Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 01/11/18
-
(ACC Blog) CNN Article Perpetuates “Chemical-Free” Myth
Nov 1, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
CNN recently published an article about a new product that will increase the shelf life of certain fruits and vegetables. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Scandal Threatens GOP Incumbent
Nov 1, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Nick Bowlin
In one of the tightest midterm House races, a chemical emissions scandal involving EPA has roiled the contest. -
Former BP Lawyer Starts as DOJ Environment Chief
Nov 1, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Justice Department's environment team finally has its official leader. -
DowDuPont Tops Profit Estimates as Chemicals Demand Provides Boost
Nov 1, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Laharee Chatterjee
DowDuPont Inc topped Wall Street estimates for third-quarter profit on Thursday, as stronger demand for chemicals used in cosmetics, paints and packaging gear helped offset slowing growth at its agriculture business. -
EPA's Jeff Morris Lays Out TSCA Implementation Priorities
Nov 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA will focus on meeting its statutory deadlines, establishing clear and predictable policies and increasing stakeholder engagement as it continues implementing the amended TSCA, stakeholders at the Chemical Watch US Regulatory Summit have heard. -
US NGOs Notify EPA of Intent to Sue Over Methylene Chloride
Nov 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Caroline Byrne
A group of NGOs, along with two women whose sons' deaths have been linked to exposure to methylene chloride, have filed a notice of intent to sue the US EPA if a ban on the substance is not finalised within the next 60 days. -
PFAS Contamination on Military Bases Is A Scary Reality—And For Me, It’s Personal
Nov 1, 2018 | Union of Concerned Scientists
By Charise Johnson
Across the country, families are exposed to dangerous chemicals in their water—and the families most at risk are those living on or near military bases. -
Families Take Step Toward Suing EPA Over Toxic Paint Stripper
Nov 1, 2018 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)
By Ellen Knickmeyer
The mothers of two men killed by a toxic paint stripper took a step toward suing EPA yesterday for failing to take quick action to remove the product from the market. -
Widespread Presence of 'Novel' Plastic Chemical in Homes
Nov 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
US and Canadian research teams are calling for research into possible health effects of a "novel" organophosphate ester (OPE) found in house dust: tris(2,4-di-tert-butylphenol)phosphate (TDTBPP). -
California Adds Soluble Nickel Compounds to Prop 65
Nov 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
California has added soluble nickel compounds to its Proposition 65 list of substances known to cause reproductive toxicity. -
Newark Residents Outraged After Testing Reveals Lead Contamination in Water
Nov 1, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Megan Keller
Newark, N.J. ,residents are furious after testing revealed lead contamination in their water, contrary to what city officials have insisted. -
REACH Registrant Finds No Aquatic Toxicity for SWCNTs
Nov 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
The only REACH-registered supplier of single-wall carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) says aquatic toxicity tests on algae resulted in "no toxic effects", a finding that could influence whether SWCNTs are prioritised for evaluation under the regulation. -
Major Danish Study Identifies Nine New EDCs
Nov 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The Danish environment ministry has published a major study that identifies nine new substances as endocrine disruptors based on "solid scientific evidence". -
Proactive Alliance to Develop Policy Recommendations on SiA Reporting
Nov 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The cross-sector industry group Proactive Alliance will develop policy recommendations for a global standard that will help companies report on substances in articles along the supply chain. -
Echa Round-Up
Nov 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Echa has put back its submission date for an Annex XV restriction report on oxo-degradable plastics from 11 January to 19 July 2019. -
UN Report Highlights 'Vicious' Human Exposure to Toxic Substances
Nov 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Nick Hazlewood
The UN's special rapporteur on human rights and hazardous substances has drawn the attention of the organisation's General Assembly to "a particularly vicious form of exploitation: exposure to toxic substances". -
NGOs Say Impact of Chemical Pollutants on Oceans Largely Ignored
Nov 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
While awareness around marine plastic pollution has grown, the impacts of chemical pollutants on the oceans is still largely being ignored, according to a report by the International POPs Elimination Network (Ipen) and The National Toxics Network (NTN). -
DHS' High Court Filing Defends Border Wall Environmental Law Waivers
Nov 1, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is urging the Supreme Court to reject environmentalists' push to overturn a 2006 border security law that lets it waive environmental and other laws in order to speed construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, arguing that DHS' discretion is not so broad as to be unconstitutional. -
Industry Faults Standard-Setting System, as Greens Fault EPA
Nov 1, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Industry groups are venting — and environmental advocates fuming — over EPA requesting feedback on what's wrong with the current system for curbing key air pollutants. -
Environmental Group Adds $20 Million More Investment to Midterm Elections
Nov 1, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
A political action group focused on getting voters to turn out for environmental and climate change issues is expecting to spend over $80 million on the midterm elections. -
White House Sped Review of Methane Rule Delay
Nov 1, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Niina Heikkinen
In a rapid-fire review, the White House took just three days to evaluate EPA's proposal to give states more time to cut methane emissions from landfills.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) CNN Article Perpetuates “Chemical-Free” Myth
Nov 1, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
CNN recently published an article about a new product that will increase the shelf life of certain fruits and vegetables. Food waste is a globally relevant and timely topic, and stories about technologies that maintain the quality and shelf life of foods are extremely important.
The company describes their product as “a family of plant-derived coatings that fresh food growers, suppliers and retailers use to keep produce fresh.” Unfortunately, the CNN article described the product as “chemical-free,” which simply isn’t possible. In fact, in the company’s filing with the Food and Drug Administration, it explains that the product is a chemical mixture of monoglycerides or fatty acid monoesters of glycerol, which are found naturally in the environment.
The point is the product and the important benefits it provides are based on the science of chemistry. Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time a product has been described as “chemical-free” in the news. In fact, we’ve written about it several times in recent years.
Take a look at the blog below, which we originally published back in 2015. It explains why it is impossible to ever have chemical-free foods or drinks (Hint: they simply don’t exist).
Chew on this: “Chemical-free” foods and drinks don’t exist. Natural chemicals in our food are not “naturally better” than manmade chemicals. And the word “detox” is too often used as a seal-the-deal marketing ploy to sell products to consumers that have already bought in to the first two myths.
“This is NOT Natural,” according to Mitchell Moffit and Gregory Brown at AsapSCIENCE. The YouTube duo with more than 4 million (!) subscribers published a video on July 15 to help clear up some of the confusion about chemicals in food. As of this writing, the video is well on its way to 1,000,000 views.
They aren’t the only ones helping to make sense of this chemicals-in-food debate. Recently, scientists weighed in on the safety of Mac & Cheese and pumpkin spice lattes, proving what we eat (and what’s in what we eat) is a complex topic. Evidently, people are tuning in.
Related: “6 chemical myths debunked: New guide helps consumers see through common misconceptions“
What are we to understand from all of this? From GMOs to common foods labeled “toxic,” questions about the safety of chemicals in food have clearly created a lot of fear and confusion – and people sick of living in fear are looking for some real answers. This video should help. “A little perspective can go a long way,” the narrator states.
Below, we summarize a few of the misconceptions about chemicals in food that we took from the video (but we recommend first watching the video above).Myth 1: Avoiding certain foods can help you lead a chemical free life.
Not even close. “You can’t lead a chemical free life like some brands would like you to think,” the video states. Everything around us is made up of chemicals, from the water we drink to the air we breathe. It’s the same with foods: chemical-free foods and drinks simply don’t exist. As Dr. Joe Schwarcz of McGill University said in an uproarious TEDx presentation, “If you buy something that claims to be chemical free, you’re not getting a very good deal.”Myth 2: Natural chemicals in food are less toxic than synthetic chemicals.
Not true, as the video explains: “We can’t just give blanket statements to natural versus synthetic. Natural chemicals aren’t always good for you and manmade chemicals are not inherently dangerous.” You may have seen some advertisements bemoaning the presence of unpronounceable chemical ingredients in a competitor’s product. However, “natural foods” like bananas and eggs have long and confusing lists of unpronounceable ingredients that can easily rival those of a piece of candy. As chemical mythbuster Sense About Science reminds us, “Whether a chemical is naturally occurring or man-made tells us nothing about its toxicity.” The dose makes the poison.Myth 3: You can detox your body as part of a chemical elimination diet.
“The word detox is strictly a marketing myth,” the video states. Companies market products to our belief in the previous two myths. If we believe we have done a bad job living chemical free, perhaps by consuming too many unnatural chemicals in food, we are more likely to buy detox products to get rid of those chemicals. These chemophobia-stirring claims aren’t just wrong, they can also be harmful.
More could be said here about individual food allergies and sensitivities. Not all of us will respond the same to different chemicals, natural or manmade, in our food. The key is to listen to your gut, so to speak — it’s the most natural thing you can do.
If you want to read a more comprehensive chemical mythbusting guide, check out: “6 chemical myths debunked: New guide helps consumers see through common misconceptions” and be sure to watch the TEDx Talk featuring Dr. Joe Schwarcz.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2018/11/cnn-article-perpetuates-chemical-free-myth/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Scandal Threatens GOP Incumbent
Nov 1, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Nick Bowlin
In one of the tightest midterm House races, a chemical emissions scandal involving EPA has roiled the contest.
Democrat Sean Casten, who worked in energy efficiency and has stressed climate change, is trying to unseat Rep. Peter Roskam (R) in a suburban Chicago district that Hillary Clinton won in 2016. The Cook Political Report rates the race a toss-up.
Casten has hammered Roskam, a favorite of the chemical industry, on the environment throughout the race. A former biochemist, Casten put a particular emphasis on efforts to hamstring science and research in President Trump's EPA.CONTINUING COVERAGE
E&E News features, analysis and updates on the midterm elections.Click here to view the series.
Roskam has responded with environmental outreach throughout the midterm cycle, joining the Climate Solutions Caucus and tweeting about a hike with environmentally minded students from a local college.
Then in August, EPA released a national air toxicity studyshowing that residents in the district faced cancer risks from airborne pollution up to nine times the national average because of emissions of ethylene oxide from a local sterilization plant owned by Sterigenics International LLC.
A separate study from the Department of Health and Human Services using EPA data came to a similarly dire conclusion: The high levels of the chemical in the air near the Sterigenics plant left residents at an alarming cancer risk.
Local anger flared. Residents called for the plant to be shut down; four schools, one day care center and at least 19,000 people are near the plant, reported the Chicago Tribune. The state Legislature is holding hearings.
And caught in the uproar is Roskam, whose undeniable ties to the chemical industry have become a top issue in the race against Casten.
Roskam is backed by the American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry's biggest trade group, which bought a $209,000 television ad boosting the incumbent in late June. The trade group represents industry heavyweights that support the continued production and use of ethylene oxide.
On Sept. 4, Casten — along with members of the Illinois Sierra Club and Rep. Bill Foster (D), who represents areas affected by Sterigenics, as well — slammed Roskam in a press conference for his silence on the report and his vote on H.R. 1431 to allow more industry voices like those from the ACC on the EPA Science Advisory Board.
Roskam "should be here," Casten said.
Roskam did not publicly comment on the issue until Sept. 13, two weeks after the report. In a statement, he called it "very concerning."
"My office was quickly in communication with Willowbrook Mayor Frank Trilla," he said in the release, "and since then, my staff and I have been in contact with the Illinois EPA and the Region 5 U.S. EPA in addition to Mayor Trilla."
Roskam called for the plant’s temporary closure in a release dated Oct. 31.
Veronica Vera, Roskam’s communication director, said the representative pushed the EPA for a second round of air testing.
“As a direct result of Roskam’s involvement and insistence, the U.S. EPA agreed to conduct a second ambient air test, as well as a smoke stack test,” she wrote in an email.
In the meantime, the chemical industry pushed back on the studies that showed cancer risks from chemical exposure. On Sept. 25, the ACC sent a letter to the EPA claiming the agency study was flawed and that ethylene oxide is not as dangerous as described.
The trade group's political action committee — a separate entity from the one behind the $209,000 ad buy — followed that up with a $1,000 donation to Roskam's campaign on Oct. 3, lifting its total contributions to the campaign to $4,500 according to Federal Election Commission documents.
DowDuPont's employee PAC has kicked in $3,000 to Roskam's bid. Dow and other chemical giants like Union Carbide Corp. are members of the ACC. Both manufacture ethylene oxide.
Under the current administration, EPA's chemical-related bodies have been filled with people linked to the ACC (Greenwire, March 30). Most prominently, Michael Dourson, a former ACC consultant, withdrew his nomination to head EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention following concerns about industry ties. The current nominee, Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, was a lawyer for the ACC early in her career.
The trade group has achieved many of its policy priorities, including holding up chemical regulations, under Trump's EPA (Greenwire, March 19).
As for Sterigenics, chemical emissions concerns have now consumed the gubernatorial race between Gov. Bruce Rauner (R) and Democrat J.B. Pritzker, which The Cook Political Reportrates as likely to flip blue. Rauner co-founded the private equity firm that owns Sterigenics.
Casten, meanwhile, continues to press the issue, calling on Roskam to return money from the chemical industry. Last week, he attended a Illinois General Assembly hearing on Sterigenics, which Roskam was not reported to have attended.
"Roskam has been conspicuously absent on an issue people are understandably pretty panicked about," said Samantha Warren, a spokeswoman for Casten's campaign.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/11/01/stories/1060104911
-
Former BP Lawyer Starts as DOJ Environment Chief
Nov 1, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Justice Department's environment team finally has its official leader.
Jeffrey Bossert Clark started work today as assistant attorney general in charge of DOJ's Environment and Natural Resources Division. President Trump nominated Clark in June 2017, but he wasn't confirmed by the Senate until last month.
He sent an introductory email to staff this morning and will be sworn in today at 2:30 p.m.
A former Kirkland & Ellis LLP attorney who represented BP PLC in litigation over the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Clark will now lead the federal government in cases involving pollution control laws, public lands, natural resources, wildlife and tribal issues.
Many of the nearly 600 attorneys and staff who work for ENRD already know Clark. He served as a deputy assistant attorney general for the division during the George W. Bush administration.
"Jeff Clark is one of the leading environmental litigators in the country, and has been counsel in many of the most significant environmental and natural resource cases of the past two decades, both here at the Department of Justice and in private practice," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement after Clark's confirmation.
Holland & Hart LLP attorney Kelly Johnson, also a high-ranking ENRD official during the George W. Bush administration, said Clark's experience with the division will serve him well.
"He has a good understanding from his previous tenure as a deputy there," she said. "That's a helpful thing for the division going forward, is that you have somebody who understands how the division is organized, knows still a lot of the people who are there and knows the issues, and knows how to defend the client agencies successfully."
Environmentalists say Clark's record raises red flags, pointing to his defense of BP and his work with the Chamber of Commerce as it challenged the federal government's authority to regulate carbon emissions.
"The guy who defended the company that caused the worst oil spill in U.S. history is not likely to aggressively go after corporate environmental outlaws," Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook said in a statement after the Senate vote (Greenwire, Oct. 11).
Political appointee Jeffrey Wood has been leading the division as acting AAG since January 2017 (Greenwire, Oct. 31).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/11/01/stories/1060104915
-
DowDuPont Tops Profit Estimates as Chemicals Demand Provides Boost
Nov 1, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Laharee Chatterjee
DowDuPont Inc topped Wall Street estimates for third-quarter profit on Thursday, as stronger demand for chemicals used in cosmetics, paints and packaging gear helped offset slowing growth at its agriculture business.
The world's largest chemicals producer, formed last year through the $130 billion merger of Dow Chemical and DuPont, also said it would buy back $3 billion in shares over the next five months.
DowDuPont's shares rose 4.4 percent to $56.30 in premarket trading.
An intensifying trade dispute between China and the United States has weighed on the farm sector, especially after Beijing slapped a 25 percent tariff this year on U.S. soybeans, the most valuable American farm export to China.
DowDuPont said last month its agricultural unit, which produces seeds and pesticides, recorded a non-cash charge of $4.6 billion, as seed makers face shifts in demand as a result of trade tariffs.
ADVERTISEMENT
China, the world's top soybeans importer, has scaled back purchases of U.S. soy and is instead buying from Brazil.
The shift has prompted Brazilian farmers to plant more soybeans, instead of corn. Some U.S. farmers may make the opposite choice in the spring.
The tariff row could hurt DowDuPont's U.S. agricultural business next year because of higher soybean production in Latin America, Chief Financial Officer Howard Ungerleider said in an interview.
Still, Ungerleider suggested the impact may not be immediate. "We don't see any material impact from the (trade) tariffs on our businesses in the fourth quarter," he said.
DowDuPont's overall net sales rose 10 percent to $20.1 billion in the third quarter ended September.Subscribe to With Interest
Sales at its materials science business, which produces chemicals used in cosmetics, packaging material, paints and brake fluids, rose 13 percent to $12.4 billion. The unit is DowDuPont's top revenue contributor.
Agricultural unit sales rose 2 percent to $1.91 billion.
Selling, general and administrative costs ballooned almost 50 percent to $1.5 billion.
Adjusted earnings jumped 35 percent to 74 cents per share, above analysts' average estimate of 71 cents, according to Refinitiv data.
DowDuPont, which is in the process of splitting itself up into three companies, said the separation was on track. The materials science division, to be called Dow, should separate by April 1, the company said.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/11/01/business/01reuters-dowdupont-results.html
-
EPA's Jeff Morris Lays Out TSCA Implementation Priorities
Nov 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA will focus on meeting its statutory deadlines, establishing clear and predictable policies and increasing stakeholder engagement as it continues implementing the amended TSCA, stakeholders at the Chemical Watch US Regulatory Summit have heard.
Speaking to attendees in Arlington, Virginia, Jeff Morris – the EPA’s director of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) – laid out these three themes as the agency’s main priorities as it enacts the 2016 Frank R Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.
Meeting statutory deadlines is "important for the credibility of the programme", said Dr Morris. "It was a tremendous responsibility … and great potential benefit to society in enacting these amendments to TSCA, and meeting the challenges in the law through meeting the deadlines is critical to showing that we can do the job."
He also emphasised the need for a strong policy framework. Dr Morris said the agency hopes to set "clear, transparent and predictable decision logic" for how it makes determinations under the law.
"Every existing or new chemicals decision we make – how is it grounded, and is there clear policy?" he said.But he added that even if the EPA meets its deadlines and gets its policy framework right, if it’s not clear how it arrived at its decision, and if stakeholder feel that their voices are not being heard, then the agency "isn’t setting it up the right way".Focus on new chemicals
A common theme, heard from industry groups throughout the summit’s TSCA panel, was concern over the new chemicals programme. And in Dr Morris’ remarks, he agreed that there is "work to do there", and it is a "top priority".
Developing new policies is a necessarily slow process, he said.
"We’re so immersed in all of these issues and it takes up so much of our time in working through individual cases," he said. "It’s all about getting the policy framework right."
'It is worth spending the time … and accepting the criticism of not being as rapid in our decision making as we would all like, [in order] to get the policy framework right'
Dr Morris added: "It is tremendously labour-intensive, and it has to be. And it slows things down – that is just the nature of things. But it is worth spending the time … and accepting the criticism of not being as rapid in our decision making as we would all like, [in order] to get the policy framework right."
But he noted that this slowdown has contributed to the EPA not meeting its statutory deadline to make new chemical review determinations within 90 days.
He said that the agency does not technically fail to meet its deadlines, due to the option to extend them. "That said, it’s clear from the statute … it’s our objective to complete those new chemical reviews in 90 days."
"That’s an area … where we’re not there yet, and it is a priority for us in improving our work," he added.Looking to 2019
Dr Morris said that complete buy-in from all stakeholder groups "isn’t realistic". But he emphasised the need for "a clear understanding that people in various roles across the stakeholder community have had an opportunity to not only provide input but believe that their input was heard and considered in the work that we do in laying the groundwork for enacting the statute."
"We have invested quite a bit of effort and resources … to try to be transparent," he said, including holding public meetings and webinars.
But he added: "I think we can do more, and I think we need to do more."
'I think we can do more, and I think we need to do more'
Part of that effort, said Dr Morris, is getting more information in the public sphere about the documentation underlying its decisions. This includes for new chemicals decision making, ongoing risk evaluations, and how the agency prioritises chemicals for these.
But he said that 2019 is the year for the EPA to "go beyond the obvious", and ask if there are other ways it can be more transparent.
Looking forward to TSCA’s three-year anniversary, he said he anticipates a "very, very active discussion in both the new and existing chemicals space".
https://chemicalwatch.com/71532/epas-jeff-morris-lays-out-tsca-implementation-priorities
-
US NGOs Notify EPA of Intent to Sue Over Methylene Chloride
Nov 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Caroline Byrne
A group of NGOs, along with two women whose sons' deaths have been linked to exposure to methylene chloride, have filed a notice of intent to sue the US EPA if a ban on the substance is not finalised within the next 60 days.
Their action comes after a proposed rule under TSCA section 6 that would ban paint removers containing the solvent has stalled under the Trump administration.Three organisations are involved in the action:the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA);Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families (SCHF); andthe Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG).
They claim the EPA has breached its statutory obligation by failing to finalise a proposed ban on the substance, which has been linked to cancer, heart failure and sudden death.
Earthjustice attorney Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz, counsel for the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, told Chemical Watch the claim is not about money: "The only relief we are seeking is for EPA to comply with the law by finalising the proposed ban on methylene chloride, a step the agency should have taken long ago."The EPA responded to questions from Chemical Watch saying: The "EPA has historically been the subject of a number of lawsuits and we will review this one as well, but in the meantime the agency will continue to work towards a solution. EPA is currently evaluating the proposal and regulation of this substance and its uses to determine the appropriate regulation – and its legal defensibility."
The EPA proposed a prohibition on the use of methylene chloride (dichloromethane) in paint removal applications towards the end of the Obama presidency, but plans have not been carried through.
The agency announced in May, after a meeting with campaigners, that it would finalise a rule addressing methylene chloride "shortly". It has scheduled a December release for the final rule, according to its autumn semi-annual regulatory agenda update.
Meanwhile, major North American companies including Lowe's, Walmart, Home Depot, Autozone, Kelly-Moore and PPG have committed to phasing out products containing methylene chloride and NMP.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71511/us-ngos-notify-epa-of-intent-to-sue-over-methylene-chloride
-
PFAS Contamination on Military Bases Is A Scary Reality—And For Me, It’s Personal
Nov 1, 2018 | Union of Concerned Scientists
By Charise Johnson
Across the country, families are exposed to dangerous chemicals in their water—and the families most at risk are those living on or near military bases. This threat concerns me not just as a researcher, but as the child of a military family.
PFAS, or poly- and perfluorinated alkyl substances, are a class of synthetic chemicals that are silently ubiquitous and persistent in the environment—and highly toxic. Their ability to repel oil and water and persist at high temperatures makes them attractive for use in everyday items like nonstick cookware and food packaging, in water-repellent gear, and in firefighting foam used primarily by the US military.
UCS recently released a factsheet that investigated PFAS contamination at US military bases, and the results were unsettling. A new report from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) says that the threshold for danger from PFAS starts much lower than previously suspected—and that sites across the country are at risk. According to ASTDR, PFAS exposure studies have indicated certain PFAS may have negative health effects: developmental issues in infants and children, increased cancer risk, high cholesterol levels, hormone disruption, lowered immunity.
Unfortunately, this does not come as a surprise to me. Last November, I wrote about how appointing chemical industry apologist Michael Dourson to head the EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention would be terrible for the public, particularly for military families, due to his conclusions that PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid), a type of PFAS and a widespread drinking water contaminant on military bases, should have an even weaker safety standard than that already recommended by the EPA. Luckily, he withdrew his nomination, a victory both for science and public health. However, Dourson’s withdrawal was one small victory in the fight to stop toxic contamination at military bases, a fight that began years ago. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), UCS obtained email correspondence between the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Department of Defense (DoD). These emails suggested that the administration was interfering with the release of the ATSDR report on PFAS. An unnamed intergovernmental affairs aide at the White House said, “the impact to EPA and DoD is going to be extremely painful.”
The impact will be painful, it’s true—but for whom?
Me at age 12, when we were stationed in Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. My dad had me on Jeep detail.Respecting the military
Every politician brags about their support for the troops, and trust in the military is high among the public. But what does that mean in practice?
For a long time, military personnel and their families have been exposed to heightened chemical risk. But this administration has added insult to injury and taken us further from solving the problem. Intentionally stopping a study from being published because it would be a “public relations nightmare” could be, instead, a nightmare for those affected.
As of August 2017, DoD identified 401 active and BRAC installations in the United States with at least one area where there is a known or suspected release of PFOS/PFOA.
In all, 25 Army bases; 50 Air Force bases, 49 Navy or Marine Corps bases and two Defense Logistics Agency sites have tested at higher than acceptable levels for the compounds in either their drinking water or groundwater sources. Additionally, DoD tested 2,668 groundwater wells both on and in the surrounding off-base community and found that 61 percent of them tested above the EPA’s recommended levels.
Military communities deserve our support—but they’ve gotten insufficient attention in the conversation about water pollution, despite their elevated risk. Fortunately, the administration’s attempt to bury the PFAS report has backfired, drawing more attention to the issue.
This issue isn’t just scientific to me—it’s personal.
I think of my father, getting stationed in Korea at age 19, a stone’s throw from the Korean demilitarized zone (DMZ) – a place former President Bill Clinton called “the scariest place on earth.” When I asked my dad about it, he said only three words – “it was scary.” These are the realities many active members of our armed forces face, whether in training on US soil or deployed abroad. And while people join the service for many different reasons, I am positive none of those include “I would like to unwittingly bear the brunt of toxic chemical exposure.”
I think of my grandfather. My uncle. My aunts. My cousin. All served in the military, putting themselves and their families at risk.
If we’re not listening to science and basing our decisions on the best available information, public health and safety can be compromised and the public’s ability to engage meaningfully suffers.
Members of the military and their families deserve better than having the risks they face concealed.
We can do better. Our leaders need to act on the information they have about the dangers of PFAS. Ask your elected officials to push EPA and DoD to do more to protect their constituents from toxic contamination.
https://blog.ucsusa.org/charise-johnson/pfas-contamination-on-military-bases-is-a-scary-reality-and-for-me-its-personal
-
Families Take Step Toward Suing EPA Over Toxic Paint Stripper
Nov 1, 2018 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)
By Ellen Knickmeyer
The mothers of two men killed by a toxic paint stripper took a step toward suing EPA yesterday for failing to take quick action to remove the product from the market.
EPA had pledged in May, after then-Administrator Scott Pruitt met with families of two victims, to wrap up action "shortly" on proposed Obama-era regulations that would eliminate most allowable uses of the paint-stripping solvent methylene chloride (Greenwire, May 10).
The agency disclosed earlier this month that it is now weighing rules that would allow a particular use of the solvent, in commercial furniture refinishing, to continue, and that it is aiming to have a rule finished by the end of the year.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says methylene chloride poses "extreme hazards" to people using it. California says it has tracked at least five deaths from the paint stripper nationally since 2014.
The dead include an El Salvador-born laborer in California last year unable to read any English-language warning labels, and 21-year-old Kevin Hartley of Tennessee, who died last year while refinishing a bathtub, despite his job-safety training.
"How many more have to be lost before they take action and ban this? I mean, this is — this is crazy," said Wendy Hartley, the dead man's mother, and one of those who met with Pruitt in May.
"They have the facts right there in front of them. Just do it," Hartley said yesterday. "They just need to issue the ban."
Hartley and the mother of another methylene chloride victim joined a national labor organization representing Spanish-speaking workers and environmental and public health groups in formally notifying EPA of their intent to sue over what they said was the agency's failure to issue a ban. The notification is a required step ahead of any lawsuit.
Asked yesterday about the status of the rule and the notification of intent to sue, EPA spokeswoman Molly Block said, "EPA is currently evaluating the proposal and regulation of this substance and its uses to determine the appropriate regulation — and its legal defensibility."
EPA under President Obama had concluded that methylene chloride posed an "unreasonable" risk and proposed banning all consumer sales and most commercial uses. Pruitt's EPA did not indicate what a final rule would look like.
Pruitt, one of the most energetic agents in the Trump administration's regulation-cutting mission, initially shelved the pending methylene chloride rule indefinitely after becoming head of the agency. He reversed himself and promised action after the meeting with relatives of Hartley and another victim, Drew Wynne of North Carolina.
Pruitt resigned amid ethics scandals this summer. While courts have since blocked many of Pruitt's deregulatory moves, Pruitt's acting successor at the agency, Andrew Wheeler, is seen as moving more carefully to shape deregulatory efforts that will stand up to court challenges.
Home Depot, Lowe's and some other major retailers have announced since May — after survivors joined advocacy groups in campaigning for the ban — that they would voluntarily stop carrying methylene chloride.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/11/01/stories/1060104889
-
Widespread Presence of 'Novel' Plastic Chemical in Homes
Nov 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
US and Canadian research teams are calling for research into possible health effects of a "novel" organophosphate ester (OPE) found in house dust: tris(2,4-di-tert-butylphenol)phosphate (TDTBPP).
One team "stumbled" upon the chemical during routine screening for flame retardants, according to lead author Marta Venier, from Indiana University, US.
Meanwhile, in August, Runzeng Liu and Scott Mabury from the University of Toronto, Canada, reported "unexpectedly high concentrations of a newly identified" OPE in household dust. The researchers found TDTBPP in all office and house dust samples, suggesting that "human OPE exposures in indoor environments is greater than was previously reported".
TDTBPP is known to form from a plastic additive called tris(2,4-di-tert-butylphenol)phosphite, which is widely used to stop polymers degrading during high temperature extrusion, sterilisation (food packaging), and storage. While protecting against oxidation, the chemical is itself oxidised to TDTBPP.
An OECD report suggests that around 46% of the phosphite oxidises to TDTBPP during polymer processing. The Toronto team detected the phosphite antioxidant in 50% of dust samples.'Cause for concern'
But Dr Venier suspects that TDTBPP itself may be used as a flame retardant, based on the fact that the researchers first found high concentration in electronic waste dust.
Further investigations revealed that the chemical was in "pretty much every sample that we looked for," from house dust to canal sediment, she added. "This, joined with the fact that we don't know anything about its toxicity, is for us a cause for concern and it speaks of poor chemical management," she told Chemical Watch.
The researchers will continue to monitor for the compounds in other samples. They will also modify their analytical techniques to clarify if the TDTBPP results mainly from phosphite oxidation or whether it is indeed being used as a standalone additive.
Although there is a fair amount of literature on the phosphite, both teams point to a lack of toxicity information for TDTBPP. "The elevated concentrations measured in the built and natural environment, and the relatively high exposure estimates, especially for toddlers, indicate that further investigation of this compound and the related TDTBPPO [tris(2,4-di-tert-butylphenol)phosphite] is warranted," wrote Dr Venier and colleagues in the journal Environmental Science and Technology.
Dr Liu and Professor Mabury also called for more studies to evaluate potential toxicity and to find out if more OPE analogues are present in the environment "to avoid underestimating human exposure". As they point out, human dust exposure is "unavoidable".
The Toronto team is not currently investigating TDTBPP's potential toxicity but urged others to take on the work. "We will be happy if someone else would like to investigate its toxicity as this chemical was detected at high concentrations of parts-per-million levels in various environmental samples, which leads to ubiquitous human exposure," said Dr Liu.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71534/widespread-presence-of-novel-plastic-chemical-in-homes
-
California Adds Soluble Nickel Compounds to Prop 65
Nov 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
California has added soluble nickel compounds to its Proposition 65 list of substances known to cause reproductive toxicity. But it has not listed the metal nor its insoluble compounds in a move welcomed by industry.
The decision follows consideration of the substance by the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (Dartic) of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) at an 11 October public meeting.
Oehha announced in July its intention to consider listing nickel and its compounds on account of developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART), to some surprise from industry.
In response, nickel producers said that listing soluble compounds was warranted based on rat studies, but that the same did not apply to insoluble compounds, such as nickel alloys found in coils and rods.
Additionally, nickel, as an unreacted, metallic element, needed to be considered separately for any evaluation because of the evidence about the metal that had become available since 1990, they said.
The trade association Nickel Institute told Chemical Watch that it "supports the decision to list only the soluble nickel compounds as reproductive toxicants based on sufficient evidence from animal studies". Implications
Nickel and several nickel compounds are already listed under Prop 65 for carcinogenicity; just one compound, nickel carbonyl, is also listed for DART.
But the addition of 'Nickel (soluble compounds)' for DART could have warning requirement implications for companies using relevant compounds, both in terms of the additional hazard endpoint and any linked exposure routes.
The listing took effect on 28 October. Companies have a one-year grace period before any associated requirements apply.
Exactly which compounds will be affected is not yet clear, given that solubility is a continuous variable. Asked whether Oehha would providing a definitive list of affected compounds or a cut-off value of some kind, a spokesperson for the office said: "We are reviewing the relevant research but have not yet made determinations."
Nevertheless, the Californian regulatory landscape now more closely resembles that of the EU, where water soluble nickel compounds have mandatory reprotoxicity 1B classifications under EU CLP.
The EU has no equivalent classification for nickel metal and insoluble nickel compounds.
Nickel salts are used in electroplating baths, batteries, textile dyes and catalysts.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71535/california-adds-soluble-nickel-compounds-to-prop-65
-
Newark Residents Outraged After Testing Reveals Lead Contamination in Water
Nov 1, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Megan Keller
Newark, N.J. ,residents are furious after testing revealed lead contamination in their water, contrary to what city officials have insisted.
"I was extremely upset. Extremely upset," Newark resident Yvette Jordan told CBS News.
Testing found that about one-quarter of Newark children under 6 have detectable lead in their blood, according to the paper.
The city heard of a lead contamination problem in some of its schools in 2016, but has since insisted that the water was safe to drink.
The city is now facing a lawsuit over the contamination, which Jordan has joined.
"'Your water is fine. Everything is fine,'" she said, recounting what she had heard from city officials.
Newark now says it is working to address the issue.
"We acted immediately to address what was happening," Mayor Ras Baraka told CBS.
Baraka said that the contamination came from old water pipes found in some neighborhoods, which spread lead into drinking water.
The mayor contended that the blood testing and water contamination are unrelated.
"Water has not contributed in any significant way to the elevated lead levels in our children's blood," Baraka said.
"Lead-based paint and dust has done that in the city of Newark and, I would suspect, in many cities across America."
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/414269-newark-residents-outraged-after-testing-reveals-lead-contamination
-
REACH Registrant Finds No Aquatic Toxicity for SWCNTs
Nov 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
The only REACH-registered supplier of single-wall carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) says aquatic toxicity tests on algae resulted in "no toxic effects", a finding that could influence whether SWCNTs are prioritised for evaluation under the regulation.
The announcement by Ocsial, a Luxembourg-based SWCNT manufacturer, contrasts with some academic studies, however. These studies, also conducted on algae, link the substances to toxic effects, albeit at high concentrations that are unlikely to occur in the environment.
Contract research organisation Envigo carried out the testing for Ocsial. Envigo exposed algae to a saturated solution of its Tuball brand SWCNTs, according to OECD test guideline 201, and algal biomass measurements demonstrated that there were no toxic effects. The results are recorded in the registration dossier.
Envigo’s findings are significant because of the similarity between SWCNTs and multi-wall carbon nanotubes. MWCNTs are subject to a REACH evaluation by Germany's Baua, expected in 2019.
Echa and members states have not yet considered whether to prioritise SWCNTs for evaluation. But they have already demonstrated a willingness to prioritise carbon nanotubes (CNTs) by adding multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) to the community rolling action plan (Corap).
Grounds for concerns
The grounds for concern, provided as justification for the Baua evaluation of MWCNTs, are:suspected carcinogenic;other hazard-based concern;consumer use;cumulative exposure;exposure of environment; andwide dispersive use.
In an 11 October statement, Ocsial outlined key differences between the two substances and speculated about how these might influence toxicity. In particular, it says, the higher flexibility of SWCNTs, which have potential in advanced electronics, compared with MWCNTs could be significant.
CNTs are substances of concern, particularly in relation to inhalation exposure, because of their physical similarity to asbestos fibres which are known to cause severe adverse effects in the lungs.
SWCNTs are structurally related to graphene, which is a single, one-atom-thick layer of carbon centres arranged in a precise hexagonal pattern. Each tube is essentially a graphene sheet rolled up to make a cylinder.
By the same analogy, MWCNTs are structurally related to graphite, which is multiple graphene layers stacked on top of each other with precise alignment of the carbon atoms between the layers.Single- or multi-wall
"Unlike multi-wall carbon nanotubes and carbon fibres, single-wall carbon nanotubes are highly flexible and may, thus, generally have a lower potential to harm the cell walls of algae," says Detlef Schuler, a consultant working with Ocsial on toxicity testing.
Fabienne Schwab, an expert in the environmental toxicology of CNTs at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, says several well-designed studies link some types of SWCNT to moderate toxic effects on algae. However, these were only seen at extremely high concentrations that are unlikely to occur in the environment.
Furthermore, Dr Schwab’s research found that adverse effects caused by CNTs were "indirect" and related mostly to agglomeration of the algae with the CNTs. This stressed the algae and shaded them from light.
The key factor, therefore, is concentration, she says. Flexibility is a factor when considering adverse effects on algae but it is most likely a much more significant factor when considering adverse effects in the lungs.
In 2014, the International Agency for Research on Cancer categorised one type of MWCNT known as MWCNT-7 as a group 2B substance, meaning it is "possibly carcinogenic to humans". The agency categorised other types of MWCNT, as well as SWCNTs, as group 3 substances "not classifiable as to their carcinogenicity to humans".
Baua has notified Echa of its intention to submit a CLH proposal for MWCNT. It is seeking mandatory, EU category 1B carcinogenicity and specific target organ toxicity, repeated exposure (Stot RE) classifications. The proposal is expected by 31 December.REACH
There are separate REACH registration dossiers for SWCNTs and MWCNTs, which face different obligations.
Echa and member states were able to consider prioritisation of MWCNTs earlier because they fell into the 100-1,000 tonnes per year tonnage band, subject to the 2013 registration deadline. SWCNTs fell into the 1-10 tonnes per year tonnage band, so they did not have to be registered until early this year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71515/reach-registrant-finds-no-aquatic-toxicity-for-swcnts
-
Major Danish Study Identifies Nine New EDCs
Nov 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The Danish environment ministry has published a major study that identifies nine new substances as endocrine disruptors based on "solid scientific evidence".
The study, commissioned by the Danish EPA and carried out by researchers from the DTU Food Institute and the University of Southern Denmark, screened thousands of chemicals for endocrine-disrupting properties.
Bisphenol AF (BPAF), considered an alternative to bisphenol A (BPA), is amongst them. Earlier this year an NGO called on EU regulators to "phase out" the use of groups of similar chemicals to prevent substitution of one hazardous substance with a related one that has similar properties.
The nine chemicals identified as EDCs and their effects are:bisphenol AF – humans and environment;di-n-pentylphthalate – humans;fenitrothion – humans;isobutyl paraben – humans;octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) – humans;prochloraz – humans and environment;triclocarban – humans;tris(methylphenyl) phosphate – humans; andsalicylic acid – humans.
All nine chemicals can be termed EDCs based on the EU's new criteria for pesticides that came into force in June, a report from the study said. None of the substances have yet been subject to evaluation under the EU regulatory system.
The study's 'list of lists' took more than a year to compile through scientific research to prioritise potential EDCs from several existing lists of hazardous chemicals published by NGOs and authorities. These include, for example, ChemSec's Substitute It Now (SIN) List and another from the World Health Organization (WHO). Earlier this year the UN also released its own record.
A major contribution came from Echa in the form of a 'master list' of some 7,200 substances – a confidential database of mainly registered chemicals at tonnages of 100t or higher. The Danish EPA signed a confidentiality agreement to obtain access to it, senior DTU researcher Sofie Christiansen told Chemical Watch.
The final list was assembled from a priority lineup of 28 substances from Echa's master list and 28 from other databases. The two sets were handled differently because the Echa list included a "substantial" amount of information that was not in others, the report said.
It also identified four other chemicals as suspected EDCs. These, listed below, could not be determined as EDCs due to gaps in data:2-(4-tertbutylbenzyl)-propionaldehyde – humans;bifenthrin – environment;deltamethrin – humans; andhexachlorophene – humans.Missing data
The report was submitted to the Danish EPA at the end of 2017 before undergoing further analysis and checks.
The nine EDCs identified in the report are just "the tip of the iceberg", Ms Christiansen said and researchers estimate there is "significant evidence" for the other four to be identified as EDCs.
More research and data are needed to assess the potential hormone-disrupting effects of others, as well as the extent to which people and the environment are exposed, the report concluded.
For example, a screening of available literature on 52 selected substances prior to the final list showed there was a lack of relevant data for 40-50% of them.
The report also recommended further literature review of 119 non-screened prioritised chemicals and thorough evaluation of the potentially relevant ones.
The Danish study comprised a reevaluation of 17 substances previously evaluated as EDCs and confirmed that ten of them fulfil the WHO definition.
Other member states have been testing suspected endocrine disruptors. A year ago an investigation by the Swedish Chemicals Agency found that 37 of 39 bisphenols surveyed on the European market could have potential EDC qualities.
Separately, this week EU member states discussed an amendment to the pesticides law in relation to EDCs that could end an existing ban on spraying in open fields.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71514/major-danish-study-identifies-nine-new-edcs
-
Proactive Alliance to Develop Policy Recommendations on SiA Reporting
Nov 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The cross-sector industry group Proactive Alliance will develop policy recommendations for a global standard that will help companies report on substances in articles along the supply chain.
At its second technical meeting in September, the group agreed to propose criteria and technical details on how industry can report this information through a global standard. The alliance held its first meeting in May, following an initial discussion on the sidelines of Chemical Watch’s Global Business Summit in Amsterdam earlier this year.
The recommendations will aim to support reporting requirements at the regulatory, company and trade association levels.
In addition, the group said reporting on a bill of material (BOM) structure as well as a Full Material Declaration (FMD) "should be possible where desired, but not required".
A BOM is a list of raw materials, components and assemblies required to make a product. An FMD lists the percentage weight of each individual material and of each substance which is intentionally added to each material.
The group plan to publish a draft of the policy document at the beginning of 2019 and then collect feedback from interested parties.
Martin Führ, a professor at Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences, is coordinating the initiative with his research group Sofia. He told Chemical Watch that the aim of the Proactive Alliance is still to "pave the way towards FMD".
"Of course, we are not in a position to define obligatory requirements. However, the advantages in terms of manageability and being prepared for future requirements, as well as product quality and liability are obvious," he said.Blockchain
Also on the agenda of the meeting was the information technology known as blockchain and how it could help collect and share material data for articles – including their chemical composition – across sectors.
Professor Führ said the group agreed that blockchain could support a substances in articles reporting standard.
The first step, he said, is to reach a consensus on the standardisation of data requirements and formats. "To which extent we include the options offered by blockchain remains to be seen."
The next meeting of the Proactive Alliance will be held in early 2019.
Reporting on substances in articles has been an ongoing discussion amongst industry, national authorities and at the global level.
In Europe, Echa has proposed developing a database which would contain information provided by companies producing, importing or supplying articles that contain candidate list substances. This is the result of a revised waste framework Directive (WFD) that entered into force in July. Industry groups, meanwhile, have raised concerns about the proposal.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71533/proactive-alliance-to-develop-policy-recommendations-on-sia-reporting
-
Nov 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Echa has put back its submission date for an Annex XV restriction report on oxo-degradable plastics from 11 January to 19 July 2019.
The European Commission asked the agency to prepare the dossier on the placing on the market and use of the substances because of the possible risk that may come from their use in consumer and professional uses. This arises from their potential to initiate the generation of microplastics.
Stakeholders have been requested to provide relevant information to Echa that can be used to determine if any derogations are required for the potential restriction as these cannot be proposed without adequate risk and socio-economic information.
Products that may use oxo-degradable plastics include: agricultural sheeting, blister packaging, bottles, caps/closures, carryout bags, labels, landfill covers, lids, milk pouches, pallet and shrink wrap, and trays.
Back in March the agency announced it was assessing the need for a proposal to restrict the use of the substances. In late 2014 industry association PlasticsEurope came out in favour of regulating the use of the plastics "since independent studies have shown that the fragmentation process is often inadequate and that the chemicals used are detrimental to the recycling process".Echa sessions at Setac
Echa said it is to co-chair seven sessions at the next meeting of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (Setac) in Helsinki.
Its sessions at the event on 26-30 May 2019 include:ecotoxicology and human toxicology;environmental chemistry and exposure assessment: analysis, monitoring, fate and modelling;ecological risk assessment and human health risk assessment of chemicals, mixtures and stressors and risk mitigation strategies;environmental policy, risk management, and risk communication; andchallenges and opportunities for advancing alternatives assessment and chemical substitution.
The agency is looking for case studies relating to its sessions. Abstracts should be submitted by 28 November 2018.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71478/echa-round-up
-
UN Report Highlights 'Vicious' Human Exposure to Toxic Substances
Nov 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Nick Hazlewood
The UN's special rapporteur on human rights and hazardous substances has drawn the attention of the organisation's General Assembly to "a particularly vicious form of exploitation: exposure to toxic substances".
In the first report of his mandate to the body, Baskut Tuncak said: "Exposure to hazardous substances is fundamentally about the right to life, non discrimination and the right to bodily integrity."
More than two million workers die every year from occupational diseases – nearly one million from toxic exposures alone, Mr Tuncak said in presenting the report in New York on 25 October. "Approximately 20 workers will have died prematurely from such exposures at work by the time I finish my opening remarks," he said.
And he highlighted the "audacious behaviour" of certain states that "go to unimaginable lengths to deny impacts on health, set permissible exposure levels that will undoubtedly cause adverse health impacts, or go as far as blaming the victims themselves for the misuse of toxic substances, even when labelled in foreign languages or symbols."
There are almost always alternatives to prevent or minimise exposure, Mr Tuncak said.
"Solutions to this abuse and violation of human rights are available, should states choose to compel businesses to adopt them. Unfortunately, in the vast majority of states, efforts in this regard are grossly inadequate," he said.
The 21-page report – On the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and waste – points to opportunities to strengthen protections of health from chemical exposures. It also highlights the continuing negotiations to develop a post-2020 global framework for managing hazardous substances and waste.
And it makes a number of recommendations, including:the need for a broader, more detailed discussion on human rights and exposure to hazardous substances;the global community should adopt an international instrument under the post-2020 framework to prevent and minimise toxic exposures; andstates should support and actively engage in the development of legally binding instruments on businesses at national, regional and global levels.
In September, Mr Tuncak presented a report to the UN's Human Rights Council in Geneva, proposing 15 principles to help governments and businesses better protect workers from exposure to hazardous chemicals. The report set out findings from his four years of monitoring the issue in industries and countries around the world.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71281/un-report-highlights-vicious-human-exposure-to-toxic-substances
-
NGOs Say Impact of Chemical Pollutants on Oceans Largely Ignored
Nov 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
While awareness around marine plastic pollution has grown, the impacts of chemical pollutants on the oceans is still largely being ignored, according to a report by the International POPs Elimination Network (Ipen) and The National Toxics Network (NTN).
According to the report, Ocean pollutants guide: toxic threats to human health and marine life, this is partly because chemical pollutants are mostly "invisible" to the naked eye and their health and ecological consequences are complex and long-term.
Substances and chemical groups identified by the NGOs include persistent organic pollutants (POPs), many of which are globally controlled by the UN treaty, the Stockholm Convention. Others include endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), mercury, plastics and their additives, such as certain flame retardants, and heavy metals.
The report also highlights a number of global and regional programmes that aim to address the problem, such as UN treaties.
However, it claims that while some programmes have significantly improved sub-regional marine water quality, collectively these instruments have "so far largely failed to address the wide diversity of land based sources of ocean pollutants". Which, it says, is estimated to be responsible for the majority of chemical and plastic pollution in the marine environment.
Many ocean pollutants, including marine plastics, will "take centuries to break down, if at all," the report stresses. "Terminal [chemicals] such as PFOS and PFOA are likely to be with us until the end of time. Still, more and more chemicals and single use plastic products are created and released to the marine environment either intentionally or inadvertently."
National governments, it continues, are failing to adequately regulate polluting industries and to protect their citizens and future generations.
"Global programmes and instruments, while diverse and extensive, have not been fully implemented and are not achieving their objectives. At the same time, there is increasing corporate capture of organisations like UN Environment and an ongoing uncoupling of science and policy," it says.
The report says that while the spotlight has been on reducing fossil fuels related to energy production, the industry is planning a "massive increase" in production of chemicals and plastic in the future.
"While OECD countries are still the biggest producers of chemicals, output is increasing more than twice as fast in India, China, Brazil, South Africa and Indonesia."
"Chemical production is growing steadily, at around 4% per year," it says.
Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and others helped fund the report.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71538/ngos-say-impact-of-chemical-pollutants-on-oceans-largely-ignored
-
DHS' High Court Filing Defends Border Wall Environmental Law Waivers
Nov 1, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is urging the Supreme Court to reject environmentalists' push to overturn a 2006 border security law that lets it waive environmental and other laws in order to speed construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, arguing that DHS' discretion is not so broad as to be unconstitutional.
In an Oct. 30 brief opposing certiorari in Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), et al., v. DHS, et al., the department says a district court judge was right to uphold the waiver authority included in 2006 amendments to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) because it includes an “intelligible principle” that limits the use of that power by the DHS secretary.
“Congress made the determination that other federal laws should not apply to the extent necessary to 'ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under' Section 102 [of IIRIRA], and it merely tasked the Secretary with determining with respect to a particular project which laws’ application it is necessary to waive to achieve that objective,” the brief says.
Under the 2006 amendment, DHS can waive “all legal requirements . . . necessary to ensure expeditious construction” of border security projects, based on the agency's sole discretion.
The department has invoked its section 102 waiver power as recently as Oct. 11 to exempt preliminary work on President Donald Trump's signature border wall from the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, National Environmental Protection Act and a host of other environmental and other statutes.
ALDF and other environmental groups say section 102 violates the “non-delegation doctrine,” which forbids Congress from giving executive agencies such broad rulemaking discretion that they effectively have full authority to make law. Should the high court strike down the IIRIRA waiver power as a non-delegation violation, it would set a precedent that might limit EPA and other agencies' rulemaking power under a variety of laws.
While DHS concedes that the waiver authority is broad, it says the language involved is not extreme enough to break with the Supreme Court's precedent on non-delegation, since the justices have only struck down provisions in two laws under that doctrine.
ALDF and its allies say the law does not impose any limiting principle on DHS' use of waivers, but the department counters that section 102 “identifies the types of roads and barriers to be constructed and the purposes of those projects, and it further establishes the standard the Secretary is to apply in determining which if any legal requirements to waive in connection with those projects.”
Further, it says, the petitioners are wrong to claim that there is no oversight of the decision-making process. Even without judicial review, DHS argues, Congress itself can use the budgetary process to reject improper waivers.“Congress itself is well positioned to assess whether the Secretary has acted within the limitations prescribed by Congress and to take action if it concludes that the Secretary has exceeded those limitations. For example, any construction project by the Secretary requires the appropriation of funds by Congress,” the brief says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/dhs-high-court-filing-defends-border-wall-environmental-law-waivers
-
Industry Faults Standard-Setting System, as Greens Fault EPA
Nov 1, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Industry groups are venting — and environmental advocates fuming — over EPA requesting feedback on what's wrong with the current system for curbing key air pollutants.
The clashing perspectives play out in comments submitted in response to EPA, which is asking for comments on the downsides of setting and enforcing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
To aid in future reviews of those standards, EPA in June asked for comments on "any adverse health, welfare, social, economic or energy effects" that may result from strategies to meet them.
Endorsing the effort was the Utility Air Regulatory Group, a trade group once represented by Bill Wehrum, who is now EPA's air chief.
If not "appropriately addressed," NAAQS implementation issues "have the potential to impose unfair and unnecessary burdens and additional costs on U.S. citizens and business enterprises," the group said in comments posted yesterday on Regulations.gov, an online clearinghouse. Among its complaints: nonattainment areas that are unnecessarily large and EPA's failure to account for emissions wafting into the United States from foreign sources.
The Aluminum Association focused on the process for enforcing compliance with the sulfur dioxide standard, which it called "contradictory" to the White House's goal of bolstering domestic production of the lightweight metal. For aluminum smelters, the large number of stacks makes the addition of controls on the acrid pollutant "costly and logistically difficult," the trade group's president and CEO wrote. As an alternative, she urged technical changes that would effectively relax EPA's yardsticks for measuring compliance.
But several environmental groups and state regulators sharply questioned EPA's agenda.
"The only lawful consideration in setting" the standards is the pollutant's effect "on health and welfare," the Sierra Club and two other organizations wrote in a joint filing.
A senior official with Minnesota's pollution control agency voiced concern about EPA's "seemingly biased" approach; the California Air Resources Board, already locked in a bitter standoff with the Trump administration over vehicle fuel economy rules, said that EPA is improperly requesting information "that may not be considered" in setting air quality thresholds.
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is supposed to assess — and, if needed, revise — the standards for ozone, sulfur dioxide and four other "criteria" pollutants every five years. In reality, EPA has rarely met that deadline.
Under a "back-to-basics" approach ordered in May by then-EPA chief Scott Pruitt, the agency has made compliance with that timetable a top priority. Pruitt also called on the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), a seven-member panel that's supposed to furnish outside expertise during the reviews, to offer advice on any "adverse" effects related to meeting the standards.
That requirement is embedded in the Clean Air Act. What it entails in practice, however, has been a subject of long-standing contention. In its landmark 2001 ruling in the case Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, et al.," the Supreme Court dismissed the argument that any such effects should play a role in setting air standards.
Instead, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the unanimous opinion, the provision is supposed to enable EPA to help states in their role as the "primary implementers" of the standards. "It would be impossible to perform that task intelligently without considering which abatement technologies are most efficient, and most economically feasible," Scalia wrote.
But in a 2015 report requested by House Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), a frequent EPA critic, the Government Accountability Office found that the clean air committee had never provided advice on adverse social, economic or energy effects because the agency hadn't asked.
Pruitt cited that report in the May memo aimed at overhauling the NAAQS reviews process. EPA had often not followed all of the provisions of that particular Clean Air Act section, he wrote.
EPA press aides did not reply to an email sent yesterday asking how the agency now intends to use the comments submitted in response to its June request.
While information on adverse effects may not be relevant to the standard-setting process, it can provide "important context for the public, co-regulators and the EPA," the agency had said in June.White House spurred EPA effort
Pruitt was following up on a White House directive aimed at streamlining both the NAAQS reviews and the work of putting new standards in place (E&E News PM, April 12).
Critics fear the overhaul is part of a broader administration push to sidestep evidence that tighter pollutant benchmarks may be needed to protect public health.
EPA is already hastening to complete reviews of the ozone and particulate matter standards so that both will wrap up before the end of President Trump's term in early 2021. Last month, acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler disbanded a scientific panel charged with helping in the particulate matter assessment; he also replaced five of the seven members on the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.
Among the new appointees is Sabine Lange, toxicology section manager at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
In response to EPA's request for input on adverse effects, the commission's executive director, Toby Baker, has raised a litany of complaints. Following questions from E&E News last week, Baker said through a spokeswoman that he would never attempt to influence Lange's decisions. Lange said she was serving on the CASAC as an independent scientific adviser, not a representative of the Texas agency (Greenwire, Oct. 26).
But in its comments, the American Petroleum Institute recommended a recent study co-authored by Lange concluding that the estimated net benefits of cutting the ozone standard from its current 70-parts-per-billion level to 65 ppb are far less than what EPA had previously forecast.
In another filing, the National Association of Manufacturers predicted that cutting the ozone standard even lower, to 60 ppb, could cost the U.S. economy $270 billion a year, citing a 4-year-old study that it commissioned. That study, which was derided by environmental groups, found that EPA was in essence lowballing the cost of compliance with a 60-ppb limit.
EPA's deadline for comments on its June request was Oct. 24, but many surfaced on Regulations.gov just yesterday.
In all, the site showed this morning that 16 have been submitted, a relatively small number compared with what the agency has received in the course of high-profile rulemakings.
In a sign of the wide reach of the NAAQS compliance framework, another industry filer was the National Association of Home Builders. While the organization is normally not seen as a player on air pollution issues, "nontraditional industries face nontraditional challenges" as more stringent standards put more areas in the nonattainment category, the filing says. Among the group's top worries: a ban on daytime operation of diesel-powered construction equipment.
Such a ban was attempted in Texas to help meet an earlier ozone standard almost two decades ago, the home builders association said, but "fortunately" was repealed before it could take effect.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/11/01/stories/1060104937
-
Environmental Group Adds $20 Million More Investment to Midterm Elections
Nov 1, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
A political action group focused on getting voters to turn out for environmental and climate change issues is expecting to spend over $80 million on the midterm elections.
The political arm of the League of Conservation Voters is dishing out $20 million more in funding than previously anticipated towards this year’s midterms, including an additional combined $8 million spent on state ballot initiatives.
The amount LCV plans to spend this midterm will be the biggest investment it’s made into any midterm.
The money will go towards traditional grassroots efforts such as door knocking and mailers as well as over 40 digital advertisements across the country. The investments are focusing on 26 House races, 6 Senate races, 10 governors races and a number of other local elections.
ADVERTISEMENT
LCV has historically focused on getting Americans to care and vote on a number of environmental issues ranging from clean water to Superfund cleanups. Their efforts this year, like a number of other politically driven green groups, are also shifting to get voters to the polls by connecting the dots on issues like climate change to other big voter issues like health care and the economy.
The political arm of the Sierra Club also estimates its expenses will total over $6 million — much higher than what the group spent in 2014.
The heavy push follows a number of Trump administration policy changes that appear to heavily rollback environmental regulations. As many Republicans champion EPA’s moves to weaken regulations governing auto emissions and power plant emissions, LCV and other green groups have looked to the possibility of Democrats taking back the House as a way to boost environmentalism in politics.
A number of state ballot initiatives are also gathering attention.
Millions of dollars have been spent on both sides in some of the fiercest battles, with some being viewed as test cases for policies that could be enacted by other states or on a national scale.
From banning offshore drilling to levying what would be the country’s first tax on carbon dioxide emissions, multiple Nov. 6 ballot measures aim to push back on dominant forces at the state or federal level.
Timothy Cama contributed to this story.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/414296-environmental-group-adds-20-million-more-investment-to-midterm
-
White House Sped Review of Methane Rule Delay
Nov 1, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Niina Heikkinen
In a rapid-fire review, the White House took just three days to evaluate EPA's proposal to give states more time to cut methane emissions from landfills.
The rule change, which affects emissions from municipal solid waste landfills, was published this week in the Federal Register. If it's finalized, states will have until August 2019 to submit their plans for cutting methane from those facilities. The proposed changes would also give EPA more time to draft a federal plan if necessary (Greenwire, Oct. 29).
In an email to EPA officials a day after the rule change was sent over for interagency review, a staffer in the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs followed up to ask for additional information about the changes ahead of a meeting that appears to have been scheduled for that afternoon.
"I realize that this is very rushed, but if you have a power point already prepared I would be happy to circulate," wrote Chad Whiteman, an OIRA desk agent, on Oct. 16. "If not, you can just walk through the background, what the rule does and why it is needed, anticipated effect (any costs/benefits either quantified or qualitative), litigation, and timing."
Over the next couple of days, OIRA and EPA corresponded about a number of minor clarifying questions to the draft text. When EPA stated that costs and benefits of harmonizing the timing requirements "cannot be quantified," OIRA noted the agency should ask for comment about that assertion.
John Walke, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's clean air, climate and clean energy program, suggested two possible explanations for why OIRA might complete a review quickly, although the speed in this case is unusual. Walke noted he was not closely tracking the administration's actions on this specific rule.
One possibility is that EPA and OIRA had been discussing the timeline change over the phone and there was an urgency to hasten the review. Or the nature of the change — shifting deadlines for plan approvals — was simple enough that it did not require an extensive White House review.
Even if OIRA could technically complete a review of the proposal rapidly, Walke pointed to another problem with the timeline.
"That still suffers from the defect that it gives OIRA no time to meet with the public," Walke said.
Amit Narang, a regulatory policy advocate with Public Citizen, saw the delay in the rule as part of a broader pattern within the Trump administration.
"We have seen multiple instances of EPA trying to delay or not enforce EPA rules and getting shot down in court. This is an effective rule repeal when you delay it this long," he said.
OIRA did not respond to a request for comment on the speed of the proposal review.
Just before 5 p.m. Oct. 18, EPA staff received another email from Whiteman, asking for a clean copy of the proposal. "We have no further comment," Whiteman wrote. "We would like to conclude review today if possible."
About two hours later, OIRA informed EPA the review of the proposed change was complete.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/11/01/stories/1060104929
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested