for new chemicals will or could negatively impact specialty chemical manufacturers?
JONES: The new chemical provisions, Congressman, is that what you are…
LATTA: Right.
JONES: I don't believe so. I believe that we will be able to make decisions in a timely manner under the Lautenberg-Vitter bill on new chemicals.
LATTA: And again, could you define that timely manner?
JONES: So the current requirement is that we evaluate compounds within 90 days. If we see a problem, we need to inform the submitter. Under the Lautenberg-Vitter bill, that 90 days remains.
We have the ability to extend it by one 90 day — or two periods of time, but it shouldn't exceed another 90 days. So we are still talking about very short periods of time for our review of new chemicals.
***
DEGETTE: OK. Now, S. 1009 also changes the requirements for entry into commerce of new chemicals. It is my understanding that maybe as 80 or 90 percent of new chemical applications currently contain no data on potential impacts to human health. Is that correct?
JONES: That is correct.
DEGETTE: So under current law, the EPA wouldn't be making an affirmative decision about a new chemical's safety before it enters the market, is that correct?
JONES: That is correct.
DEGETTE: Under S. 1009, the EPA must make a decision about the likely safety of a new chemical, is that right?
JONES: That is correct.
DEGETTE: But will the EPA have data about the new chemicals to accurately make the safety determination?
JONES: So we expect that there will be — for many situations, the models that we use to predict hazard will allow us to make such determinate — likely to meet the safety standard determination for many chemicals. There will be some chemicals which, when we use predictive models, they are going to raise enough concerns that we are going to want to see health and safety data generated.
DEGETTE: OK. Well, I appreciate you — I appreciate that answer, but I am a little concerned because it seems a little bit vague, and I think that's one of the areas of this bill we can really work on, is setting clearly what data the EPA needs to be given for certain classes of chemicals. So I look forward to working with you and also with the committee on those issues. Thanks.
MCNERNEY: Waiting and listening, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Jones, in your testimony, I believe you stated that S. 1009 requires affirmative standards. Would you please elaborate that, especially with regarding enforcement, how those affirmative standards would be enforced in the new law?
JONES: Thank you.
So it is — that comment reflects specifically to the new chemicals provision in 1009. Under existing law, the Agency, when a new chemical is submitted, we have 90 days to evaluate it, and only if we identify a problem are we able to work with the manufacturer to prevent it from being introduced into commerce. Under S. 1009, it requires the Agency to make an affirmative finding of meeting the safety standard before the manufacturer can move that chemical into commerce.
MCNERNEY: OK. That is a good thing, I think.
JONES: I would think so, yes.
MCNERNEY: You also stated that in S. 1009, the language would make it as difficult as the unreasonable risk or least burdensome language in TSCA to enforce rules as it has been for TSCA with asbestos. Can those — can that language be modified in your opinion to remove some of those barriers, and make it reasonable to enforce?
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20131113/101468/HHRG-113-IF18-Transcript-20131113.pdf [page 31]
***
November 13, 2013
COMMITTEE: HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE
SUBCOMMITTEE: ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY
Questioning of Cal Dooley, American Chemistry Council and Ernie Rosenberg, American Cleaning Institute:
SHIMKUS: Thank you very much.
Now I'll recognize myself for five minutes for the first round of or the round of questionings. And my first question I want to direct to Mr. Dooley, Mr. Rosenberg, and I think Mr. Garfield.
And it's based upon the question — let me start this, is based upon the question that I asked Mr. Jones. And many witnesses have testified before our committee on the strengths and successes of existing TSCA Section 5 provisions for new chemicals and new uses of existing chemicals.
Are the changes to TSCA Section 5 in the Senate bill needed and why? Cal, if you would start.
DOOLEY: ACC, you know, supports the provisions of the modifications of Section 5 in CSIA. We recognize that it is important, even with the new chemicals, that you do have provisions that do allow for EPA to make an affirmative determination that the new chemical will likely meet the safety standard, and that we accept that it is an obligation upon the industry and the manufacturer to provide that information to allow them to make that determination.
SHIMKUS: Mr. Rosenberg?
ROSENBERG: Thank you.
EPA has asked hundreds of manufacturers for data in the new chemical program since its inception. Without exception, those data have either been provided or the premanufacture notice was withdrawn.
So the deficiencies, if you will, in Section 5, in my view, go to where you end up if you really want to regulate a new chemical, and you end up in Section 6. 31 Section 6 has the least burdensome alternative hurdle, which I completely agree with Jim Jones, is an unmanageable hurdle for the agency.
So the changes that are made in Section 5 in the bill do one important thing. They do what we're really looking for which is create a more credible program. And the fact that there's an affirmative determination gives at least most people a level of comfort that things haven't just gone through because the deadline expired.
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20131113/101468/HHRG-113-IF18-Transcript-20131113.pdf [page 128]
***
November 13, 2013 Wednesday
CHEMICAL SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT;
COMMITTEE: HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE;
SUBCOMMITTEE: ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY
Statement of Andy Igrejas National Campaign Director Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
In Section 4 EPA is directed to identify chemicals as "low priority" based on a determination that they are "likely to meet the safety standard." Those chemicals are set aside for no further action or scrutiny. In Section 5 the EPA is directed to apply the same test to a new chemical before it is allowed on the market. This is one of the bill's major selling points- that it imposes a safety screen of some kind on new chemicals for the first time. However, since "unreasonable risk" has such a clear meaning in the legislative history and case law of TSCA, it would almost certainly have the same old meaning, and therefore the same old problems, in these sections.
[cont.]
One of the lessons of TSCA is that it lacked deadlines or goals for how many existing chemicals should be reviewed or how long assessments should take. The new chemicals program, on the other hand, had clear deadlines for how quickly EPA had to respond to a pre-manufacture notice. As a result, most of the activity at EPA under TSCA has been in the new chemicals program.
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20131113/101468/HHRG-113-IF18-Wstate-IgrejasA-20131113.pdf [page 3]
***
November 13, 2013 Wednesday
CHEMICAL SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT;
COMMITTEE: HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE;
SUBCOMMITTEE: ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY
Statement of Richard Denison, Ph.D., Lead Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund
CSIA requires that a new chemical be found likely to meet the safety standard before market entry: Under TSCA, new chemicals undergo a cursory pre-manufacture review, and no affirmative safety decision is required before they can enter the market. And in the review, the burden is on EPA to find a concern – hard to do when safety data are not required – in order to halt, slow or limit market entry.
CSIA for the first time would require EPA to make an affirmative finding of likely safety as a condition for the manufacture of a new chemical to commence. And while EPA still could not directly require safety testing of new chemicals, it could suspend its review pending submission of needed data, or impose conditions needed to provide the requisite assurance of likely safety in the absence of such data.
[cont.]
EPA’s authority to require testing when reviewing new chemicals and prioritizing data-poor chemicals needs to be restored. As noted earlier, CSIA would reduce the procedural and evidentiary burdens on EPA to require testing. However, it would severely limit the purposes for which testing could be required: Testing could only be required to inform safety assessments and determinations for existing chemicals, and EPA is explicitly barred from requiring testing of new chemicals and to inform prioritization of existing chemicals. This is a major step backward from current TSCA. The arbitrary restriction on testing in CSIA would lead to one of two outcomes that would be good for no one: either EPA would be forced to allow chemicals for which insufficient data exist to assess their safety to enter or remain on the market; or it would have to deny market access to or waste resources assessing chemicals that more data would show pose little or no risk.
[Emphases in original]
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20131113/101468/HHRG-113-IF18-Wstate-DenisonPhDR-20131113.pdf [page 5]
***
July 11, 2013 Thursday
REGULATION OF NEW CHEMICALS;
COMMITTEE: HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE;
SUBCOMMITTEE: ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY
Statement of Heather White, Esq. Executive Director Environmental Working Group
TSCA's New Chemicals Framework Fails to Adequately Protect Public Health.
In the nearly 40 years since the passage of TSCA, more than 23,000 new chemicals have been approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and added to the agency's "inventory list" of chemicals allowed for use in commerce. As the growing body of evidence on the potential health impacts of toxic chemicals demonstrates, we need to strike a better balance between getting new chemicals to the market quickly and ensuring that these substances do not harm those who are disproportionately affected by exposure, including children, workers, pregnant women and fence-line communities.
There are five major flaws with the new chemical review process under current law: When a company is looking to manufacture or import a new chemical into the U.S., current law gives EPA just 90 days to review the substance before it goes on the market. The ultimate effect of this narrow window is to give profits a higher priority than public safety.
The company must submit a pre-manufacture notice to EPA with basic information on the chemical's name, anticipated uses and disposal, as well as any test data that is known or reasonably ascertainable.7 EPA cannot require companies to perform even basic health and safety testing before filing that notice, but if the company has health and safety data, it is supposed to turn it over to EPA for review. This regulatory disconnect actually discourages manufacturers from doing safety testing because doing so would likely invite additional review by the agency. As a result, approximately half of all pre-manufacture notices include no test data at all; nearly 85 percent provide no toxicity data.
EPA faces a Catch-22 when it comes to new chemicals. The agency cannot request additional data unless it has safety concerns and it cannot adequately address safety concerns without relevant testing data. With no test data to evaluate the safety of a new chemical, EPA must use computer models, chemical comparisons and other analyses to predict how it may affect human health and the environment. At best, it operates on incomplete information. Its models and estimates are based on data about previously studied chemicals, but these do not necessarily predict how a new chemical will behave.
Even if EPA receives complete information about a new chemical in a pre-manufacture submission, the agency makes its initial assessments based on the uses listed in that notice. The company, however, is not bound to follow those stated uses. A manufacturer an quickly adopt new uses when it goes to market and produce the chemical at much higher volumes than those estimated in the pre- manufacture notice, and EPA and the public receive no notice that the manufacturer is changing its plan.
EPA evaluates a new chemical against a safety standard of "unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment."9 The agency bears the burden of proof and must provide evidence if it wants to delay or restrict the new chemical. The paradox is that the less information there is about a new chemical's safety, the faster it can reach the market. Not surprisingly, EPA attempts to restrict less than 10 percent of new chemicals.
TSCA is so weak that it effectively presumes that new chemicals are safe without requiring pre-market testing. The law places the burden on EPA, not the chemical manufacturer, to determine whether a chemical is safe before it goes into use. Moreover, the fees companies pay to submit pre-manufacture notices cover just 10 percent of EPA's cost of reviewing these submissions. 'This framework is inadequate to protect human health and the environment.
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20130711/101103/HHRG-113-IF18-Wstate-WhiteH-20130711.pdf [page 3]
***
June 13, 2013 Thursday
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT OF 1976;
COMMITTEE: HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE;
SUBCOMMITTEE: ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY
Statement of Jeanne Rizzo, R.N. President and CEO Breast Cancer Fund
Require data on all chemicals. The EPA should require chemical manufacturers to demonstrate via sound scientific data that their chemical is safe. The absence of data should not default to assuming the chemical is safe.
These flaws include [cont.]:
— failure to require a minimum data set sufficient for the evaluation of new chemicals;
[cont.]
New Chemicals
Although the new chemicals program has managed to function better than the program for assessing and regulating existing chemicals, it has been hindered by key constraints that have limited its ability to ensure the safety of new chemicals entering the marketplace. These include the short period allowed for EPA to review pre-manufacture notices, , EPA's lack of authority to designate a minimum data set necessary for assessing the safety of new chemicals, and its inability to require testing by order rather than rulemaking or voluntary consent. In addition, the burden is on EPA to prove that a proposed new chemical may pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment rather than the burden being placed on chemical manufacturers to demonstrate the safety of their products. EPA has done its best with these limitations of the law to assess the safety of new chemicals and protect the public.
In a limited number of cases EPA has imposed conditions of use on new chemicals, or raised concerns that have led to a company to withdraw its pre-manufacturing notice and forego production of the chemical. EPA has also developed methods for reviewing new chemicals for safety in the absence of easy access to the underlying data they might otherwise have. This includes comparing proposed chemicals with other known chemicals for structural similarities to help predict how they might behave in the environment and in people. While these methods can be useful for determining certain characteristics like persistence, bioaccumulation and ecotoxicity, they fall short in other areas including anticipating harmful impacts on mammals such as reproductive and developmental toxicity. Unlike under TSCA, virtually all other industrial countries require potential manufacturers of a chemical to provide a minimum set of data up front with which the reviewing government can assess the chemical.
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20130613/100980/HMTG-113-IF18-Wstate-RizzoJ-20130613.pdf [page 6]
II. U.S. Senate (in reverse chronological order)
March 18, 2015 Wednesday
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG CHEMICAL SAFETY FOR THE 21STCENTURY ACT
U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS
Statement of Lynn Goldman, M.D., M.P.H., Michael and Lori Milken Dean of Public Health, Milken Institute School of Public Health, The George Washington University
Section 5 of TSCA requires that anyone who intends to manufacture or import a new chemical substance in the United States notify EPA 90 days before commencing that activity. The EPA’s new chemicals program has over the years reviewed thousands of new chemical substances. In many cases EPA has made decisions to prevent risk before a harmful substance enters commerce. The U.S.'s new chemicals program is unique in that it requires review of chemicals prior to manufacture rather than prior to marketing as in most other countries with such systems. In contrast the EU REACH system requires registration of substances manufactured or imported in EU above 1 tonne per year. Because many chemicals that initially are manufactured for research and development never come to market, the US gives the bulk of attention to new chemicals that will never appear in commerce.
The new chemicals program in the United States does not require any testing prior to submission of a “pre-manufacturing notification” (PMN) and over half of all PMNs are submitted without any test data. The Agency has developed tools to use Structure Activity Relationships (SAR) to predict and assess the fate and effects of new chemicals. SAR is limited so it is important that EPA can obtain test data on new chemicals.
When EPA determines that there is a risk associated with a PMN it has tools that can be used to manage those risks. TSCA Section 5 gives EPA the ability to require additional tests or other measures such as disposal controls and worker protection. These provisions have caused the industry to screen out “bad actors” before presenting them to the EPA in the first instance.
The Lautenberg Act is a great improvement over TSCA in requiring an affirmation of safety by the EPA rather than triggering manufacture of the chemical by default if EPA is silent during the 90-day review. It establishes a clear expectation that new chemicals will be managed to provide reasonable assurance they will meet the new public health standard. Importantly it authorizes the EPA to suspend review and/or take intermediate action in the face of inadequate information to make a final decision. Additionally I suggest that Congress consider focusing EPA’s efforts on premarket rather than premanufacture approvals so that EPA would be able to give more attention to chemicals that actually are entering commerce.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/eb27a7b5-5b24-4f72-8f9a-55eecfde7397/tscawrittentestimonygoldmanmarch2015final.pdf[page 5]
***
Questioning of Lynn Goldman, Milken Institute of Public Health, The George Washington University
CARPER: Dr. Goldman, you wrote eloquently in your testimony about the cost of inaction as a consequence of a failure to have a functional Federal toxics law. It is a testament to the idea of States as laboratories of democracy that several States have forged ahead with toxics laws in absence of a Federal system. Other States like my own State, Delaware, we don’t have the capacity or the resources to run a robust State toxics program and we depend on EPA.
How will having a Federal program help to reduce the impact of toxic exposure for people like those who live in my State and some other States? What would be the cost of inaction?
GOLDMAN. I think that how people in your State would be benefitted is by raising the floor, having a stronger safety standard that would have to apply everywhere in the Country. And also that when new chemicals come on the market that EPA would have to actually affirm that those new chemicals meet that standard. Right now, if EPA doesn’t act in 90 days, automatically the chemical enters the market. This bill would tell the EPA, no, you must affirm that it needs the new standard and that it is a health-based standard. It is not a standard for cost-benefit balancing as it is today.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/6072fb1c-06a0-48b5-9dd4-2d894a81e9c0/spw031815.pdf [page 131]
***
July 31, 2013 Wednesday
STRENGTHENING PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTIONS BY ADDRESSING TOXIC CHEMICAL THREATS
COMMITTEE: SENATE ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS
Statement of Daniel Rosenberg, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council
Over the past generation, scientists have gained a greater understanding of the potential health and environmental threats posed by exposure to toxic chemicals. Over the almost 37 years since enactment of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), science has raised many new concerns about the potential health effects of individual chemicals, as well as classes of chemicals. While scientific understanding has been increasing rapidly, TSCA has remained virtually dormant for existing chemicals and inadequate to assure the safety of new chemicals.
Since 1976, scientists have linked exposure to toxic chemicals to a wide array of health risks. Research increasingly indicates, for example that exposure to low doses of certain chemicals, particularly in the womb or during early childhood, can result in irreversible and life-long impacts on health. It is now commonly known that some toxic chemicals persist in the environment, sometimes for decades, and build up in the food chain and in our bodies. It is now well recognized that some chemicals are able to disturb human and other hormonal, reproductive, and immune systems and that chemicals interact so that substances that individually may be considered “safe” at low levels can act in concert to harm health.
It’s no wonder, then, that so many major independent health and science organizations have expressed concern and called for steps to better characterize and address the risks from chemical exposure.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/ac9ffa00-d5fe-4a02-9035-545b047ffc0f/73113hearingwitnesstestimonyrosenberg.pdf [page 2]
***
July 31, 2013 Wednesday
STRENGTHENING PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTIONS BY ADDRESSING TOXIC CHEMICAL THREATS
COMMITTEE: SENATE ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS
Statement of Michael Dorsey, Chief, Homeland Security and Emergency Response, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
While it is difficult for me to say, as someone who has spent much of his professional life in the environmental protection business, but TSCA has provided a false sense of security to untold numbers of people in this country who have bought into the proposition that it was providing a safety net–that it was testing and evaluating new chemicals before they could come on the market. We know that is not true and we know that it will be a difficult assignment if and when CSIA comes to pass. But I think that we can all agree that it needs to be done. We owe it to our constituents.
Finally, I appear before you today as a graybeard. I have been around long enough to see some state and federal laws, rules, and regulations come to life and become implemented, and others slowly die and become forgotten. I have also seen laws with good intentions fail. TSCA is one of those failed laws. It was passed for good reasons and still has an important role to play in our country. Perhaps, its role is more important today than it ever has been. Some of what it accomplished has been very good–such as the regulation of PCBs, the elimination of lead-based paint, and the regulation of asbestos; but in the area that citizens most need protection, it has failed. It has failed to adequately test and evaluate chemicals as they enter into our lives.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/bef1ecaa-23d8-4cd9-b450-1e7de0684876/73113hearingwitnesstestimonydorsey.pdf [page 3]
***
July 31, 2013 Wednesday
STRENGTHENING PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTIONS BY ADDRESSING TOXIC CHEMICAL THREATS
COMMITTEE: SENATE ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS
Statement of Ansje Miller Eastern States Director Center For Environmental Health
Any effective reform of TSCA should: [cont.]
— Require Basic Information for All Chemicals: Manufacturers should be required to provide basic information on the health hazards associated with their chemicals, how they are used, and the ways that the public or workers could be exposed.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/42539327-def9-4958-9f3f-72387b6a78a6/073113hearingwitnesstestimonymiller.pdf [page 2]
***
July 31, 2013 Wednesday
STRENGTHENING PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTIONS BY ADDRESSING TOXIC CHEMICAL THREATS
COMMITTEE: SENATE ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS
Statement of Nancy Buermeyer Senior Policy Strategist Breast Cancer Fund
Lack of Safety Data – To make sound decisions about the safety of a chemical, EPA needs adequate information on a range of possible health impacts. Unfortunately, TSCA makes it extremely hard for EPA to get that necessary safety data by placing the burden on the EPA to show they need the information rather than on the industry to show their chemical is safe.
[cont.]
For new chemicals, EPA has 90 days to review the chemical before it goes into production, but it cannot compel manufacturers to submit any safety data and very few companies do so voluntarily. This leaves EPA reliant on sometimes incomplete or imperfect models to predict the toxicity of a chemical based on similarities to other chemicals that have been tested for safety. And if the EPA fails to act, the chemical goes onto the market at the end of the review period.
[cont.]
Require data on all chemicals. The EPA should require chemical manufacturers to demonstrate via scientific data that their chemical is safe. The absence of data should not default to assuming the chemical is safe.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/604afbe7-7293-4a72-8af3-3dbeb101777e/73113hearingwitnesstestimonybuermeyer.pdf [page 5]
***
July 31, 2013 Wednesday
STRENGTHENING PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTIONS BY ADDRESSING TOXIC CHEMICAL THREATS
COMMITTEE: SENATE ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS
Testimony of Kenneth A. Cook President Environmental Working Group
Chemical companies would not be compelled to prove their chemicals are safe or even to submit a minimum amount of data to the EPA so it could assess them. The burden would fall on the EPA to show that these substances were potentially hazardous. Sometimes the agency would not have enough information to make sound decisions about chemicals.
The EPA could still let new chemicals on the market before determining that they were safe. The EPA would not face hard deadlines to assess chemical safety.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/206b83be-585c-4319-9565-02b71d908d30/73113hearingwitnesstestimonycook.pdf [page 3]
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/02/05/acc-doubles-down-on-its-revisionist-history-of-the-lautenberg-acts-reforms-to-new-chemical-reviews-under-tsca/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry, NGOs Spar Over EPA's Plan For TSCA Alternate Test Strategy
Feb 5, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Industry, environmentalists and animal welfare groups are weighing in on EPA efforts to produce a strategic plan, required by the new toxics law, to guide the agency's adoption and use of "new alternate methods" (NAM) for toxicity testing, with the groups' longstanding views on how chemicals should be regulated driving disagreements in the comments.
Under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 4(h), EPA is required by June 22 to publish a "strategic plan" for how the agency plans to advance and adopt the use of non-animal chemical testing methodologies, and also utilize approaches to reduce animal testing.
EPA provided an outline of its thinking during a public meeting last fall, but has yet to produce a draft for public comment. Instead, the agency requested comment through Jan. 10 on the slide presentation outlining its plans.
The requirement for EPA to develop a strategic plan was crafted in response to animal welfare groups, which have long worked with industry to push for alternate testing methods that rely less on animal subjects and hold the promise of being cheaper and faster than traditional animal-based toxicology testing.
Environmentalists, on the other hand, remain concerned that some of the new methods are not able to elucidate some human health or ecological risks as traditional methods in whole animals can. They also point out that some endpoints of concern are not addressed by NAM methods.
Some groups are already raising concerns that language in section 4(h) would place too high a burden on EPA to be able to order companies to perform toxicology testing when the agency deemed it necessary.
"NAMs are not currently available for all potential modes of toxicity or sufficient to characterize and represent the diversity of human and ecological populations," the Environmental Defense Fund's (EDF) Jan. 10 comments state. "EPA's presentation does not consistently acknowledge these limitations, however. In some slides, EPA appears to suggest that NAMs alone are sufficient to fill a variety of information needs now or on a timescale that is unrealistic given the immaturity of NAMs to address several critical toxicological endpoints. EPA should explicitly discuss these current challenges in the strategic plan and outline steps it plans to take to address them over time."
As an example, EDF points to a page in EPA's plan where "while EPA describes the use of NAMs as a first-tier screen for new chemicals as a long-term objective, that timeframe starts in 2022, which is only 4 years from now. While significant progress has been made, we are still far from having a wholly NAM-based testing battery sufficient to cover all relevant toxicological endpoints of interest -- including those arguably of greatest concern, such as developmental toxicity -- across diverse human and ecological receptors. Further, key technological hurdles exist with certain NAM approaches, including challenges with metabolic competency and chemical solubility in high-throughput in vitro testing."
EDF adds that "[n]othing in the strategic plan should be cast as limiting EPA's authorities to gather sufficient information for the review and regulation of new chemicals and for prioritization, risk evaluation and risk management of existing chemicals using TSCA section 8 and section 4 authorities. ... To the extent vertebrate testing is required or is the best means to obtain sufficient information for the review and regulation of new chemicals, or for the prioritization, risk evaluation and risk management of existing chemicals, EPA should pursue such testing..."
TSCA Reform
But EDF's explicit emphasis on the continued need for traditional test methods appears to stand in contrast to comments from animal welfare groups.
For example, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), in its Jan. 10 comments, describes its "recent recommendations on the status of NAMs by endpoint." The following lengthy list includes numerous assays for various sensitization and acute endpoints, and even some carcinogenicity assays. But other endpoints commonly considered in many of EPA's risk analyses, such as inhalation, reproductive or developmental endpoints are not mentioned in PETA's list.
Still, PETA and industry groups encourage EPA to heed the statutory language and take all efforts to avoid requiring new animal testing.
PETA reminds EPA that "Section 4(h) directs any person developing information on a voluntary basis to first attempt to develop the information by means of an alternative test method or strategy before conducting new vertebrate animal testing. In order to achieve significant reductions in the use of animals, the Agency must stress and re-emphasize this requirement at every opportunity, including in its strategic plan and guidance to industry. While the Agency is not required to review compliance with this requirement, it is specifically authorized to do so. We call upon the Agency to affirm that it will review compliance with these voluntary testing provisions and to establish a comprehensive, timely, and transparent process to publish the results of these reviews."
Similarly, the chemical industry trade group American Chemistry Council (ACC) urges EPA to ensure that its "Strategic Plan should articulate EPA's intent to take a thoughtful approach before issuing test orders. Data needs should be distinguished from data gaps. All relevant and reliable information should be evaluated and approaches, such as read across, Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA), and prediction modeling should be considered to fill data needs before considering whether additional information or testing is appropriate."
ACC in its Jan. 10 comments defines data "gaps are areas for which data are not available, whereas data needs are those specific data gaps where additional evaluation may be warranted before the potential risks can be characterized with an appropriate degree of scientific certainty."
ACC adds that "EPA's draft Strategic Plan is missing an explicit, upfront commitment that the Agency will use an integrated approach to answer a defined hazard characterization question within a specific regulatory context. An IATA should not be limited to focus only on evaluation of potential bioactivity or hazard alone. An IATA should integrate and weigh all relevant and reliable existing information about a chemical, such as toxicity data, exposure routes and information, mode of action and relevance to humans, use cases, and production volumes; guide the targeted generation of new data (preferably using non-animal approaches) to inform regulatory decision-making; and provide a conclusion, sometimes based on expert judgment, that can inform regulatory decision-making."
ACC also urges EPA to open certain NAM chemical risk assessment groups now only open to EPA and other federal and international regulatory agencies to stakeholders. ACC points in particular to a group organized by EPA's research office, known as the Accelerating the Pace for (Chemical) Risk Assessment (APCRA) including regulatory agencies from numerous countries, as well as the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), made up of representatives of 16 federal agencies.
"ACC believes that ICCVAM work groups would benefit significantly from the knowledge and skill of industry experts impacted by their work and regulatory oversight. ACC would strongly support the expansion of its work group membership to include participation by industry experts."
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/industry-ngos-spar-over-epas-plan-tsca-alternate-test-strategy
-
Feb 5, 2018 | American Chemistry Council
The U.S. House Science, Space and Technology (SST) Committee announced it will hold a full committee hearing to examine the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) Monographs Program and review of glyphosate at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, February 6. The Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research (CAPHR) Coalition applauds the House Science Committee’s recent announcement and move to examine IARC’s severely flawed cancer hazard evaluation program.
“Considering the IARC Monographs Program’s many flaws and continued U.S. taxpayer funding of the program, the CAPHR Coalition welcomes and applauds this Congressional Hearing,” said Michael Michener, Vice President, Product Policy and Innovation, United States Council for International Business (USCIB). “Modernizing IARC’s Monographs Program process will help to strengthen the integrity of its conclusions and is especially urgent following several recent revelations of data suppression and manipulated outcomes in its cancer hazard evaluations.”
As a diverse group of manufacturing, energy and agricultural interests, the Coalition is united in their mission to reform IARC’s Monographs Program, and is encouraged by the Committee’s actions to probe the Program’s questionable carcinogen conclusions. Although IARC Director Christopher Wild has refused repeated requests from the Committee to provide witnesses to testify at the hearing, despite being a U.S. taxpayer-funded program, the Coalition hopes that this hearing and increased scrutiny over IARC’s dated Monographs processes will illuminate the Program’s rampant flaws and bring much needed reform.
“The CAPHR Coalition fully supports the House Science Committee’s review of the IARC Monographs Program,” said Cal Dooley, President and CEO of the American Chemistry Council (ACC). “We have serious concerns with the Program’s lack of scientific integrity and transparency in developing Monographs. Our goal is to reform and update the IARC Monographs Program to bring it into the 21st century and restore public trust. This will require IARC to increase transparency in its processes for choosing experts, involving stakeholders, and selecting and analyzing studies. IARC Monographs should be subjected to robust independent peer review, a procedure that is inexplicably lacking at the present time.”
Since its inception one year ago, CAPHR has been dedicated to promoting sound science in policymaking, and bringing to light the deficiencies, misinformation and consequences associated with the IARC’s Monographs Program. This full Committee Hearing signals that U.S. lawmakers are weary of IARC’s misconduct, misuse of public funds and reoccurring credibility issues. The Coalition believes the hearing is an important step in the right direction towards bringing greater transparency to its carcinogen evaluations and reforming the troubled Monographs Program.
# # #
About the Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research (CAPHR)
The Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research (CAPHR) is an education and outreach initiative to promote credible, unbiased, and balanced assessments of science as the basis of policy decisions and help the public and policymakers understand the relevance of public health studies in our daily lives. In particular, CAPHR promotes reform of the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) Monographs Program and brings to light the deficiencies, misinformation, and consequences associated with its work.
https://www.americanchemistry.com/Media/PressReleasesTranscripts/ACC-news-releases/CAPHR-Coalition-Applauds-House-Science-Committee-Hearing-on-IARCS-Troubled-Monographs-Program.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry, Lawmakers Step Up Iarc Monograph Campaign In US
Feb 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A. Miller
As an oversight hearing on the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Iarc) monograph programme prepares to meet, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) has announced it has gathered a coalition of industry and business interests to advocate for "reform."
The meeting on Capitol Hill is scheduled for 6 February.
Iarc's work is controversial because it has regulatory implications in the US. Substances it lists as carcinogens are also listed as such under California's Proposition 65, requiring manufacturers and retailers to warn workers and consumers exposed to them. The ACC also says an Iarc listing affects decisions of retailers.
Campaign
The ACC launched its campaign to alter Iarc's practices more than a year ago. And on 25 January, it announced the Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research Coalition. This includes the:American Petroleum Institute;Chemistry Industry Association of Canada;National Association of Manufacturers;National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association;Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates;United States Council for International Business; andCropLife America.
The coalition aims to address what it says are concerns that have been "raised and reinforced by numerous credible and independent experts about Iarc's efforts to suppress and omit relevant data, as well as the organisation's well-established track-record of manipulating outcomes when it comes to designating key carcinogenic classifications."
The coalition is demanding that Iarc:considers actual risk of substances in current use rather than potential hazard;fully considers all scientific evidence and give the most weight to those studies that are of the highest quality and greatest relevance to humans;establishes "clearly defined, transparent criteria for assessing the quality and reliability of studies";increases the transparency of its deliberations and consider stakeholder input;discloses all conflicts of interest among the participants and advisors to its working groups; andreleases monograph findings with supporting documentation rather than releasing short summaries before documentation is made public.Congressional attacks
Republicans on Capitol Hill have been attacking Iarc's procedures for years. Most recently, three lawmakers threatened to pull US financial support after a testy, and public, exchange of correspondence, and demanded that the agency put forward an official to testify before a hearing in Washington.
The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee has focused specifically on Iarc's 2015 review of glyphosate – the primary ingredient of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide – repeating assertions that have appeared in news media reports alleging irregularities in the controversial decision to classify it as "probably" carcinogenic to humans.
Iarc has apparently not supplied a representative. The witness list for the scheduled hearing includes:Anna Lowit, senior science adviser in the US EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs;Timothy Pastoor, a toxicologist who became an independent consultant after 17 years at Syngenta Crop Protection;Jennifer Sass, senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council; andRobert Tarone, (retired) mathematical statistician, US National Cancer Institute and Biostatistics Director, International Epidemiology Institute, who has been critical of Iarc.
https://chemicalwatch.com/63621/industry-lawmakers-step-up-iarc-monograph-campaign-in-us
-
(ACC Mentioned) After Three Failed Tries, Polystyrene Foam Ban Back Before City Council
Feb 5, 2018 | Baltimore Brew
By Fern Shen
For thousand of years – intact, or in shreds – those plastic foam cups and take-home containers used by restaurants and convenience stores are going to live on in the environment.
Over the past dozen years, opponents of the use of “expanded polystyrene” foam by stores and restaurants in Baltimore have been pushing for a ban, pointing to the material’s carcinogenic properties.
They have yet to succeed. In 2006, in 2008 and again in 2012, city council bills were introduced that never passed.
The most recent one tanked when a committee chairman pulled the measurehours before what advocates had believed was going to be full Council approval. A lobbyist for the American Chemistry Council had been spotted at City Hall that afternoon.
Tomorrow, a youth-led group of supporters is going to rally for the fourth attempt – a polystyrene ban introduced by freshman City Councilman John T. Bullock.
“We’re hopeful in the council, but we haven’t yet talked to the mayor,” said Dennis Gong, a senior at Baltimore City College and one of the student leaders of Baltimore Beyond Plastic.
Mayor Catherine Pugh’s office has not yet responded to a request for comment.
Bill 17-0117, with co-sponsors Ryan Dorsey, Kristerfer Burnett, Bill Henry, Zeke Cohen, Shannon Sneed and Mary Pat Clarke, is scheduled to come before the Judiciary and Legislative Investigations Committee for a hearing at 10 a.m. on February 6.
Student leaders from City College, Baltimore Polytechnic Institute and Bard High School Early College have organized a rally to take place at 9 a.m., before the hearing.
“We’re expecting over 200 students and teachers,” Gong said.
Students are planning to come from across the city, from Harlem Park and Mt. Washington to Graceland Park and Highlandtown, Gong said.Possible Carcinogen
The bill, which would impose a $1,000 fine against any business that uses foam products, comes as a similar measure is being pushed in Annapolis.
More than 100 cities and counties across the country, including Washington D.C. and Montgomery and Prince George’s counties, have banned plastic foam products. But they have faced opposition from lobbyists for restaurants and the plastics makers, who blocked the statewide ban proposed in the Maryland legislature last year.
Manufactured using ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons, polystyrene has been in environmentalists’ cross-hairs for years.
Styrene, the basic building block of polystyrene, is classified as a possible carcinogen by EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The manufacture of polystyrene requires large amounts of petroleum and chemicals. Recycling it, critics say, is energy-intensive and polluting.
“Once in the water, polystyrene absorbs ten times more fertilizer, pesticides and petrochemicals than other plastics,” according to Baltimore’s Office of Sustainability, in a statement supporting the bill.
“It is ingested by fish and picked up by people, exposing them to these toxic chemicals,” the Sustainability statement said, noting that since May 2014, the Jones Falls Water Wheel collected over 390,000 polystyrene containers.
“It is a public health hazard especially in low-income communities in Baltimore City impacted by the waste-to-energy incinerator.”
Critics of restrictions on polystyrene say that forcing restaurants to use more costly alternatives will hurt the economy. They point out that studies on the health effects of polystyrene are inconclusive.
“People will litter regardless of the material – what needs to be discussed is people’s behavior and introductions of recycling education programs instead of product bans,” says the industry-sponsored GoFoam Mid-Atlantic website.
The members of Baltimore Beyond Plastic – who view foam products as a threat to health and the environment, as well as eyesore – disagree.
“It’s been a real concern for students because we eat off these polystyrene trays at school every day and we see people eat food off them all over the city,” Gong said. “On the street and when you go down to the Inner Harbor, you see them everywhere.”
Stamping them out in Baltimore has been an uphill battle, but polystyrene’s young opponents, who last year won the national Brower Award for their work, have scored one significant victory.
They recently persuaded the city school board to eliminate polystyrene foam trays from school cafeterias and substitute them with the compostable kind.
https://baltimorebrew.com/2018/02/05/after-three-failed-tries-polystyrene-foam-ban-back-before-city-council/
-
Peer Review Panel Agrees Carcinogenicity of Antimony Trioxide
Feb 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
A US peer review panel has voted to accept the three key outcomes of a draft assessment of antimony trioxide that concludes the substance is 'reasonably anticipated' to be a human carcinogen.
The six-person panel reviewed the draft Report on Carcinogens (RoC) monograph from the National Toxicology Program on 24 January. According to the actions statement, they voted unanimously in favour of:the level of evidence conclusion that the data available from studies in humans are inadequate to evaluate the relationship between human cancer and exposure specifically to antimony trioxide or other antimony compounds;the level of evidence conclusion of sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity for antimony trioxide from studies in experimental animals; andthe preliminary policy decision that antimony trioxide should be listed in the Report on Carcinogens as 'reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen' based on sufficient evidence from studies in experimental animals and supporting mechanistic data.
The animal data showed increases in the incidences of tumours at several tissue sites, in rats and mice exposed to antimony trioxide by inhalation. The increased incidences were for lung tumours, skin tumours and white blood cells in mice, and for lung and adrenal gland tumours in rats.
The panel also agreed with the statement that a significant number of people living in the US are exposed to antimony trioxide.
The NTP received three comments during the consultation period. These came from a group of medical toxicology researchers at Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia, Caroline Braibant at the International Antimony Association and Campine, a Belgian company producing antimony products.
In her comments, Ms Braibant said there were factual inaccuracies in the draft monograph and that she had significant reservations regarding:the consumption, use and exposure statistics;an absence of particle size data;the way in which the authors extracted data from the scientific literature;conclusion drawn from the NTP's two-year rodent study; andthe genotoxicity studies conducted by the NTP.
Campine said that it routinely collected worker health data, under Belgian legislation, which it had screened and subsequently concluded that:the relationship between changes in pulmonary function parameters and exposure was weak;there was no clear relationship between mean urinary antimony concentration and changes in lung or liver function; andchest X-rays taken over a period of 20 years showed no pulmonary lesions.
The company said it was preparing a publication based on the data and asked the panel to delay its review to include the information.Background
Antimony substances are used extensively in flame retardants, and also in lead batteries, plastics, paints, glass and ceramics. Regulators have been worried about their potential to cause lung cancer since the 1970s, when incidence among smelter workers was found to be higher than for the general population. Antimony trioxide is typically used as a proxy for the group, which includes antimony sulfide and antimony metal, for the purposes of risk assessment.
The US work could be significant in the EU, where the German REACH and CLP competent authority, Baua, is to begin evaluating antimony trioxide – along with antimony sulfide and antimony metal – in March. Industry is concerned that the results could lead to stricter regulation.
https://chemicalwatch.com/63716/peer-review-panel-agrees-carcinogenicity-of-antimony-trioxide
-
Pruitt Picks Veteran Lawyer to Help Lead 'War on Lead'
Feb 5, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has brought on a longtime agency attorney to help coordinate EPA's anti-lead effort with other federal agencies.
Pruitt said in an internal email obtained by E&E News that Timothy Epp has joined the administrator's office as EPA's national coordinator "in revitalizing our lead efforts with our federal partners."
Epp is an assistant general counsel in the agency's Office of General Counsel. A Harvard Law School graduate, he has spent more than two decades at EPA in various positions, according to his LinkedIn profile.
"Tim currently manages OGC's international attorneys, including advising EPA's Office of International and Tribal Affairs in its role as steering committee chair for the Global Alliance to Eliminate Lead Paint," Pruitt said in the email sent to EPA employees Friday.
To begin developing a federal strategy to reduce children's lead exposure, Pruitt also said he has invited members of the President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children to join a meeting at EPA later this month.
The task force was established on the order of President Clinton in 1997. He called for each federal agency to "ensure that its policies, programs, activities, and standards address disproportionate risks to children that result from environmental health risks or safety risks." It is co-chaired by EPA and the Department of Health and Human Services and includes representatives from more than a dozen other agencies.
"Lead contamination in our water systems is among the leading environmental and health threats facing our country, and I look forward to my Cabinet colleagues joining me as we address this issue along with other critical lead contamination challenges," Pruitt said.
The EPA chief has touted committing to a "war on lead" as one of his goals at the agency. Pruitt has talked up eradicating lead from drinking water within 10 years in press interviews and at congressional hearings.
EPA officials have been meeting with state regulators and other interested parties in an effort to revise its Lead and Copper Rule, which has sat for decades. The agency hopes to issue its final rule, which will reduce lead and copper from pipes in drinking water, by February 2020.
Pruitt's anti-lead effort has been met with skepticism from Democrats and environmental groups. The administrator has already delayed other chemical safety rules at the agency while the Trump administration has proposed to cut EPA's budget, including to programs that help reduce lead.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/02/05/stories/1060072911
-
Every Parent Concerned About Their Kids’ Health Should Read This Book
Feb 5, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Nneka Leiba
If the Environmental Working Group were to assign a book for parents and expectant parents, it would be “Children and Environmental Toxins: What Everyone Needs to Know®.”
The new book, written by Dr. Philip Landriganand his wife Mary Landrigan, is a perfect guide to understanding how chemicals in our environment can affect children’s health and, importantly, what you can do to limit threats.
As industrial chemical manufacturing expanded over the last 50 years, the rate of noncommunicable diseases in children – like asthma, birth defects and certain cancers – increased, the Landrigans explain. Mounting evidence links many of these health problems to chemical exposures.
Here are some sobering statistics from the book:Childhood asthma has nearly tripled in frequency since the early 1970s.Learning disabilities affect 1 in 6 children. One of every 68 children born in the U.S. is diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder.Since the 1970s, childhood birth defects have doubled in frequency and obesity among our youth has more than tripled.Both leukemia and brain cancer in children have increased by nearly 40 percent since the early 1970s.
“Research in children’s environmental health and epidemiology shows us that infants and children are exquisitely vulnerable to toxic chemicals,” the authors note. “The extent to which toxic chemicals in the environment are contributing to rising rates of autism, childhood cancer, birth defects, learning disabilities and decreased fertility is only beginning to be discerned.”
The Landrigans also draw on their decades of experience working on children’s health and public health issues to answer many of the questions that parents face on a daily basis. These include:What is the most effective way to prevent children’s exposure to toxic chemicals at home? How do I know if my home has lead in it, and what do I do if it’s present?What are the most common endocrine disruptors and where are they found? Are all baby bottles free of endocrine disruptors?Are there certain components of furniture and carpet that may be toxic?Is the air in my home polluted?Can stuffed animals trigger allergies or even asthma attacks?What are food additives and do they have health consequences?
Each chapter offers parents much-needed tips on what they can do to reduce their children’s exposures to environmental toxicants, including lead, endocrine disruptors, pesticides, allergens and flame retardants – at home, school and daycare.
The advice in the book is based on the latest science and could not come from two more qualified people.
Dr. Landrigan has taken extraordinary steps to raise awareness about environmental toxicants and how they impact children’s health and development. His early research in the 1970s helped end the use of lead in paint and gasoline. He was also the principal author of the pivotal 1993 National Academy of Sciences study, “Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children.” The study led Congress to pass the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, which set safety standards for pesticides on foods.
Mary Landrigan is a noted public health educator who spent 25 years at the Westchester County Department of Public Health in New York.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/01/every-parent-concerned-about-their-kids-health-should-read-book#.WniSGq6WbIU
-
‘Don't Panic' – Echa, Cefic Address 'Missing' REACH Substances
Feb 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa has told industry to not be alarmed about a potential shortfall in the estimate of up to 25,000 new substances it expects to be registered by the REACH deadline of 31 May.
In December, SME trade body Ueapme says it was "seriously concerned" about the size of the shortfall and that it is "hardly possible" that another 20,000 substances will be registered in less than half a year.
Stakeholders at the REACH 2018 Stakeholders’ Day in Helsinki last week heard that the numbers were from a research activity conducted about 15 years ago.
On that basis, Echa's director of registration Christel Musset said "I’m not convinced at all that there are actually 25,000 substances in the range of 1-100 tonnes on the European market right now.
"We are hearing rumours of people saying substances may disappear from the supply chain, but until we have companies coming to us saying we are very worried about this type of substance, we cannot do anything," she said. It is a "crystal ball" for Echa, she added.
Cefic’s REACH director Erwin Annys agreed, saying he is "not sure" that all the substances have been on the market. If the number of chemicals registered by 31 May is lower than the estimates, he said "I’m absolutely not sure that the supply chain will miss [them]".
He added that "everyone was astonished" at how accurate the estimation was for the 2010 and 2013 deadlines – "but that was the easy part".
And addressing the registration deadline, Echa’s new head Bjorn Hansen said: "don’t panic. We’re not panicking" and that Echa fully understands "how much work you have in front of you". He urged concerned companies to reach out to Echa and national helpdesks for advice.
As of 31 January, the agency said it had received dossiers for 6,500 substances, 4,200 of which have been registered for the first time.Member state reaction
In their earlier comments to Chemical Watch, some member state REACH competent authorities said they have not received direct messages of concern from industry about the substances disappearing after the deadline.
Jan Wijmenga at the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment said that "when I speak to representatives of sectors, they all seem to be concerned about ‘missing substances’, but so far I have not seen specific examples".
He added that "my impression is that at least the larger companies have it under control. And looking at the rate of compliance with the registration obligation so far, I do not have the impression that smaller companies are facing issues that they cannot solve."
Dr Ann Bambauer, head of the chemicals office at Germany's Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Baua), said "we believe that these figures were effectively an overestimation". However, Baua recognises that due to the costs and complexity of registration, especially for SMEs, "there may be cases of supply chain disruption, but we do not experience panicking."
Its REACH help desk, she added, has received "very few" indications from companies and downstream users telling it that there are relevant substances that will not be registered.
Baua has also observed that some companies are planning to cease manufacture and import in May 2018 and then provide the substance from stock into the supply chain. "They are planning to register (when necessary) at a later date before taking up manufacture or import again," she said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/63720/dont-panic-echa-cefic-address-missing-reach-substances
-
Week Ahead: Feds to Unveil Annual Energy Outlook
Feb 5, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is due to roll out its important annual report on the state of energy in the United States and where it is headed.
The federal agency's Annual Energy Outlook gives a decades-long look into the future, with projections for energy supply, prices and other factors in different scenarios.
The rollout Tuesday at an event at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies is one of the first major public events for Linda Capuano, the EIA administrator, who was sworn into her job in early January.
Meanwhile, lawmakers on Capitol Hill will be busy moving forward on issues including public lands, energy infrastructure and reorganizing the Department of Energy (DOE).
The House Natural Resources Committee federal lands subpanel will hold a Tuesday hearing on three bills, including one to create a national monument to honor civil rights activist Medgar Evers. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke asked Trump to use his executive authority to create such a monument last year.
The Education and the Workforce Committee in the House is planning a hearing, also on Tuesday, examining the Mine Safety and Health Administration.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee is slated to continue its Energy Department "modernization" efforts with a Tuesday hearing focusing on nuclear infrastructure.
The same day, the House Science, Space and Technology Committee will discuss the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a United Nations agency.
The GOP has long accused the agency of using unsound science in its reviews of pesticides, particularly its 2016 finding that glyphosate is likely a carcinogen. That conclusion conflicted with other experts' findings.
On the other side of Capitol Hill, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold a hearing Wednesday on the impact of federal environmental regulations on farming and ranching communities.
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Thursday is planning to discuss energy infrastructure at a hearing.
And on Wednesday, that committee's subpanel on public lands, forests and mining is gathering for a hearing on 15 bills in its jurisdiction.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/372080-week-ahead-feds-to-unveil-annual-energy-outlook
-
Tax Law Boosts Oil Majors During Tepid Earnings Season
Feb 5, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee and Saqib Rahim
The three biggest U.S. oil companies announced nearly $9 billion in paper profits thanks to the tax law that passed in December, underscoring the Trump administration's claim that the plan would help bring jobs and economic growth back to the country.
The tax news — $5.9 billion for Exxon Mobil Corp., $2 billion for Chevron Corp. and $900 million for ConocoPhillips Co. — was a bright spot in an otherwise sluggish earnings report for the companies.
But analysts said it underscores an important point. The oil industry was already profitable, thanks in some measure to more than a century of favorable tax treatments, and the new law will make it even more profitable. Those companies were already investing tens of billions of dollars in shale fields like the Permian Basin, and the tax law could spur more of the same.
"It's a positive for Chevron, making attractive investment opportunities in the Permian, the Gulf of Mexico, and in our U.S. downstream and chemicals business look even better," Chevron CEO Mike Wirth said on a conference call.
Beneath the tax bump was a somewhat tepid year by Chevron's and Exxon's lofty standards. Both companies enjoyed some uplift from gradually strengthening oil prices, but total output of oil and gas was largely stable: up 5 percent at Chevron, down 3 percent at Exxon. Both companies showed billions in profit yet fell short of analysts' expectations, partly due to shortfalls in their refining arms.
That gave the tax bill an outsize role in their books. Chevron claimed $9.2 billion in earnings on the year, but noted that it was closer to $7 billion, excluding the tax bump and foreign-exchange impacts. Exxon reported $19.7 billion in annual earnings, but said the figure fell to $15.2 billion after factoring in the tax bill and the loss in value of some of its reserves. Exxon took a $481 million hit, for example, on assets it called "primarily dry gas operations with little additional development potential."
The new tax law lowers the top corporate rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. Even though the companies were reporting results for the fourth quarter of 2017, before the law went into effect, they reported higher earnings because they re-evaluated the tax liabilities from previous years at the new, lower rate.
Like many big corporations, the major oil companies often spend years negotiating over their tax bills (Energywire, Jan. 10).
That's not the only benefit from the tax law. Oil companies will also be able to write off the full cost of their investment in new machinery and equipment. That will help for Exxon and Chevron, which have announced tens of billions of dollars in expansions at their chemical plants.
Energy companies also hung onto a suite of tax breaks that date to the early days of the 20th century — the write-offs for intangible drilling costs, rapid depreciation of capital costs, and an allowance for the depletion of oil and gas reservoirs.
And Congress left intact the master limited partnership (MLP) structure, which allows pipeline companies to avoid federal income tax by passing most of their profits through to their shareholders.
Not all of those breaks are available to integrated companies like Exxon and Chevron, which control everything from oil wells to filling stations.
The new tax law could pose some downsides for the industry. Companies that take on debt won't be able to write off as much of their interest in the future. And some companies have found that they won't be able to use the losses from previous years to lower their future taxes.
Kinder Morgan Inc., the biggest U.S. pipeline company, took a $1.4 billion charge against its fourth-quarter earnings because it had to lower the value of its operating losses from previous years.
Nevertheless, the company said the tax law will help it. Kinder Morgan previously expected to owe no taxes for several years, and it now expects it won't have to pay the federal government until at least 2024.
Analysts disagreed on how long the boost from the new system will last.
Other countries could lower their taxes in response to the U.S. regime, for instance, said Noble Pendergrass, a petroleum economist at consulting firm Wood Mackenzie. On the other hand, the companies were already pouring their money into Texas, New Mexico and North Dakota, and the tax law makes those investments even more attractive.
"I think you will see some capital from these companies coming to the U.S.," Pendergrass said.
The majors have typically paid well below the top corporate tax rate of 35 percent, said Matt Gardner, a senior fellow at the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy, a think tank that advocates for a progressive tax system. Exxon paid an average 13.6 percent of its income in federal taxes from 2008 to 2015, Gardner said.
And the cost of the companies' main product — crude oil — is set by the world market, so the U.S. tax system will have only a limited impact, said Eric Toder, a researcher at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.
"What's driving drilling is the fact that the price has come back up," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/02/05/stories/1060072853
-
The Challenge Facing US Shale Companies as Oil Prices Recover: Produce More Crude or More Cash?
Feb 5, 2018 | Platts
As oil prices recover from the lows of 2014, US shale producers face a choice: continue to invest in record production or start returning cash to investors who helped them weather the downturn.
It used to be that investors rewarded US upstream operators that could quickly grow production. More crude output growth per quarter separated oil patch E&P champions from the rest of the pack. That paradigm came under pressure starting in 2014, when prices plunged and common wisdom said producers would curb output and ride out the storm.
But nimble US shale companies surprised everyone, finding ways to slash costs, drill more efficient wells, and pour cash back into drilling and production.
Onshore producers have added nearly 4 million b/d of production since 2011. Their innovations pushed US production over the 10 million b/d mark in November for the first time since 1970—earlier that the US Energy Information Administration had expected.
And even as their wells turned out higher outputs, their profits went back into drilling and production growth. Overall, they were not generating free cash flow for shareholders, who in recent months have sent a strong message to oil executives that they want to see more of it.
Free cash flow is cash a company generates after expenses required to maintain or expand an asset base. During much of 2015-2016, company executives talked about getting to “cash flow neutral” — a state where cash generated matched expenses. Now, the goal is to turn out excess cash and use it for purposes besides production growth.
While oil companies want to keep investors happy, they are still talking about production growth — or at least they were during the third quarter, Trisha Curtis, co-founder of energy analytics and advisory firm PetroNerds, said.
“From banks and the investor community, it sounds like the pressure has been more intense between the third quarter and what we’ll see in fourth-quarter calls,” Curtis said. “I still don’t think that means producers will forego production volumes [since] most talked about increasing output” in 2018.FREE CASH FLOW MORE LIKELY IN 2018
Most companies will likely not be free cash flow positive until at least mid-2018, she said, citing recent oil company commentary.
Some companies may not reach that status until even later.
“Second-half 2017 saw plenty of disclosure from producers suggesting the status quo was no longer acceptable and that a more measured and value-conscious approach to corporate strategies is warranted,” Evercore ISI analyst Stephen Richardson said in a recent investor note.
Producers in their upcoming quarterly calls on 2018 outlook “should provide some tangible evidence of restraint,” Richardson said. “Capital budgets based on oil prices below the forward curve is a good place to start.”
Oil companies appear to have gotten the message. The challenge lies in resisting the temptation of going off the rails on production growth even as tempting WTI prices beckon them to spend more and enjoy the advantage of long-awaited current oil price levels.
Mizuho analyst Tim Rezvan expects upstream company rhetoric around shareholder returns will lead to at least some increased focus on return on capital employed from here on. But “the higher oil prices go, the harder it will be to ignore the incentive to grow production,” he said in a recent investor note.COMPANY STRATEGIES VARY
Mark Papa, the highly respected CEO of recent start-up Centennial Resource Development and former long-time EOG Resources CEO has a contrarian view. He said during his company’s Q3 call that dwindling Tier 1 acreage meant that big plays like the Bakken Shale in North Dakota and Montana and the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas are no longer the growth engines they once were.
The plays ramped up relatively quickly several years ago when they were new to horizontal drilling. For example, oil production from the Eagle Ford Shale, which is currently 1.34 million b/d, had averaged 1.72 million b/d in March 2015, up from 178,000 b/d in March 2011. And in the Williston Basin, where the bulk of production is from the Bakken, oil output hit 1.28 million b/d in mid-2015, up from 232,000 b/d in mid-2008. Oil production there is currently 1.2 million b/d. Output figures are supplied by S&P Global Platts Analytics.
As a result, “the resulting production growth that you are going to see from current levels in those assets, I predict, is going to be disappointingly low,” Papa said.
Permian Basin presence appears to make a difference in how companies see growth potential, since the prolific West Texas/Southeast New Mexico Basin with its multiple stacked plays still appears to be in its early stages, with some zones still largely untapped.
The Permian is the most active US producing basin with well over 400 drilling rigs running, according to Baker Hughes.
For example, three prominent public oil companies — Marathon Oil, Oasis Petroleum and Halcon Resources — debuted in the basin last year. Marathon rounded out its suite of three other large oil plays in the Bakken, Eagle Ford and Oklahoma into a quartet, while Oasis wanted more upside to offset its aging Bakken production. Halcon, also a Bakken player, needed to change its direction.
“Having Permian in your name is like having blockchain in your name,” Ben Tsocanos, a director for S&P Global Ratings, said. “It’s worth 20% [premium to a company’s stock price] to just have that asset in your portfolio.”THE PERMIAN TEMPTATION
But as new Permian entrants, the companies naturally want to build up the asset.
Take Oasis, for example. The company’s nearly $1 billion entry into the Permian took Wall Street by surprise when it was announced in early December 2017.
Founded in 2007, Oasis early on focused its attention in the Bakken. Owing to that play’s remoteness and relative high transport costs, Oasis took a beating in the downturn.
For company CEO Tommy Nusz, the Delaware Basin in the Permian is the company’s new growth region.
The company expects to grow production 15% in 2018 while generating positive free cash flow in its upstream business.
“We’ve got an opportunity [in the Permian] … to really be resilient to low oil prices,” Nusz said during a call on its Permian entry.
Hedges can help cash generation by locking in prices and providing assured revenue levels. But companies that eagerly hedged as oil prices moved in late 2017 above the $50/b level where they were largely stuck for the last few years, failed to capture the upside as oil pushed through $60/b this year.
Curtis pointed out that every company’s set of assets is different and each asset is at a different development stage. Consequently, it is difficult to judge when a company will get to free cash flow.
“What matters are that companies are doing what they say they’ll do,” she said. “You may see the ones that can’t do it, may get swallowed up.”
http://blogs.platts.com/2018/02/05/challenge-us-shale-companies-oil-prices/
-
Permian: Getting to Look a Lot Like Saudi Arabia
Feb 5, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Wael Mahdi
The U.S.'s Permian Basin is looking like Saudi Arabia, with as much as 1 million barrels of spare oil capacity ready to go into production, according to Nansen Saleri, former head of reservoir management at Saudi Aramco, the world's largest crude exporter.
Oil producers in the Permian Basin have at least a combined 500,000 barrels a day of idle oil production capacity, according to Saleri, who is now chief executive officer of Houston-based consultant Quantum Reservoir Impact. Saudi Arabia's spare capacity is about 1.5 million barrels a day, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
The Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico is the engine for U.S. shale production and acquisitions, helping to increase U.S. output to more than 10 million barrels a day in November for the first time in more than four decades.
"For decades there was one country and one company that had spare capacity and that country was Saudi Arabia and that company was Saudi Aramco," Saleri said. "Now we are seeing an analog to that in the Permian."
West Texas Intermediate oil futures traded in New York have climbed 7.4 percent this year. The benchmark grade was 56 cents lower at $64.89 a barrel at 9:44 a.m. on Monday in Dubai.
The Permian region can increase output in response to higher demand in three to four days, faster than anywhere else except fields run by Saudi Aramco, known officially as Saudi Arabian Oil Co., Saleri said. Producers in the Permian will probably pump at least 3 million barrels a day of crude oil in a year, up from about 2.6 million barrels a day currently, said Saleri.
"The operators who aren't efficient have left the game and only those super-efficient operators are staying," he said. "If operators believe that oil prices will stay above $60 for the coming six months they will go on a drilling program."
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Permian-Getting-to-look-a-lot-like-Saudi-Arabia-12551740.php
-
New Jersey Governor Backs Frack Ban in Delaware River Basin
Feb 5, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Two weeks after taking office, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy said he would join his Democratic counterparts from Delaware, New York and Pennsylvania in support of a ban against hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in the Delaware River Basin.
Last Thursday, Murphy sent a letter to Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf, the current chairman of the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), to express his support for a ban on fracking in the basin. Murphy said he was "disheartened" that his Republican predecessor, Chris Christie, had abstained from a vote last September to adopt a rulemaking that could ultimately lead to a ban.
"Let me be clear, New Jersey supports a ban on fracking and the DRBC's efforts to drive this policy through these draft regulations," Murphy wrote. "Moving forward, you can trust that my representative to the DRBC will exercise that authority with these priorities in mind."
In late November, the DRBC proposed to permanently ban fracking across its four-state region and rules changes to discourage fresh water exports and wastewater imports. Early last month, the commission added two public hearings and extended the public comment period to March 30.
Delaware River Basin acreage in New York and Pennsylvania overlaps the Marcellus Shale. The DRBC is led by the governors of the four aforementioned states and the federal government, represented by the commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' North Atlantic division.
The DRBC said in 2009 all gas drilling in the basin needed to be reviewed but said it would not approve any development until rules were adopted governing the industry. The agency postponed the gas development review in 2010 and failed to act on adopting rules in 2011, leaving in place a de facto moratorium.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113274-new-jersey-governor-backs-frack-ban-in-delaware-river-basin
-
Leave Oil and Gas Guidelines Alone, Greens Tell Trump Admin
Feb 5, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Environmental groups, armed with research showing the oil and gas industry's contribution to ozone-forming emissions, are pressing the Trump administration to leave U.S. EPA pollution control guidelines alone.
At least twice in recent weeks, representatives of the Environmental Defense Fund, the Clean Air Task Force and other organizations have met with officials from EPA and the White House Office of Management and Budget to oppose the proposed withdrawal of the Obama-era control techniques guidelines (CTGs), according to newly posted records on OMB's Reginfo.gov website.
"We conveyed that the CTGs are really vital to securing reductions in ozone-forming pollution in communities," Tomás Carbonell, EDF's director of regulatory policy, said in an interview recounting the Jan. 18 meeting. Carbonell said he and a colleague also stressed that the guidelines, adopted in late 2016, represent "common-sense approaches" consistent both with the practices of leading oil and gas companies and requirements imposed by energy-producing hubs such as Wyoming and Colorado.
About a week later, on Jan. 26, staffers from the Clean Air Task Force, Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council mounted a similar case with EPA and OMB officials.
"We just wanted to make sure that OMB knows that there are a lot of people that think these CTGs are very important," Darin Schroeder, a task force staff attorney who participated in the meeting by phone, said in an interview today.
The guidelines, issued in October 2016 over industry opposition, were part of the Obama administration's strategy for curbing emissions of volatile organic compounds from existing oil and gas facilities. Such compounds react in sunshine with nitrogen oxides to form ozone, a lung irritant that is the main ingredient in smog.
The guidelines are in essence technical recommendations for states to consider for areas that are in "moderate nonattainment" or worse for EPA's 2008 ground-level ozone standard of 75 parts per billion. They also apply in the Ozone Transport Region, which encompasses 11 Northeastern states, the District of Columbia and Northern Virginia.
Industry organizations, however, have registered concerns about the potential price tag for small producers. They've found a ready partner in the Trump administration, which has made a priority of easing requirements that could be seen as hindering domestic energy production.
EPA had sent the notice of the guidelines' proposed withdrawal to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in mid-December for a standard review (Greenwire, Dec. 18, 2017). As of this morning, the review is continuing, the Reginfo.gov site indicates.
The site does not reflect any meetings thus far with industry representatives. At both of last month's meetings, the environmental groups cited the Clean Air Task Force's 2016 report titled "Gasping for Breath" on the health effects of ozone stemming from oil and gas production, records show.
The Environmental Defense Fund also referenced its 2015 study — produced with the help of academic researchers — which found that "high-emitting" facilities account for a disproportionately large share of methane releases. That finding also has important consequences for releases of volatile organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants from such facilities, Carbonell said.
Following standard practice, the government staffers in attendance asked questions but did not otherwise signal a position, participants said.
"There were receptive," Schroeder said, "and we appreciated that from them."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/02/05/stories/1060072915
-
15 Tribes Call for Halt of Wash. LNG Plant
Feb 5, 2018 | Spokane Spokesman-Review (In E&E Greenwire)
The Puyallup Tribe and 14 other Northwestern tribes are asking Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) to halt a proposed Puget Sound Energy Inc. liquefied natural gas plant on Tacoma's Tideflats.
The tribes want construction to stop until an environmental review is done and permitting is finished.
Their letter says the Puyallup tribe was not consulted during plant planning. The project site was once tribal land.
Last week, the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency said another environmental review is needed before the plant can receive an air permit. The new study, which will look at greenhouse gas emissions, will take several months.
"The decision reinforces what we have been saying all along — the process has been flawed since day one," Puyallup Tribal Chairman Bill Sterud said in a statement.
Puget Sound Energy has said LNG is cleaner than the bunker fuel commonly used by ships. Some of the plant's LNG would be sold to TOTE Maritime, a shipping company.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/02/05/stories/1060072879
-
Developers Scramble to Save Pipeline from Shutdown
Feb 5, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Developers of a natural gas pipeline on the verge of shutdown are angling for an eleventh-hour fix to keep their project on track.
The Sabal Trail pipeline, part of a $4 billion network that crosses Alabama, Georgia and Florida, will have to halt operations Wednesday unless federal regulators or courts step in.
A collection of companies backing the natural gas project on Friday asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to quickly finish a court-ordered environmental review and reissue permits that would allow Sabal Trail to stay in service.
"Reissuing the Project certificates or granting temporary certificate authorizations will enable the Project to continue supplying the Southeast region with much-needed gas," Friday's requestsays.
The looming shutdown stems from an August 2017 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that sided with the Sierra Club in concluding that FERC failed to adequately weigh climate impacts from the pipeline.
The August order required the pipeline to halt operations while FERC conducted a supplemental review, but that piece of the decision had been on hold while the court fielded government and industry requests for reconsideration.
The D.C. Circuit rejected those requests last week, starting a seven-day clock for a formal court mandate that will cancel the pipeline's FERC permits. If that happens, Sabal Trail will be the first modern pipeline project shut down for violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (Energywire, Feb. 1).
In Friday's filing, developers of Sabal Trail and the broader Southeast Market Pipelines Project asked FERC to expedite the issuance of a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) that addresses the court's concerns about the agency's consideration of downstream greenhouse gas emissions from Sabal Trail.
FERC issued a draft of the review last fall and opened it up for public comment. Spectra Energy Partners LP, NextEra Energy Inc. and Duke Energy Corp. — joint backers of the pipeline — registered their support for the analysis.
The Sierra Club and several environmental groups, legal scholars and two Democratic lawmakers argued that FERC hadn't gone into nearly enough depth in its effort to quantify potential emissions from the burning of gas delivered by the pipeline. They also criticized the agency's refusal to use the social cost of carbon tool to gauge impacts (Energywire, Nov. 22, 2017).
FERC's final SEIS must include consideration of all the comments it received. The developers say the agency has had plenty of time to finalize the analysis, as the comment period on the draft ended Nov. 20.
"Accordingly, the Commission has all the information required to issue the final SEIS in accordance with the D.C. Circuit's remand and to concurrently issue an Order on Remand reissuing the [Southeast Market Pipelines] Project certificates," they told FERC.
They're asking the agency to reissue permits by tomorrow.
A FERC spokeswoman last week declined to comment on how close the agency is to completing the SEIS but noted that the analysis and related order are still "pending final decisions."Another option?
If FERC cannot finish the SEIS in time, Spectra and its partners are asking the agency to instead issue temporary emergency certificates to allow the pipeline to stay in service.
Some parts of Sabal Trail and the related Southeast network are already in service, while other parts are still under construction. Emergency certificates would allow gas to keep moving through the completed sections but wouldn't allow construction activities.
Such temporary authorizations are available under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, which allows emergency certificates "to assure maintenance of adequate service or to serve particular customers, without notice or hearing" while a standard certificate is pending.
The pipeline backers argue that an emergency certificate should be exempted from environmental review requirements. They note that they will lose revenue and face irreparable harm if the project is derailed.
"Such a shutdown would result in adverse impacts to the public, the environment, the Project shippers, and the Applicants," they wrote. "The SMP Project is critically important to meeting the growing natural gas needs of the southeastern United States and to maintaining and strengthening the reliability of pipeline service into Florida — a state with no natural gas storage and de minimis natural gas production."
They argued that a shutdown would be especially harmful during the winter, as Florida Power & Light Co. is already relying in part on gas from Sabal Trail to feed its power plants in Palm Beach County and Martin County, Fla.
Friday's filing also argues that any delay in the Sabal Trail project could slow the retirement of two coal-fired units scheduled for shutdown this year. Duke Energy Florida says it cannot retire the units until it opens its new Citrus County combined-cycle plant, which depends entirely on Sabal Trail.
A Duke spokeswoman said the company expects to be ready for Sabal Trail's gas by spring to begin startup testing for the Citrus plant.
Experts have noted that FERC or the pipeline backers could also take their case to the Supreme Court to avoid shutdown.
The Sierra Club and other environmental groups involved in the case are expected to oppose any effort to maintain pipeline operations before the SEIS is finished.
The group has repeatedly argued that project approvals found to be in violation of NEPA must be thrown out and projects put on ice until the violations are fully addressed.
"FERC should deny this ill-conceived effort to make an end run around the court's decision," Sierra Club lawyer Elly Benson said in an email last night.
Even when the SEIS is issued, the battle won't be over. If the final review is anything like the draft, environmental groups are expected to argue that it does not go far enough to address the D.C. Circuit's August 2017 concerns.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/02/05/stories/1060072839
-
Texas Company Slapped with Felony Charges of Dumping Toxins
Feb 5, 2018 | Houston Chronicle (In E&E Greenwire)
A Houston chemical company, along with its owner and general manager, are facing felony charges over accusations of dumping benzene and other toxic chemicals into a hidden storm drain.
Employees at Wright Containers LLC complained that the chemicals burned through gloves and caused irritated eyes but that the company refused to pay for medical care.
When police visited the scene, the nausea-inducing chemical smells at the facility got stronger the closer they got to the storm drain, said Alex Forrest, chief of the environmental crimes division of the Harris County District Attorney's Office.
"Some of the chemicals would burn the skin off your bones," he said.
Employees provided video of the company dumping chemicals into the storm drain, which feeds into Sims Bayou and Galveston Bay, Forrest said.
Owner Ronald Wright, 50, and general manager Gregory Hance, 41, both face charges of intentional water pollution and improper disposal and storage of hazardous materials, charges that carry up to 10 years in prison. Wright Containers is also a defendant in the case.
Illegal dumping is notoriously difficult to catch in Houston, but prosecutors are hoping the case will mark a new era for environmental crimes in the city.
"If you're operating without a license and handling hazardous waste, discharging hazardous waste, disposing of it, we're going after you," Forrest said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/02/05/stories/1060072885
-
U.S. Official Says Positive Train Control Could’ve Prevented Amtrak Crash in South Carolina
Feb 5, 2018 | New York Daily News
A locked switch forced an ill-fated Amtrak train to go onto a side track and crash into a freight train, something officials said a life-changing technology still could've prevented.
Amtrak Train 91, from New York to Miami, slammed into an idle CSX train early Sunday, killing an Amtrak engineer and conductor and injured scores more.
The switch was set into position with a padlock, officials said. That forced the passenger train to hit the unoccupied freight vessel at a forceful speed.
“Key to this investigation is learning why the switch was lined that way,” National Safety Transportation Board Chairman Robert Sumwalt said late Sunday.
Positive Train Control can save lives but is slow to implement
But the Positive Train Control (PTC) system could’ve stopped it from even happening.
“It could have avoided this accident,” Sumwalt said. “That's what it's designed to do.” Sumwalt said the passenger train was diverted to a side track where the freight train was sitting.
Reports indicate PTC wasn’t in place on the stretch of rail south of Columbia, S.C., where the accident happened.
CSX, which operates the rails, was also manually directing trains because its signal system was down, according to Sumwalt, who said it was too early to say if that was a factor.
Workers warned Amtrak about lack of training before deadly crash
Engineer Michael Kempf, 54, and conductor Michael Cella, were killed in the wreck, and 116 of the 147 people on the train were brought to area hospitals.
Officials were quick to say the crash underscored the need for PTC, which is designed to block human errors on the rails.
“Theoretically, an operative PTC system would include switches in addition to signals, so it would cover both speed and switches,” Amtrak President Richard Anderson told reporters Sunday afternoon.
Rail safety advocates have long pushed for PTC, and it was finally mandated in a nearly decade-old economic recovery act.
Engineer commented on Amtrak train’s speed seconds before crash
Amtrak has installed PTC on its rails in the northeast and other stretches it controls.
But the original 2015 deadline was pushed back after rail companies said they needed time to implement all the technology involved.
Most of CSX’s employees have been trained in the technology and it’s been outfitted on all 2,000 of the company’s locomotives, according to information from the Federal Rail Administration.
But only 45% of CSX’s 9,590 miles have been outfitted with the technology.
CSX, which didn’t immediately return a request for comment, offered its condolences in a statement Sunday.
“We remain focused on providing assistance and support to those impacted by today's incident,” the company said.
PTC works through technology on locomotives, rail sensors, antennas and other devices to detect threats or speed changes on the track.
If a conductor is incapacitated and can’t respond, an active PTC system will typically slow down or stop the train.
Investigators believe it also could’ve prevented the deadly crash in Washington state last December, where a train was going nearly 50 mph above the speed limit when it derailed.
Lawmakers later gave railroad companies until the end of this year, but offered an extension to 2020 under a certain criteria.
“America’s railroads must be made safer,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) tweeted Sunday. “Proven technology like Positive Train Control cannot continue to be delayed. On safety, business as usual must end.”
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/positive-train-control-prevented-amtrak-crash-official-article-1.3800026
-
White House Adviser Walks Back Assurances on HFC Amendment
Feb 5, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Eric Wolff
An adviser to President Donald Trump on Monday walked back assurances from the State Department that the U.S. supported a treaty to limit chemicals linked to climate change, saying the administration is still developing a recommendation for the president.
The Trump administration has to decide whether to ask the Senate to ratify the Kigali amendment to the Montreal Protocol. The 2016 amendment would limit the use of powerful greenhouse gases known as hydrofluorocarbons, which replaced the ozone-depleting chemicals phased out under the original treaty. The amendment enjoys strong support from U.S. manufacturers and businesses on both sides of the aisle.
"If the president does decide to support Kigali, it will be because he wants to create U.S. jobs and advance U.S. commercial interests," said George David Banks, a White House special assistant on international energy and environment issues. "Before we create a recommendation to the president, we’re going to have really good economic information. We're going to have to have a real commend of it. We understand there’s broad industry support, but we want to understand in a concrete way, how this benefits U.S. companies, how it preserves and creates U.S. jobs, how it fosters the trade balance and exports to other countries."
Banks told an audience at the Hudson Institute on Monday that the NSC, National Economic Council, EPA, State Department and other agencies were still working on a recommendation for Trump. But he said they were not operating on any specific timeline.
Speaking to reporters after the event, Banks said the administration was keeping the president's options open and that a State Department official did not intend to signal support for ratification of the treaty.
Judith Garber, the principal deputy assistant secretary for State's Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, told a Montreal Protocol meeting in November that the U.S. supports "the goals and approach of the amendment." Banks said "there's a difference between that" and supporting the amendment itself.
Industry groups are working to provide the administration with the information it needs to go ahead with ratification. They say it will benefit domestic businesses because the U.S. is the leading producer in the next generation of chemicals.
Trump has not publicly weighed in on the Kigali amendment, although he frequently mentions his decision to pull out of the higher-profile Paris climate deal. In addition to his doubts about climate change science, Trump has also raised unfounded questions about the science linking chemicals in household products like hairspray to the hole in the ozone layer.
Banks also said the administration wouldn't move forward until it had worked out how to implement the protocol. The D.C. Circuit rejected EPA's use of the part of the Clean Air Act that would have been used to implement the protocol, leaving supporters searching for other authorities.
Jeff Holmstead, a former EPA clean air chief, now a partner with the law firm Bracewell, said a different section of the law would let EPA implement the amendment, despite the D.C. Circuit loss. Bracewell also represents the Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute, a trade group of U.S. coolant producers pushing for the treaty's approval. AHRI was a sponsor of the event.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/02/white-house-adviser-walks-back-assurances-on-hfc-amendment-543811
-
Skeptic's Retreat Sparks Questions About Alternative Science
Feb 5, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Robin Bravender and Zack Colman
Under President Trump, the left has lost some big climate battles: The president promised to exit the Paris climate treaty, the Clean Power Plan is doomed and critics of mainstream climate science hold top jobs.
But Democrats and green groups now claim a major victory against the administration — the withdrawal of one of Trump's most controversial nominees, due in large part to her views on climate change.
The White House confirmed over the weekend that Kathleen Hartnett White has withdrawn her name from consideration to lead the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Trump first nominated the former Texas environmental regulator — an ally of Energy Secretary Rick Perry — in October, but she ran into staunch opposition by Senate Democrats who opposed her record, including her vocal criticism of mainstream climate science.
The collapse of the nomination dealt a blow to conservatives who question the science behind rising temperatures. They had hoped to expand their ranks within the Trump administration. Their foes, meanwhile, celebrated the withdrawal as a win for the lawmakers and groups that fought to keep Hartnett White out of the White House, although they cautioned that they aren't expecting any major policy shifts from this administration.
"This is certainly a victory for climate science, for good government and for the environment overall," said Christy Goldfuss, who led CEQ during the Obama administration. "I think her views were so extreme, so beyond the pale of what any person could believe with regard to science, with regard to climate impacts, that she was not able to withstand the light and she withdrew because she was too extreme and unqualified."
The collapse of the nomination comes after Hartnett White appears to have been unable to muster enough support on Capitol Hill to win the approval of the Senate's slim Republican majority. It's unclear how much political capital the White House was willing to expend on her behalf.
Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University, called the withdrawal a "minor victory for the side of science and reason in the ongoing war being waged against the scientific community by the Trump administration and congressional Republicans."
But he and others aren't expecting the administration to do an about-face on climate science because one nomination tanked.
"Perhaps they just recognized what a weak and unsupportable nominee she is and didn't think it was worth any political capital to fight for her," Mann said.
During her Senate confirmation hearings, lawmakers grilled Hartnett White on some of her inflammatory climate statements and writings. She stood by her stance — diverging from mainstream climate science — that carbon dioxide is a "harmless and completely natural gas" (Climatewire, Nov. 9, 2017).
"It's likely that CO2 emissions from human activity has some influence on the climate," she said. "CO2 in the atmosphere has none of the characteristics of a pollutant that contaminates and fouls and has a direct impact on human health as an atmospheric gas."
Scott Segal, an industry attorney at Bracewell LLP, said, "I think the White confirmation difficulty was about more than just climate science." He added, "The debate over climate" is now "more about policy development rather than science," noting that EPA is moving to replace the Clean Power Plan and doesn't appear poised to unravel the scientific endangerment finding that underpins federal climate rules.
Some critics of mainstream climate science, meanwhile, are disappointed that Hartnett White won't get a top White House job.
"We've lost a very important voice in the debate between climate alarmism and energy realism," said Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
"It's one thing to have someone in place who's a climate skeptic," Ebell said. But Hartnett White would have been "a climate skeptic who is very expert on these issues and can punch back."
Other top energy and environmental officials, including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Energy Secretary Rick Perry, have also questioned humans' role in climate change.
John Holdren, who was President Obama's science adviser, said the significance of Hartnett White's withdrawal will become clearer when someone else is nominated in her place.
"He/she would need to be a science-respecting intellectual and political powerhouse with Trump's ear to begin to reverse the damage that has already been done through the actions and influence of the likes of [OMB chief Mick] Mulvaney, Pruitt, [Interior Secretary Ryan] Zinke and Perry," Holdren said. "Seems an unlikely scenario, alas."
Reached by phone yesterday, Hartnett White declined to comment about her nomination.
In a statement issued by the White House, she said, "In the best interest of facilitating confirmation of the President's nominees throughout his administration, as well the needs of my family and work, I feel it is best, at this point in time, to withdraw my name from further consideration."
She said she would continue to champion Trump's "policies and leadership on environmental and energy issues of critical importance to making our nation great, prosperous and secure again."CEQ's fate
It's unclear whether there will be another nominee for CEQ or whether Democrats would mount a similar opposition campaign as they hope for electoral gains in 2018.
"If the Republicans lose the Senate, they're not going to get anybody in, so let's hope that they nominate someone quickly," said Ebell.
But it isn't clear whether filling the White House job is a priority.
The administration has "a whole host of slots to fill," said Ana Unruh Cohen, director of governmental affairs at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "It doesn't seem like pushing or finding nominees is really a priority for them. I could see this one languishing."
Shepherding another nominee through the confirmation process could divert resources from an already overloaded staff at a pivotal time. CEQ is playing a key role in devising Trump's infrastructure initiative and snipping environmental laws where possible to hasten permitting. That's the focus of the president's second year.
Another explanation is that CEQ's work has continued apace, even if its relatively slim staff is taxed. Many inside the administration believe the acting chief, Mary Neumayr, is capable of steering the council in the interim.
Privately, administration officials have said they believe CEQ's work can continue without a Senate-confirmed boss.
"The good news is that CEQ is well staffed even in the absence of a chair," said Segal of Bracewell. "Current CEQ staff includes a range of experience from past administrations, Capitol Hill and the private sector."
Much of the council's focus revolves around the National Environmental Policy Act, which Trump wants to tweak to achieve his goal of greenlighting major infrastructure projects using "one federal decision."
That is a complicated task requiring coordination across the federal government, industry representatives said, adding that continuing without a chair would hamstring the agency.
"CEQ administers NEPA and is a critical voice at the table for this year's anticipated debate over an infrastructure package," Ross Eisenberg, vice president of energy and natural resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, said in an email. "We believe a strong CEQ is vital to accomplishing the Administration's goal of 'one federal decision' for infrastructure permitting, and for administering the permitting process quickly, efficiently and safely."
The absence of a confirmed leader could complicate the agency's work, Goldfuss said.
"They could go the entire time without a chair at CEQ," she said, "and I think what will suffer is their priorities under infrastructure, because that's clearly what they have tasked CEQ to do, and without leadership there, it's less likely that they'll be able to pull together a package that stands any muster."
Some have suggested in the past that CEQ cannot take certain actions without a Senate-confirmed head.
Senate Republicans criticized the Obama administration when CEQ issued directives under NEPA without a Senate-confirmed chairman. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), then the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee chairman, slammed the agency when it issued guidance on greenhouse gases without a political boss.
Others say Hartnett White's derailment shows the limited appeal of nominees who openly tout alternative climate science. The GOP's grasp on the Senate weakened with the election of Alabama Democrat Doug Jones, and some Republicans care enough about climate change to push back against candidates who hold contrarian views, said Unruh Cohen.
"That she had such an extreme view of climate science and attacked it so much just shows how far out of the American mainstream she was, and that was part of what made her untenable for the now 51 Republicans in the Senate," she said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/02/05/stories/1060072867
-
Ewire: CEQ Nominee's Withdrawal Clears Path for EPA Picks
Feb 5, 2018 | Inside EPA
Kathleen Hartnett White, the controversial nominee to head the White House Council on Environment Quality (CEQ), has asked the Trump administration to withdraw her nomination, clearing the path for the Senate to consider nominees to be the next EPA deputy administrator and chief financial officer (CFO).
White is a former Texas regulator who has openly questioned mainstream climate change science and has often sided with industry in many environmental disputes.
Her statements have drawn strong opposition from many Democrats, led by Sen. Tom Carper (DE), the ranking member on the Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW), who vowed to stall top EPA nominees unless Hartnett White withdrew from consideration.
Over the weekend, Hartnett White asked that President Donald Trump pull her nomination, and the White House announced on Feb. 4 that the nomination was withdrawn effective immediately, according to the Washington Post.
EPW subsequently announced that it would hold a Feb. 7 business meeting to vote on the nomination of FaegreBD Consulting Principal Andrew Wheeler to be deputy EPA administrator -- a pick Carper has said he will allow to proceed.
“I want to thank President Trump for his confidence in me and I will continue to champion his policies and leadership on environmental and energy issues of critical importance to making our nation great, prosperous and secure again,” said Hartnett White in a statement.
Hartnett White asked to withdraw her nomination “in the best interest of facilitating confirmation of the President’s nominees throughout his administration, as well the needs of my family and work.”
While the decision is a loss for Trump's strategy for staffing CEQ, it could nevertheless bolster prospects for moving two top EPA nominees through the Senate confirmation process.
Carper on the sidelines of a Jan. 30 EPW hearing told EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt that as long as Hartnett White's nomination was alive, there would be “difficulties” moving the nominations of Wheeler and Pruitt adviser Holly Greaves to be EPA's CFO.
“I made clear those nominations would be difficult to move forward expeditiously as long as the nomination of Kathleen Hartnett White was still out there,” he said.
Following news of the nominee's withdrawal, Carper issued a statement saying, “My colleagues in Congress know well that I am one of the first to reach across the aisle to find reasonable, principled compromises, but in this case, it was abundantly clear very early on that heading up the [CEQ] wasn’t the right job for Ms. White.”
He added, “The nominee to lead the critical work of the White House Council on Environmental Quality must be a true leader -- someone who can build alliances, work with Congress and be seen as an honest broker. To begin tackling climate change, the greatest environmental challenge of our generation, we need a Council on Environmental Quality leader who has a deep respect for science, for the environmental laws and regulations already on the books and for those who hold different views than their own.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-ceq-nominees-withdrawal-clears-path-epa-picks
-
No Children Because of Climate Change? Some People Are Considering It
Feb 5, 2018 | The New York Times
By Maggie Astor
Add this to the list of decisions affected by climate change: Should I have children?
It is not an easy time for people to feel hopeful, with the effects of globalwarming no longer theoretical, projections becoming more dire and governmental action lagging. And while few, if any, studies have examined how large a role climate change plays in people’s childbearing decisions, it loomed large in interviews with more than a dozen people ages 18 to 43.
A 32-year-old who always thought she would have children can no longer justify it to herself. A Mormon has bucked the expectations of her religion by resolving to adopt rather than give birth. An Ohio woman had her first child after an unplanned pregnancy — and then had a second because she did not want her daughter to face an environmental collapse alone.
Among them, there is a sense of being saddled with painful ethical questions that previous generations did not have to confront. Some worry about the quality of life children born today will have as shorelines flood, wildfires rage and extreme weather becomes more common. Others are acutely aware that having a child is one of the costliest actions they can take environmentally.PhotoRising waters are threatening low-lying areas like South Tarawa in Kiribati, a Pacific island nation.CreditJosh Haner/The New York Times
The birthrate in the United States, which has been falling for a decade, reached a new low in 2016. Economic insecurity has been a major factor, but even as the economy recovers, the decline in births continues.
And the discussions about the role of climate change are only intensifying.
“When we first started this project, I didn’t know anybody who had had any conversations about this,” said Meghan Kallman, a co-founder of Conceivable Future, an organization that highlights how climate change is limiting reproductive choices.
That has changed, she said — either because more people are having doubts, or because it has become less taboo to talk about them.Facing an uncertain future
If it weren’t for climate change, Allison Guy said, she would go off birth control tomorrow.
But scientists’ projections, if rapid action isn’t taken, are not “congruent with a stable society,” said Ms. Guy, 32, who works at a marine conservation nonprofit in Washington. “I don’t want to give birth to a kid wondering if it’s going to live in some kind of ‘Mad Max’ dystopia.”
Parents like Amanda PerryMiller, a Christian youth leader and mother of two in Independence, Ohio, share her fears.
“Animals are disappearing. The oceans are full of plastic. The human population is so numerous, the planet may not be able to support it indefinitely,” said Ms. PerryMiller, 29. “This doesn’t paint a very pretty picture for people bringing home a brand-new baby from the hospital.”
The people thinking about these issues fit no single profile. They are women and men, liberal and conservative. They come from many regions and religions.PhotoA house party in Chicago organized by the group Conceivable Future. CreditMarya Spont-Lemus
Cate Mumford, 28, is a Mormon, and Mormons believe God has commanded them to “multiply and replenish the earth.” But even in her teens, she said, she could not get another point of doctrine out of her head: “We are stewards of the earth.”
Ms. Mumford, a graduate student in a joint-degree program at Johns Hopkins and Brigham Young Universities, plans to adopt a child with her husband. Some members of her church have responded aggressively, accusing her of going against God’s plan. But she said she felt vindicated by the worsening projections.When Cate Mumford, 28, saw similar pollution in China, she thought, “I’m so glad I’m not going to bring a brand-new baby into this world to suffer like these kids suffer.”
A few years ago, she traveled to China, where air pollution is a national crisis. And all she could think was, “I’m so glad I’m not going to bring a brand-new baby into this world to suffer like these kids suffer.”‘Some pretty strong cognitive dissonance’
For many, the drive to reproduce is not easily put aside.
“If a family is what you want, you’re not just going to be able to make that disappear entirely,” said Jody Mullen, 36, a mother of two in Gillette, N.J. “You’re not just going to be able to say, ‘It’s not really good for the environment for humans to keep reproducing, so I’ll just scratch that idea.’”
And so compromises emerge. Some parents resolve to raise conscientious citizens who can help tackle climate change. Some who want multiple children decide to have only one.
For Sara Jackson Shumate, 37, who has a young daughter, having a second child would mean moving to a house farther from her job as a lecturer at the Metropolitan State University of Denver. She is not sure she can justify the environmental impact of a larger home and a longer commute.
But for Ms. PerryMiller, the Ohio youth leader, the thinking went the opposite way: Once she had her first child, climate change made a second feel more urgent.
“Someday, my husband and I will be gone,” she said. “If my daughter has to face the end of the world as we know it, I want her to have her brother there.”
Laura Cornish, 32, a mother of two near Vancouver, said she felt “some pretty strong cognitive dissonance around knowing that the science is really bad but still thinking that their future will be O.K.”
“I don’t read the science updates anymore because they’re too awful,” she said. “I just don’t engage with that, because it’s hard to reconcile with my choices.
People who choose not to have children are used to being called “selfish.” But many of them see their decision as a sacrifice.
Parenthood is “something that I want,” said Elizabeth Bogard, 18, a freshman at Northern Illinois University. “But it’s hard for me to justify my wants over what matters and what’s important for everyone.”
This attitude seems particularly common among people who have seen the effects of climate change firsthand.
Hemanth Kolla is from Hyderabad, in India, where drought and scorching heat waves have been deadly. He lives in California, where the threat of wildfires is increasing and a six-year drought only recently ended. Mr. Kolla, 36, said it felt wrong to have a child when he did not believe the world would be better for him or her.
And Maram Kaff, who lives in Cairo, said she had been deeply affected by reports that parts of the Middle East may be too hot for human habitationby 2100.
“I’ve seen how Syrian refugees, who are running from a devastating war, are being treated,” Ms. Kaff, 33, said in an email. “Imagine how my children will be treated if they have to flee their country due to extreme weather, drought, lack of resources, flooding.”
“I know that humans are hard-wired to procreate,” she said, “but my instinct now is to shield my children from the horrors of the future by not bringing them to the world.”
Ms. Kallman and Josephine Ferorelli, the founders of Conceivable Future, said that the predominant emotion at their gatherings was grief — and that the very existence of these conversations should spur political action.
“These stories tell you that the thing that’s broken is bigger than us,” Ms. Ferorelli said. “The fact that people are seriously considering not having children because of climate change is all the reason you need to make the demands.”
Most of the people interviewed, parents and non-parents alike, lamented having to factor climate change into their decisions at all.
“What kind of nightmare question is that?” asked Ms. Guy, the Washington nonprofit worker. “That we have to consider that?”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/climate/climate-change-children.html
-
Snyder Orders All Government Facilities to Recycle
Feb 5, 2018 | Detroit Free Press (In E&E Greenwire)
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) wants to greatly expand recycling across the state.
Snyder signed an order Friday directing all state government facilities to offer recycling services within one year.
The governor also announced a program called Re:Source aimed at promoting the use of recycled materials at businesses, state parks, rest areas and other sites.
The program will connect businesses with purveyors of recycled materials including paper, metal, glass and plastic.
It will also include a push to update the state's solid waste laws to encourage recycling over building more landfills.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/02/05/stories/1060072889
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested