Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Blog) Why CPSC Should Address Scientific Flaws with CHAP Report Before Finalizing Phthalates Rule
Mar 3, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
Chemical safety reviews that take place behind closed doors, and which rely on old data and unproven methods, aren’t exactly a role model for sound science. http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/03/why-cpsc-should-address-scientific-flaws-with-chap-report-before-finalizing-phthalates-rule/ -
(ACC Blog) GlobalChem and the Road Ahead: Why This Year’s Conference Marks the Halfway Point for One of the Most Transformative Decades for the Industry and Regulations
Mar 3, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
ACC Vice President of Regulatory and Technical Affairs Mike Walls kicked off Tuesday’s GlobalChem regulatory conference with a prediction: “Ten years from now,” Walls said, “We will look back at 2015 as the inflection point in one of the most transformative decades for shaping chemical policy.” http://blog.americanchemistry.com/2015/03/globalchem-and-the-road-ahead-why-this-years-conference-marks-the-halfway-point-for-one-of-the-most-transformative-decades-for-the-industry-and-regulations/ -
(ACC Mentioned) New Support for Bill to Ban Chemicals in Children’s Toys
Mar 3, 2015 | Capital New York
By Scott Waldman
Legislators have re-introduced a bill to keep chemicals out of children's toys. -
(ACC Mentioned) Draft SAB Report Suggests EPA Consider 'More Balanced' EtO Risk Modeling
Mar 3, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
Science advisors reviewing EPA's draft assessment of the human health risks of the sterilizing chemical ethylene oxide (EtO) are indicating in a first public draft of their review report that EPA should consider a "much more balanced and objective" approach to modeling the chemical's cancer risks, and urge the agency to present analysis showing unit risk estimates calculated from multiple models. -
LCV Urges House Members to Reject EPA Science Bills
Mar 3, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Erica Martinson
The League of Conservation Voters sent a letter today calling on House members to oppose two bills headed for the Rules Committee this afternoon that would limit the scientific studies EPA could use in rulemakings and allow greater industry participation on the agency’s Scientific Advisory Board. -
Can Lining Compounds Accumulate in Human Tissues
Mar 3, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Bisphenol A (BADGE) and bisphenol F (BFDGE) diglycidyl ethers were found to be widespread in human tissues analysed by US scientists in New York. The substances are used in epoxy resin food and beverage can linings and are also known to migrate into canned food. -
Ashley Furniture to Phase Out Toxic Flame Retardants from Furniture (But When?)!
Mar 3, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Katy Farber
In the last few years awareness about the toxicity in flame retardant chemicals in furniture has grown tremendously. -
Industry Questions California's Finalization Of Stricter Perchlorate Goal
Mar 3, 2015 | InsideEPA
An industry group is reiterating its charge that California has failed to use defensible science in finalizing Feb. 27 a more stringent state-wide drinking water public health goal (PHG) for perchlorate, which could lead to stricter drinking water and cleanup standards in the state. -
Osha Offers Enforcement Relief for HazCom 2012 Compliance
Mar 3, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration will provide enforcement “relief” for product formulators, manufacturers and importers who can demonstrate that they cannot comply with the 1 June implementation deadline for the new hazard communication standard (HazCom 2012) because they could not get classification information from their suppliers, an Osha official has said. -
Osha and Health Canada to Reduce Hazard Communication Differences
Mar 3, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Health Canada are preparing a regulatory partnership statement, in the second phase of collaboration under the auspices of the US-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC), according to a senior Osha official. -
NAM's Bertelsen Responds to Pushback on Ozone Rule Economic Study
Mar 3, 2015 | E&E - TV
What are the economic impacts of U.S. EPA's proposed ozone rule revision? -
Oil and Gas Associations Sue Over EPA Rule
Mar 3, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Erica Martinson
A variety of oil and gas trade groups have filed three lawsuits against the EPA over a December rule amending the agency’s air pollution requirements for new oil and gas operations. -
LEED Leads in Government Construction
Mar 3, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Roger Platt
A recent government study verified what many builders and developers across the country already know – buildings that have LEED certification save taxpayer money and have a lower environmental impact over time than buildings not certified by LEED. -
Is Renewable Energy Part of the 'All of the Above' Strategy?
Mar 3, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By former Rep. Mary Bono (R-Calif.)
For several years now in a row, Congress has wrestled with its support of public policies supportive of the renewable energy industry. -
Scientific Integrity Complaints Soared in 2014
Mar 3, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
Scientific integrity complaints skyrocketed at U.S. EPA last year. -
Cantwell to Introduce Tank Car Bill
Mar 3, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Kevin Robillard
Sen. Maria Cantwell says she plans on introducing legislation requiring stronger tank car rules and a quicker phase-out of old cars used for transporting crude oil by rail. -
Citing Cude-By-Rail Rise, DOT IG to Rrobe Bridge Oversight
Mar 3, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General is launching an investigation into oversight of railroad bridges this month, citing an uptick in crude-by-rail shipments.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
Mar 3, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
Chemical safety reviews that take place behind closed doors, and which rely on old data and unproven methods, aren’t exactly a role model for sound science. And, they certainly don’t stand out as the kind of solid foundation on which, you would think, the most advanced country in the world would want to base its regulatory decisions. But, that just about sums up what happened when the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) proposed a rule recently on phthalate plasticizers. Unfortunately, the CPSC rubber-stamped policy recommendations from an advisory panel which, it would later become clear, didn’t exactly live up to the expectations of sound science. And that’s putting it lightly.
This regulatory process began in 2008 when Congress mandated a review of the safety of phthalates in children’s toys and child care articles by asking that a scientific panel, the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP), consider “likely exposures” and the “most recent, best available” scientific data in order to make a recommendation to CPSC about whether or not temporary bans, among other things, should be made permanent. At this time, the phthalate plasticizer DINP was temporarily banned at concentrations greater than 0.1 percent from children’s toys that could be placed in the mouth and child care articles.
Yet the CHAP’s review – not finalized until July 2014 – fell short of its mandate. The report was never subjected to a public peer review process, which resulted in the report being finalized despite a number of scientific flaws that could have been uncovered – and addressed – through a public review. CPSC’s failure to subject the CHAP report to public comments allowed for the agency’s staff to “rubber stamp” the CHAP’s recommendations to ban the phthalate DINP in children’s toys, despite the fact that DINP has been reviewed over the last 15 years by several scientific and regulatory bodies, which found that the very low levels to which people are typically exposed are unlikely to cause health effects.
A review of the CHAP report by internationally-recognized subject matter expert scientists coordinated by ToxStrategies, Inc. for ACC, raised significant concerns about the CHAP report and particularly its basis for federal rulemaking. Dr. Douglas L. Weed, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D. states:
[t]he CHAP report is not a systematic review of the available scientific evidence and, as such, is of questionable reliability and validity, lacking in the objectivity and transparency generally recognized as critical by the scientific community. The credibility of the recommendations in this report [is] therefore questionable, given that they are not ‘evidence-based’ as the co-chair of the committee, Dr. Hauser, recognized and mentioned in a separate review published in the peer-reviewed literature (Braun et al., 2013).
In a hearing about the CHAP’s recommendations, CPSC Commissioner Ann Marie Buerkle questioned CPSC staff’s commitment as a “data-driven” agency after it recommended the proposed rule based on the CHAP’s analysis of old data. Three additional data sets were available that were not only more recent than what the CHAP used, but also show a marked decrease in overall phthalate exposure. TheCommissioner asked, “Has the CPSC ever before knowingly proposed a regulation that is based on data that is this far out of date?”
The CHAP used this old data to carry out a cumulative risk assessment – an attempt to analyze, characterize and quantify the combined risks to health or the environment from multiple chemicals. Cumulative risk assessment should not be the basis of a regulatory decision to ban a chemical if it is based on old data. ACC raised concerns about CPSC’s use of the CHAP’s cumulative risk assessment early in the process with numerous letters to the agency, but, CPSC moved forward with their approach anyway.
Congressman Joe Barton weighed in last October raising concerns about the Commission’s reliance on the CHAP’s cumulative risk assessment. In particular, he noted “the science of cumulative risk assessment is in its infancy and has many uncertainties.” Barton wrote that banning DINP “based solely on its negligible contribution to a cumulative risk framework goes beyond the intent of the statute” and that the “CHAP’s cumulative risk evaluation could set a dangerous scientific precedent since it does not base the assessment on the most recent or relevant scientific data.”
Even EPA, a federal agency responsible for chemical assessments, put out a formal, public request for help to develop methods on how to do a cumulative risk assessment. If EPA is willing to ask for help from the public to use this chemical assessment tool, shouldn’t CPSC also be seeking public input before issuing a regulation?
Given the concerns raised by some CPSC Commissioners themselves, a number of widely-respected scientists, Members of Congress, ACC and our member companies, CPSC should not let the public concerns about the proposed regulation go unanswered.
In response to recent scientific criticism of the rule, CPSC Chairman Kaye said, “This is a critically important rulemaking, and we are determined to follow the law and to get it right, for the sake of consumer safety and the businesses impacted.”
We agree. That’s why we urge Chairman Kaye to not issue a final rule until the Agency has considered all the scientific concerns with the CHAP report, re-analyzed the cumulative risk of phthalates using the most-recently available data and seeks public comment on that analysis.
-
Mar 3, 2015 | American Chemistry Matters
ACC Vice President of Regulatory and Technical Affairs Mike Walls kicked off Tuesday’s GlobalChem regulatory conference with a prediction: “Ten years from now,” Walls said, “We will look back at 2015 as the inflection point in one of the most transformative decades for shaping chemical policy.”
If you think about it, it’s easy to see where he’s coming from—all you have to do is take a look at how far we’ve come in last five years.
U.S. manufacturing renaissance is in the making
The new economics of shale gas have been a game changer for the U.S. business of chemistry over the last five years. Our input costs are at historical lows. Demand is up for goods derived from chemicals, especially in international markets. We have a huge competitive advantage in the global marketplace. And companies from all over the world are committed to investing billions of dollars to be a part of our success story.
On this point, we can let the numbers speak for themselves. Chemical manufacturers to date have announced plans for 225 shale-related projects representing more than $137 billion in capital investments. Fully 60 percent is foreign direct investment. That translates to billions of dollars in new chemical industry output, hundreds of thousands of permanent new jobs, and soaring export growth over the next fifteen years as the new projects come online.
Just ten years ago, we would never have dreamed of this significant potential for economic growth.
Chemical regulations are on the cusp of modernization
Shale gas is just one come-from-behind economic story. Let’s look at how far we have come in the last five years on the regulatory front.
After several productive years of working together, Congress is on the cusp of bringing our country’s nearly 40-year-old chemicals management law into the 21st century.
Thanks to leadership of the late Senator Frank Lautenberg, Senators David Vitter, and Tom Udall, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, and Congressman John Shimkus, there is a rare bipartisan opportunity on the table to pass strong and meaningful legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Partnerships at home and abroad can guide further progress
We’ve seen how partnerships have brought us closer to TSCA reform, but partnerships are also transforming our relationship with EPA and other governments.
The U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) is a prime example of what regulatory cooperation in action can look like. Although it is still in the early stages, representatives from the Canadian and U.S. governments have identified several areas where regulatory improvements and efficiencies between the countries may exist. The initiative has been very promising so far, and it is focusing on highly relevant issues—from discussions on nanotechnology regulations, containment standards for dangerous goods, classification, and labeling requirements to air quality standards and chemicals management.
To help advance this effort, several ACC member companies have volunteered several chemicals as case studies in the risk assessment work plan EPA, Health Canada, and Environment Canada are developing. This cooperation marks the beginning of what could become a long-term working relationship to enhance information sharing, eliminate inefficiencies like duplicative testing, and establish a framework for common approaches to risk assessment.
Chemical safety science is now at the cutting edge of technology
The U.S. has also come a long way in advancing science and research in cutting edge technologies, including their possible application in risk assessment and regulation. For example, our industry has made a significant investment in science and technology through the Long-Range Research Initiative (LRI).
The LRI is a global partnership designed to identify and fill gaps in our understanding about the safety of chemicals and to improve our current methods for assessing their hazard and risk. A core part of the LRI’s mission is to support high-quality science that can inform effective decision-making by industry and at all levels of government.
The LRI program provides a basis for enhanced collaboration among industry and academics, government agencies and NGOs, and regulatory decision-makers around the world. By generating high-quality data quicker and more effectively and by strengthening partnerships between industry and government, programs like the LRI are helping to drive the effort to bring regulations and regulatory decision-making into the 21st century.
Global unified progress taking place in sound chemicals management
Partnerships within the chemical industry also extend far across the globe. The International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) is playing a major role right now in promoting and enhancing sound chemicals management as part of their commitment to the United Nation’s Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM). ACC is proud to be working with other stakeholders, such as the U.N. Environment Programme, to help countries that currently lack the capacity to manage chemicals safely.
ACC is also reaching out to chemical companies across the globe to encourage them to demonstrate their commitment to the safe management of chemicals throughout their lifecycle by signing the Responsible Care® Global Charter—a CEO-level commitment to continued improvement in environment, health, and safety.
U.S. trade agenda can drive further economic and regulatory enhancements
Regulatory cooperation can enhance how chemicals are managed in the U.S. and abroad, while ensuring that communities around the globe benefit from the life-enhancing innovations that chemistry provides.
Cooperation can reduce costs for governments and industry, speed up the pace of chemical assessments, help make policy and public health decisions more efficient and more effective, and maintain high human health and environmental standards.
Some of the best opportunities to accomplish this feat are within our reach today. The Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) have the potential to boost exports and break down barriers for our industry and the entire manufacturing sector in both Europe and the Asia-Pacific region.
The road to 2020: Doing what chemistry does best
Virtually everywhere we look, we can find progress toward developing a comprehensive, unified, world-class approach to managing chemicals in commerce. Such a bold effort doesn’t come easy, and it certainly doesn’t come as fast as we all might like. But remember where we were five years ago—then think about where we will be five years from now. The outlook is very encouraging for all stakeholders.
Science and regulation are advancing as never before. Chemical production is booming, and new jobs and economic opportunities beckon from just over the horizon.
And by working together, we can shape chemical policy and our industry for years to come.
You can read Mr. Walls’ full remarks from GlobalChem here.
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Support for Bill to Ban Chemicals in Children’s Toys
Mar 3, 2015 | Capital New York
By Scott Waldman
Legislators have re-introduced a bill to keep chemicals out of children's toys.
The Child-Safe Products Act died in the Senate last year, but it had an unusually large, bipartisan base of support, including more than 40 Senate co-sponsors.
The bill easily passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly, but was never brought to the floor of the Senate—where it would only have needed 32 votes to pass—by Republican-Independent Democratic coalition leaders Dean Skelos and Jeff Klein after intensive lobbying by the chemical industry.
Supporters of the bill said Monday that this year is different.
“We're going to have as many co-sponsors as possible,” said Republican senator Phil Boyle of Long Island, one of the sponsors. “This legislation has to be a priority.”
Last year, lobbyists pressured Senate Republicans with the argument that passage could cost the state jobs because it would shut down some manufacturers if their products are banned. Lobbyists staked out legislators outside the Senate chamber for days at the end of session to ensure the bill never made it for a vote.
The bill would require manufacturers to phase out certain chemicals used in children's products, including benzene, lead, mercury, arsenic and molybdenum. Under the proposal, the state would create a list of priority chemicals that must be phased out and require manufacturers to label toys if those chemicals are used. Despite lobbyists' claims that jobs in New York would be lost, many of the products the bill would regulate are made in China.
And while the bill was sponsored by some of the Legislature's most liberal and conservative members last year, it has a distinct advantage this year: the backing of Governor Andrew Cuomo, who has included support for the measure in his budget proposal.
“This law embodies a practical, precautionary approach to reducing exposure of children and other vulnerable populations to harmful chemicals,” administration officials wrote in the book accompanying the governor's budget proposal.
The American Chemistry Council spent about $350,000 to fight against a variety of bills, but has paid particular attention to the Child Safe Products Act.
But this year, for the first time, the bill can also boast some measure of industry backing. Seventh Generation, the Vermont-based eco-friendly products company, is supporting it after getting similar legislation passed in Vermont, said Martin Wolf, the company's director of sustainability and authenticity. He said the company will assist New York's advocacy groups with strategy and campaigning.
Advocates are starting early to increase attention and support, to create momentum behind the legislation, said Assemblyman Steve Englebright, a Democrat from Long Island and chair of the environmental conservation committee.
“This died in the Senate in part because we also ran out of time,” he said. “We've also run out of excuses.”
CORRECTION: The original version of this article referred to the American Chemistry Council as the American Chemical Society.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Draft SAB Report Suggests EPA Consider 'More Balanced' EtO Risk Modeling
Mar 3, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
Science advisors reviewing EPA's draft assessment of the human health risks of the sterilizing chemical ethylene oxide (EtO) are indicating in a first public draft of their review report that EPA should consider a "much more balanced and objective" approach to modeling the chemical's cancer risks, and urge the agency to present analysis showing unit risk estimates calculated from multiple models.
This is the second time peer reviewers have urged the agency to modify its modeling approach in the long-running assessment of EtO. A Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) panel in 2007 recommended numerous changes to an earlier draft assessment, calling on the agency to assess the chemical's lymphoid and breast cancer risks with both linear and non-linear approaches. EPA, however, chose to present just the linear approach in its 2014 draft assessment, which is now under the review of a new SAB panel, under the auspices of its Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee.
EtO, commonly used as an intermediate to make other chemical products like detergent, antifreeze and polyester and to sterilize medical equipment, has long been suspected of causing breast and lymph cancers.
Arguments over whether to use linear modeling, which assumes there is no safe level of exposure to a chemical, or non-linear approaches, which assume a threshold exposure level is without harm, in risk assessments occur frequently.
But presenting multiple risk estimates would be unusual for EPA since the agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program has historically provided single point estimates in its influential toxicological hazard assessments of environmental pollutants. Such an approach would be unusual, since EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program has historically provided single point estimates in its influential toxicological hazard assessments of environmental pollutants. SAB's recommendation, should it be finalized, would be the latest recommendation for EPA to provide more that a single point estimates.
Last spring, the National Academy of Sciences in its review of the IRIS program recommended that the IRIS assessments should provide a range of risk estimates to better characterize the uncertainty and variability inherent in risk analyses. Such recommendations have traditionally met with resistance within the program, as when the former research chief during the George W. Bush administration, George Gray, sought similar changes to IRIS assessments.
SAB's Jan. 7 draft version of the report says, "The SAB does not insist that a non-linear approach be included in the assessment. The SAB agrees with the agency that EtO has a genotoxic mode of action . . . and finds that conditions for including a non-linear assessment per EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment . . . are not met in the case of EtO. However, the SAB recommends that the issue be treated in a manner that is much more balanced and objective."
Risk Assessment
The EtO assessment includes reviews of both breast and lymphoid cancer risks. With regard to modeling the lymphoid cancer risk, the SAB panel's draft report states, "The SAB recommends inclusion of multiple estimates of the unit risk in sensitivity analyses and an updated justification of model selection."
Lianne Sheppard, one of the panelists who met by conference call Feb. 20 to discuss the draft report, and a biostatistics professor at the University of Washington explained, "We requested sensitivity analysis and a range of unit risk estimates and then … if somebody comes down differently, they have that [range] in front of them."
Despite these and other recommendations for altering how EPA models cancer risks, several members of the SAB panel again urged EPA to hasten the completion of the EtO assessment during the conference call, reiterating similar calls from several members at the panel's November meeting. Perhaps because of these concerns, the panel chose not to address industry pleas that the report should again urge EPA to present linear cancer risk modeling and also urge EPA to use a different study for its risk calculations. Industry representatives have for years urged EPA to use instead an industry epidemiology study, known as the Union Carbide study, or use both the Union Carbide study and the NIOSH study EPA prefers.
In public comments at the meeting, Nancy Beck, a toxicologist with the chemical industry association American Chemistry Council (ACC), sought a better explanation of why the panel concurred with EPA that its cancer guidelines did not require presenting both linear and non-linear EtO cancer risk models.
Stephen Roberts, one of the panelists and a toxicology professor at the University of Florida, agreed with Beck that the report was lacking in its explanation. Roberts said he would review the cancer guidelines and add additional language explaining the panel's decision.
Beck also pressed the panel to explain why it agrees with EPA that the NIOSH data is the best basis for the cancer risk calculations, and that the Union Carbide study shouldn't be considered. "There was not much discussion [about this] at the meeting, and even some discussion of not using [the Union Carbide study] because it was industry funded," Beck said. She reminded the panel that the Society of Toxicology has a position paper stating that study funding source should not be a factor in evaluating study quality.
Cancer Findings
Beck's colleague, Bill Gulledge, manager of ACC's EtO Panel, also spoke on the Feb. 20 conference call, where he urged the panelists to reconsider their recommendation that EPA bolster its breast cancer risk findings by adding data from a newer epidemiology study of Swedish medical sterilization workers. The study indicates strong breast cancer risk at exposure levels even lower than those included in the NIOSH study.
Gulledge argued that adding the Swedish study "and excluding the Union Carbide Study adds a bit of bias in study selection," and he urged SAB to establish or recommend that EPA establish "clear criteria to benchmark each study" cited in the IRIS assessment. Gulledge also questioned the quality of the Swedish study, arguing that "probably a good, new, independent review of this study should be conducted before" it is included in the IRIS assessment.
But the panel did not appear concerned with the industry concerns about the two studies, instead focusing on changes recommended by panel members and clarifying questions from the agency.
Once the panel completes editing the report, it will be reviewed by the chartered SAB before it is transmitted to EPA. The chartered SAB will also accept public comments regarding the report.
Since 1999, EPA has sought to update its published 1985 IRIS assessment of the chemical's carcinogenicity. EPA first released a draft assessment in 2006 and sought peer review from SAB. After struggling to respond to that panel's recommendations, EPA released a second draft in 2013, and then a third draft responding to public comments.
The panel concluded at the recent meeting that EPA faithfully responded to the recommendations of the 2007 peer review, and fully responded to public comments on the latest draft assessment.
This unusual third draft IRIS assessment includes the same overall cancer risk estimate as the 2013 draft, a "full lifetime total cancer unit risk estimate" of 1.8×10^-3 per microgram per cubic meter of air (per ug/m^3), or 3.3×10^-3 per part per billion (ppb). The new draft cancer risk estimate is slightly stricter than the estimate of 1.5 x 10^-3 per ug/m^3 that appeared in the first draft released in 2006 and peer-reviewed by SAB. Both draft numbers are significantly stricter than the number EPA calculated for EtO in a previous analysis of the chemical in 1985, of 1 x 10^-4 per ug/m^3.
-
LCV Urges House Members to Reject EPA Science Bills
Mar 3, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Erica Martinson
The League of Conservation Voters sent a letter today calling on House members to oppose two bills headed for the Rules Committee this afternoon that would limit the scientific studies EPA could use in rulemakings and allow greater industry participation on the agency’s Scientific Advisory Board.
H.R. 1029, amending the makeup of the SAB, and H.R. 1030, the “secret science” reform bill, passed out of the House Science Committee last week.
“We urge you to REJECT H.R. 1029 and H.R. 1030, a collective attack on scientific integrity and public health,” the letter said.
H.R. 1029 “would undermine the ability of the Science Advisory Board to provide independent scientific advice to the Environmental Protection Agency” by allowing industry participation “while preventing subject experts from being included,” LCV President Gene Karpinski wrote in the letter.
Karpinski said H.R. 1030, meanwhile, “would endanger public health by preventing the EPA from using the best available science.” -
Can Lining Compounds Accumulate in Human Tissues
Mar 3, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Bisphenol A (BADGE) and bisphenol F (BFDGE) diglycidyl ethers were found to be widespread in human tissues analysed by US scientists in New York. The substances are used in epoxy resin food and beverage can linings and are also known to migrate into canned food.
A team at the State University of New York, Albany, led by professor Kurunthachalam Kannan, analysed 20 samples of human adipose tissue, and of human plasma, for BADGE, BFDGE and seven of their derivatives. Bisphenol A bis (2,3-dihydroxypropyl) ether [BADGE·2H2O] was the commonest of the compounds, found in 12 of the adipose and 14 of the plasma samples respectively, at maximum concentrations of 45 and 65 nanograms per gram or ng/g (wet weight). BADGE was found only in adipose tissue, but four other forms were also detected: H2O; H2O.HCl; HCl; and 2HCl.
BFDGE was found in all samples at higher levels: at up to 4500ng/g in adipose tissue and 180ng/g in plasma. Other of its compounds measured included BFDGE.2H2O and BFDGE.2HCl. The scientists also measured the levels of bisphenol A (BPA) in the tissues and found it in 18 of the tissue and all plasma samples, at concentrations of up to 21 and 5ng/g respectively.
The scientists say it is the first time BADGE has been reported in human fat. It has been found to be mutagenic and teratogenic in in vitro studies. BFDGE has been reported to have cytotoxic, genotoxic, mutagenic and endocrine effects in such studies.
The authors note that the two substances are widely used but have been little studied. BADGE is known to be widespread in human urine (CW 21 November 2012) and is believed to be implicated in obesity (CW 29 May 2012).
The paper was published in Environmental Science and Technology.
-
Ashley Furniture to Phase Out Toxic Flame Retardants from Furniture (But When?)!
Mar 3, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Katy Farber
In the last few years awareness about the toxicity in flame retardant chemicals in furniture has grown tremendously. Public health advocates, organizations, doctors, environmentalists and journalists have been sounding the alarm that the chemicals added to furniture are far more harmful than the flame they might extinguish– and that there are much safer alternatives. This groundbreaking series from the Chicago Tribune called into questions the shady dealings of the companies that make and market these chemicals– and equated their practices with those of Big Tobacco as distorting and deceptive.Companies are taking notice
A few months ago Safer Chemicals Healthy Families sent a letter to the nation’s biggest furniture retailer, Ashley Furniture, urging them to phase out toxic flame retardants from furniture that they sell.
They wrote back and said that they are phasing out toxic flame retardants in their furniture! But they haven’t disclosed when these chemicals will be eliminated…
We should thank them for this commitment but ask that they give a clear time frame for when the chemicals will be removed on furniture that is for sale. Many families save up for years for a couch– and would not want to buy one before these harmful chemicals are removed. Customers want and have a right to know what they are buying. I certainly won’t be buying any furniture until I can be assured it does not have these dangerous chemicals inside that could harm my family.TAKE Action NOW!
Just like consumers led the way in pressuring companies to eliminate BPA in feeding and drinking gear, we need to encourage Ashley to set a timeline and be an example to other companies. They are the number one manufacturer of furniture in the U.S. and this could mean a that other companies could follow suit quickly to keep up with the competition.What do to if you still have old furniture containing flame retardant chemicals (like most of us)?Vacuum regularly with a HEPA filter vacuum. No fun, but effective because the chemicals can adhere to . This makes it easy for children to ingest.Wash hands often and encourage your kids to do so as well.
Slowly replace items containing flame retardant chemicals. Maybe Ashley furniture if we know when it is safe to buy!
This blog originally appeared here on Non-Toxic Kids.net. To learn more about the author, Katy Farber,click here.
-
Industry Questions California's Finalization Of Stricter Perchlorate Goal
Mar 3, 2015 | InsideEPA
An industry group is reiterating its charge that California has failed to use defensible science in finalizing Feb. 27 a more stringent state-wide drinking water public health goal (PHG) for perchlorate, which could lead to stricter drinking water and cleanup standards in the state.
In addition to arguing that California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) relied on questionable science, the industry-backed Perchlorate Information Bureau (PIB) says in a Feb. 27 press release that the updated PHG will also impede access to reliable water supplies, in contrast to Gov. Jerry Brown's (D) statewide drought relief plans.
The reaction responds to OEHHA's finalization of an updated PHG of 1 part per billion (ppb) for perchlorate in drinking water, a stricter level than the 6 ppb goal set in 2004, which led to the 2007 statewide drinking water standard of 6 ppb. OEHHA is required to review and potentially update the PHG every five years.
OEHHA says in a Feb. 27 press release that the lowered PHG "incorporates new research about the effects of perchlorate on infants." The new number was expected, as the office first released the proposed 1 ppb level for public comment and peer review in 2011.
"This updated public health goal reflects infants' increased susceptibility to the health effects of perchlorate," OEHHA Director George Alexeeff says in the release. "It is set at a level that would provide health protection for people of all ages."
The stricter PHG comes as EPA continues to work on a nationwide public health goal for perchlorate in drinking water. "California's decision to set its public health goal for perchlorate at 1 ppb should push EPA to move ahead with a national enforceable drinking water standard that is no higher than 1 ppb," Jennifer Sass of the Natural Resources Defense Council writes in a Feb. 27 blog post.
Perchlorate is used in rocket fuel, munitions and fireworks, and also can occur naturally in some soils. At sufficient levels and over a prolonged duration, the chemical reduces the body's natural uptake of iodine, which can lead to disruption of normal thyroid hormone function. Such changes can affect the proper neurodevelopment of the very young, particularly fetuses and infants.
The PHG is a level at which adverse health effects are not expected to occur from a lifetime of exposure to the drinking water contaminant. Once OEHHA adopts a PHG for a pollutant, California's Department of Public Health considers the PHG in setting a maximum contaminant level (MCL), or statewide drinking water standard, which is also used in cleanups. Under state law, regulators must set MCLs as close to a PHG "as is economically and technologically feasible," the release says.
Industry's Concerns
But industry is reiterating concerns it expressed in 2013 comments on the draft PHG, calling into question the data OEHHA relied on. "Despite repeated efforts by numerous stakeholders to compel OEHHA and [California EPA] to address the weaknesses in the new PHG, the regulators have ignored comments and pushed a proposal that is indefensible against the preponderance of scientific evidence, relies on highly questionable assumptions and cannot withstand objective scrutiny and is in conflict with state law," PIB says in the release. PIB is backed by Aerojet Rocketdyne, American Pacific Corp., ATK and Lockheed Martin, the release says.
Specifically, the group says OEHHA does not provide evidence that the existing PHG is failing to be protective, nor does it define the public health benefits that would come from a stricter PHG. Second, it points to conclusions from the National Academy of Sciences and EPA's Office of the Inspector General that indicate levels as high of 24.5 ppb of perchlorate have no impact on human health. Further, the group says that California law says that "where there is adequate scientific evidence demonstrating a safe dose response threshold, as there clearly is with perchlorate, OEHHA should set the PHG at that threshold."
Industry argues OEHHA relied on "untested and unsupportable assumptions and methodologies to support its position," such as assuming a 95th percentile one-month-old infant would consume 280 percent of their blood volume in drinking water every day. "This is the equivalent of the average adult consuming nearly four gallons of tap water daily," PIB says.
The group also charges the PHG misrepresents the weight-of-evidence for perchlorate health to support its conclusions. "OEHHA uses five studies as the foundation of its assessment, four of which are presented with calculations by OEHHA, not the actual study authors. In contrast, several peer-reviewed studies that do not support OEHHA's conclusions are noticeably excluded by OEHHA," PIB says.
In addition, PIB says water purveyors may now take wells offline that have levels of perchlorate between 1 ppb and 6 ppb as a precaution. "At a time when state resources -- including its water supply -- are scarce, we cannot afford to have regulatory decisions based on anything other [than] the best available science," it says.
-
Osha Offers Enforcement Relief for HazCom 2012 Compliance
Mar 3, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration will provide enforcement “relief” for product formulators, manufacturers and importers who can demonstrate that they cannot comply with the 1 June implementation deadline for the new hazard communication standard (HazCom 2012) because they could not get classification information from their suppliers, an Osha official has said.
HazCom 2012, which aligns the US hazard communication standard with the UN Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of classification and labelling of chemicals, says that chemical manufacturers and importers must update their classifications, container labels and safety datasheets (SDSs) for mixtures (GBB February 2013). Distributors are allowed to ship products labelled under the old scheme until 1 December.
In response to a petition for extension of the compliance deadline, the agency considered it “reasonable to give a little bit of extra time, so we are giving people six months to develop the 2012 compliance SDSs and, once that is done, six months to update the label,” Maureen Ruskin, director of Osha’s office of chemicals hazards-metals, told the GlobalChem conference in Baltimore this week. But that relief will be contingent on companies showing that they had done “reasonable diligence” and “good faith efforts” to get the information from their suppliers, she said.
Enforcement guidance, issued by Osha on 9 February, makes it clear that upstream chemical suppliers that do not have HazCom 2012-compliant SDSs or labels available for downstream mixture manufacturer or importer will not be in compliance, and must provide compliant SDSs to such customers, “with the first shipment and after an SDS is updated”. Furthermore, if a downstream mixture manufacturer or importer asks for an updated SDS prior to receiving a new shipment, the upstream supplier must provide it immediately.
Where a mixture producer has asserted that it was unable to comply with the 1 June deadline, it must be able to demonstrate that it exercised “reasonable diligence and good faith” to do so. The guidance sets out the steps it must take in order to be able to demonstrate this. An Osha spokeswoman told Chemical Watch that manufacturers and formulators, who are experiencing delay in getting information from their suppliers, should “document all efforts to obtain the required information, such as attempts to contact them to obtain the proper information, reasonable efforts to find alternate suppliers, who could provide timely and accurate classification, or to find relevant data themselves.”
Regarding the amount of extra time companies will be allowed, the guidance says mixture manufacturers or importers must create compliant SDSs within six months of the date they receive all ingredient hazard information, rather than the here-month period stated in HazCom 2012. They must then create compliant container labels within six months of the date that they developed their compliant SDSs.
Those that exercised reasonable diligence and good faith to obtain the necessary classification information, but did not receive it, will be allowed to continue using SDss and labels that comply with the previous standard, HCS 1994. Similarly a distributor can continue to transport mixtures bearing HCS 1994-compliant labels, after the 1 December 2015 deadline stated in HazCom 2012. Osha officials will decide how long such firms can do this on a case-by-case basis.
-
Osha and Health Canada to Reduce Hazard Communication Differences
Mar 3, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Health Canada are preparing a regulatory partnership statement, in the second phase of collaboration under the auspices of the US-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC), according to a senior Osha official.
Speaking at this week’s GlobalChem conference in Baltimore, Maureen Ruskin, director of Osha’s office of chemicals hazards-metals, said the statement will, among other things, look at ways the two countries can continue to “reduce or prevent US-Canada variances” in hazard communication standards. The two countries worked closely to minimise such differences in the RCC’s first phase of operation.
Canada issued final regulations, this month, to implement the GHS (CW 12 February 2015). Health Canada said that with their adoption, it would be now be possible for companies to meet Canadian and US requirements, using a single label and SDS for most hazardous products.
The Canadian government has also been working with the US EPA on chemicals management under the RCC programme. Last December, officials from Health Canada, Environment Canada and the US EPA met in Washington DC with stakeholders from both sides of the border to discuss chemicals management and agreed to look at developing common approaches for regulatory reporting requirements (CW 9 December 2014).
-
NAM's Bertelsen Responds to Pushback on Ozone Rule Economic Study
Mar 3, 2015 | E&E - TV
What are the economic impacts of U.S. EPA's proposed ozone rule revision? During today's OnPoint, Greg Bertelsen, director of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, discusses his organization's latest study pointing to bad economic news for the manufacturing sector and states if EPA moves forward with its proposed revised numbers. NAM's report has received criticism for the methodology used in its assessment, and Bertelsen responds to the pushback.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Greg Bertelsen, director of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. Greg, thanks for coming on the show.
Greg Bertelsen: Thank you for having me on.
Monica Trauzzi: Greg, your organization released a new study last week assessing the impacts of the Obama administration's proposed revisions to EPA's ozone standards. You're contending the rule provision overall is bad news for the U.S. economy. Talk about how you got there. How did you reach that conclusion?
Greg Bertelsen: Sure. Well, in July, Monica, we released a study measuring the economic impacts of a 60 parts per billion ozone standard, and remember, we're talking about ozone, we're talking ground-level ozone, something that people often refer to as smog. Smog is formed from man-made sources like automobiles and factories, but also from natural sources like trees and forest fires. And when we looked at the 60 parts per billion standard, we found that the cost would be astronomical on levels that we've never seen for regulations. So expensive that it would have been the most expensive regulation of all time. We were thankful that when the EPA released their proposed rule in November, they took 60 parts per billion off the table. What they proposed was a 65 to 70 parts per billion standard, which we suspected would also be very expensive. We also quickly reviewed the rule, like many, and found that some of the assumptions they made in their own cost-benefit analysis were a little off. They found that the category of controls known as unknown controls would actually be less expensive than some of the known controls. So we knew that we had to take a closer look at it, and that's what we hired NERA Economics also to do.
Monica Trauzzi: So in this reassessed study, what is the number that you use? Because EPA has proposed this range of 65 to 70, so what's the number that you plugged in?
Greg Bertelsen: So we had NERA model 65 parts per billion standard, which was the low end of the proposed range, and what they found was the costs would, again, be astronomical. Hits to GDP per year of $140 billion, which equates to 100 -- or, I'm sorry, $1.7 trillion over the course of the compliance period, which would run through 2040, 1.4 million job losses, $830 per household in lost consumption, so money that's now being spent on housing expenses and food and clothing would essentially be going to complying with the new ozone regulation.
Monica Trauzzi: But is it fair to use that lower number if that's not necessarily going to be what we see coming from the agency?
Greg Bertelsen: Well, it's in the proposal, so we think it is, and it's also, keep in mind, on the high end of what some on the other side of this issue are proposing. We've seen folks go into the agency and into the White House asking for a standard as low as 60 or even lower, so until EPA takes it off the table, we absolutely think it's appropriate to measure what the economic impacts would be.
Monica Trauzzi: So there's been a lot of pushback against this study, and specifically the methodology that you used to arrive at the outcome, both your study late last year and this new one. Where is there an inclusion of benefits in your modeling?
Greg Bertelsen: Sure. So first let me say that we absolutely are committed to having a clean air and clean environment. We have made incredible progress in reducing ozone foreign emissions since 1980. Those emissions are down over 50 percent. We know that, based on regulations already on the books, including EPA's current 2008 standard, that emissions will fall another 36 percent by 2025. These are EPA's own numbers. So we're absolutely committed to continuing that progress.
Our study only assessed the economic impacts of the rule. Again, we looked at the proposed rule and found some serious discrepancies with what we would consider a credible analysis. One of those is their estimate of what these unknown controls would be. EPA plots a path towards compliance. Only about 35 percent of the controls necessary to get to a 65 parts per billion standard are what EPA terms known controls. That leaves 65 percent -- and again, this is EPA terminology, would be unknown controls. In that calculation of what the costs of unknown controls would be, they assumed one number for all unknown controls, every ton of ... emissions that's reduced from the economy. We know, based on experience and from our own analysis, from other economists in the field, that as you get closer and closer to zero emissions, closer and closer to background emissions, which is really what this proposal is doing, it's getting to levels that are near background levels, the cost per ton of reduction goes higher and higher. Assuming one flat rate is just an unreasonable assumption, and that's why EPA's costs are so underestimated.
Monica Trauzzi: Talk a bit about some of the breakdowns that you have in the report and who specifically could get hit the hardest, which sectors of the economy, which states.
Greg Bertelsen: Sure. What was really surprising and startling about the report is that really the entire economy gets hit. In the manufacturing sector across the board we're negatively impacted. But it expands to other sectors as well. Every state in the economy would have negative economic impacts from this rule. States like Texas, states in the Midwest with heavy manufacturing bases are particularly hard hit.
Monica Trauzzi: So this adjustment that the -- that EPA has proposed, isn't EPA just complying with its duties under the Clean Air Act as it looks at rules, looks at that 2008 rule and makes the appropriate adjustments?
Greg Bertelsen: Well, EPA is required to look every five years at the existing standards for ozone, and not just ozone, but the other five criteria pollutants, but they're not required to revise it. Part of the process does involve consulting with their Science Advisory Board, but at the end of the day, it's the administrator's duty to make a policy decision about where the standard should be set. The Supreme Court has weighed in and said that costs should not be included in setting the ... but they've also said that the standard does not need to be set beyond what is necessary. We know, again, that emissions are going to be reduced by 36 percent by 2025 with the existing standard, the rules that are already on the books. If you allow us to comply with those rules, we'll get further progress without having to incur this $1.7 trillion rule. We think incurring that rule or imposing that rule on us would be beyond what is necessary under the Clean Air Act.
Monica Trauzzi: Congressman Olson says he plans to reintroduce his legislation that would have EPA include feasibility and economic impacts when issuing major rules. Is there a need for Congress to step in here and look at the Clean Air Act and amend it in some way?
Greg Bertelsen: Well, first, our hope is that the administration will land at a reasonable place, and in our view, the reasonable place to land is keeping the standard where it is, but absolutely there's a role for Congress here. We would support any legislation that provides a little bit of relief. I think we're at a point now with the Clean Air Act, with the accomplishments that have been made, that it's time to start looking at some of those reforms, start thinking about things like what are the economic impacts of going further and further towards background levels, further and further towards zero emissions, so we absolutely would support a proposal that would include those things in the consideration.
Monica Trauzzi: All right, we'll end it right there. Thank you for coming on the show.
Greg Bertelsen: Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
[End of Audio]
-
Oil and Gas Associations Sue Over EPA Rule
Mar 3, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Erica Martinson
A variety of oil and gas trade groups have filed three lawsuits against the EPA over a December rule amending the agency’s air pollution requirements for new oil and gas operations.
The suits, filed Friday with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, challenge the rule amending the EPA’s 2012 new source performance standards for the oil and gas sector. The rule went into effect on Jan. 1.
The amendments provided more details about “requirements of handling of gas and liquids during well completion operations,” clarified some provisions about detecting leaks and updated several definitions, according to an EPA fact sheet. The agency also clarified requirements for storage tanks, “adding a third alternative for the work practice options for controlling emissions from rod packing in compressors,” and “updating its definition of the official responsible for certifying that annual reports on well completions are true accurate and complete,” the fact sheet said.
The plaintiffs include the Independent Petroleum Association of America, along with oil and gas groups from West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana and Virginia; the Gas Processors Association; and the Texas Oil and Gas Association. -
LEED Leads in Government Construction
Mar 3, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Roger Platt
A recent government study verified what many builders and developers across the country already know – buildings that have LEED certification save taxpayer money and have a lower environmental impact over time than buildings not certified by LEED.
The new study from the General Services Administration (GSA) examined LEED v4, the latest version of the green building rating system released in late 2013 by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). The study found that LEED v4 aligns well with federal sustainability and green building requirements. The GSA is currently seeking outside input about how LEED certification is employed in public buildings before issuing a final recommendation on the government’s future use of LEED.
However, there is already plenty of evidence that LEED makes a real and very positive difference. LEED, which stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, is considered the gold standard for energy-efficient, eco-friendly and non-toxic building design. LEED certification is based on a voluntary, third-party rating system that creates greener, healthier and more energy efficient buildings.
When LEED is applied early in the construction process, a building achieves a bigger energy savings and a more positive environmental and community impact over time. LEED can also be used to update current structures. Not only does this make financial sense, but it helps to preserve and salvage historic landmarks.
Many government agencies already employ LEED to save money and extend the lives of aging government properties. Over the past 14 years, LEED has established an outstanding record of producing economic and environmental benefits in countless federal projects.
A prime example is the U.S. Treasury Building in Washington, D.C., portions of which date back to the mid-19th century, making it one of the oldest LEED-certified buildings in the world. Improvements to the historic building’s energy and water consumption are now saving taxpayers more than $1 million per year. That may seem small, but these savings add up over time. The Department of Defense has also adopted LEED certification in order to enhance and improve the efficiency of the many structures it has to maintain.
In addition, an expert panel of the National Research Council at the National Academy of Sciences evaluated the energy efficiency and sustainability standards used by the U.S. Department of Defense. It recommended that the Pentagon continue to use LEED for new buildings and renovations. It wrote: “The preponderance of available evidence indicates that green building certification systems and their referenced building standards offer frameworks for reducing energy and water use in buildings, compared to design approaches and practices used for conventional buildings.”
In short, LEED saves money and precious natural resources.
USBGC’s newest version of LEED makes the certification process more consistent with federal requirements than ever before. It is being coupled with USBGC’s Guiding Principles Compliance Initiative, which has been designed to assist government agencies determine how best to employ LEED without the burden of redundant reporting and red tape. The initiative prioritizes flexibility, support, verification, monitoring and ease of use. These updates to LEED create unprecedented support and clarity to agencies looking for ways to meet the environmental and energy efficiency goals set by the federal government.
In the years to come, USGBC has promised to remain engaged with the GSA and outside voices about how to improve the compliance and verification process even further. The GSA’s initial review is a strong indication that LEED remains on the right track for government, and we are confident this current review period will showcase this support as well.
Platt is president of the U.S. Green Building Council.
-
Is Renewable Energy Part of the 'All of the Above' Strategy?
Mar 3, 2015 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By former Rep. Mary Bono (R-Calif.)
For several years now in a row, Congress has wrestled with its support of public policies supportive of the renewable energy industry. What happens to the production tax credit for wind? Should we extend the solar investment tax credit? Does the Renewable Fuel Standard need repeal? Did the Solyndra debacle permanently endanger any bipartisan support for renewables? Should we expand the eligibility of Master Limited Partnerships to renewable energy projects? The debate on these policies is sucking almost all of the oxygen out of the room for those members who are focusing their careers on advancing our country's ability to produce all types of energy in this country.
Just a few years back, we touted "all of the above" as our energy strategy. America's ability to pull natural gas and crude oil from the ground and from underneath our ocean floors is now at unprecedented levels. Fracking and horizontal drilling have resulted in price declines worldwide for fossil fuels. Who doesn't smile when you fill up the car at under $2 per gallon? However, the laws of economics and the chapters of history are clear — the prices of crude oil and natural gas will bounce back and they should be expected to increase dramatically. Solar, wind, geothermal power and biomass-based diesel should be viewed as reasonable hedges against those inevitable higher prices.
While many in my political party reasonably question the philosophical need for federal subsidies or mandates to promote renewable energy, it is also clear that Republican opposition to renewables is not unanimous. In fact, Republicans have supported renewables that are readily available in their state or district — proving that, once again, all politics is local. In the Midwest, the support for renewable fuels is clearly bipartisan. Gov. Terry Brandstad (R) of Iowa is one of their most vocal champions. As far as solar power is concerned, the industry's support is from coast to coast, including Govs. Pat McCrory (R-N.C.) and Brian Sandoval (R-Nev.) and former Gov. Jan Brewer (R-Ariz.). Plus, wind power farms can be found in 39 states and that only happens when political support exists amongst mayors, city councils, state legislatures and governors. Republican support for renewables is not deep across my party's spectrum, but the support that does exist — in gubernatorial mansions and in the halls of Congress — is enduring. Republican support for renewable energy exists and thrives where the plants and equipment are visible, business is succeeding and where the industry stays politically active.
Until there is a bipartisan bill placed on the president's desk to overhaul the tax code, Congress should recognize that these American businesses provide American jobs that produce cleaner power and fuel that is used in American cars, trucks and homes. Congress should pass the Production Tax Credit (PTC) extension, extend the solar investment and biodiesel tax credits, and give the renewable energy industry the legal and regulatory certainty that it deserves. Even though cost-competitiveness issues still exist with some segments of the renewables industry, incentives are important to drive capital formation, investment and job growth.
The key to a successful energy strategy in our country is not to rely completely and totally on fossil fuels, because markets do change and prices do fluctuate. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Senate Energy Committee Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) are working on energy legislation this year and renewables will be impacted by those measures. And if there is to be a bipartisan agreement that takes full advantage of our natural gas and oil resources in this country, renewables need to be an important part of that deal. The coalition of support is too strong to ignore. Although "all of the above," as a slogan, was mostly created to bolster the domestic production of oil and gas, "all" meant then what it means today: A diversified energy policy that harnesses all that we have to offer.
Bono is a former congresswoman who represented California's Inland Empire and Desert Region in the House of Representatives from 1998 to 2013. She is currently principal at FaegreBD Consulting in Washington.
-
Scientific Integrity Complaints Soared in 2014
Mar 3, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
Scientific integrity complaints skyrocketed at U.S. EPA last year.
The agency received 40 complaints about its scientific integrity last year, up from two in 2013 and one in 2012, according to a new report from EPA's scientific integrity officials.
Those allegations are wide-ranging, according to the annual report. They include 13 allegations of suppression or delay, nine involving peer review and five related to disputes over authorship -- including plagiarism allegations. Of the 40 allegations made last year, 17 were made formally and 23 were made informally.
Of the 17 formal allegations, according to the report, three are closed, three are under investigation by the inspector general's office, one is being resolved in a regional office, and 10 are still in an "inquiry" phase.
The tally of complaints began after EPA issued its scientific integrity policy in 2012, which aims to be a framework for promoting scientific and ethical standards within the agency.
The report said the boost in allegations is "probably not as notable as it might seem," because the rise in complaints coincides with the arrival of EPA's first full-time scientific integrity official and with "significant increases in outreach about the policy."
Francesca Grifo, former senior scientist and director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' scientific integrity program, started as EPA's scientific integrity official in late 2013.
"As the annual reports illustrates, we did report allegations of lapses in scientific integrity that came to our attention," Grifo wrote yesterday in a blog post. "While I am happy to report that this represented less than 0.3% of EPA employees, we take each and every one seriously."
Grifo added that the "small percentage" of complaints received "shows that we have a clear and effective process for reporting allegations. It also shows that we have the processes in place to resolve concerns in a transparent yet confidential manner and allow for resolution in a fair and consistent fashion. In short -- we take the reported allegations seriously but they in sum are not so serious as to undermine the work we do."
And while EPA needs to "remain vigilant," Grifo said, "our Scientific Integrity Annual Report shows real progress, and I believe we are now poised to have the procedures and processes in place we need."
The report also warned that staff reductions at the agency could affect scientific integrity.
"The agency has recently gone through a reduction in the size of its scientific staff," the report says. "While challenging, this in and of itself, is not a scientific integrity issue; however, if such reductions lead to changes in process or practice that make scientific conclusions more vulnerable to a loss of scientific integrity, then this could become an issue of concern" to the scientific integrity official.
EPA's workforce has recently dipped below 15,000 employees, the lowest level the agency has seen since the George H.W. Bush administration (E&ENews PM, March 2).
-
Cantwell to Introduce Tank Car Bill
Mar 3, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Kevin Robillard
Sen. Maria Cantwell says she plans on introducing legislation requiring stronger tank car rules and a quicker phase-out of old cars used for transporting crude oil by rail.
"I want to be clear and on the record: I will be introducing legislation to support a thicker hull and quicker phase-out than what is currently proposed,” Cantwell said at a Senate Commerce Committee budget hearing. “We are not moving fast enough. I think the uncertainity in the marketplace over the past decade has not kept up with the volume of the traffic we are seeing. I look forward to seeing your rule coming out.”
Cantwell said she expected a final rule by May, but wasn't pleased with how it looked so far.
"I see loopholes in this current policy," she said.
Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said OMB was reviewing a final rule on the issue.
"We think that a comprehensive approach is important, an approach that includes prevention as well as emergency response," he said. "I would be getting ahead of myself and OMB by putting a tight deadline on it, but I will tell you there is a high-level urgency on it." -
Citing Cude-By-Rail Rise, DOT IG to Rrobe Bridge Oversight
Mar 3, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General is launching an investigation into oversight of railroad bridges this month, citing an uptick in crude-by-rail shipments.
The watchdog said last week it would audit the Federal Railroad Administration's handling of bridge inspections and enforcement actions.
"FRA records show that 24 train accidents caused by misalignment or failure of railroad bridges resulted in 392 injuries over the last 10 years," Mitchell Behm, assistant inspector general for surface transportation, said in the announcement dated Feb. 24.
"In recent years, railroad traffic has increased significantly, including the transport of hazardous materials such as crude oil," Behm added.
The audit follows up on a separate IG investigation of FRA's approach to regulating hazardous materials transport (EnergyWire, Nov. 3, 2014).
Crude-by-rail shipments have surged in recent years, from practically none in 2007 to about 500,000 carloads last year, based on industry data.
The rise in oil train traffic has contributed to a series of derailments and fires in small towns, including a CSX Corp. train crash last month near Mt. Carbon, W.Va. (EnergyWire, Feb. 20).
Two years ago, a 72-car train carrying oil from North Dakota's Bakken Shale play derailed and exploded in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, killing 47 people.
Neither of those accidents occurred on bridges, although six oil tank cars were involved in a derailment last year on a Philadelphia-area bridge (Greenwire, Jan. 29, 2014). One crude-filled car in that crash was left dangling for days over the Schuylkill River before it could be recovered.
FRA requires freight railroads such as CSX and BNSF Railway Co. to vet their bridges at least once a year and conduct internal audits of any inspection and repair programs.
But the regulator has faced criticism for leaving railroad companies to take the lead on bridge inspections. Part of that decision reflects staffing and logistical challenges -- the Association of American Railroads estimates there are about 100,000 railroad bridges throughout the United States that need annual review.
Several U.S. lawmakers have called for more intensive DOT oversight of crude-by-rail safety, including track and bridge maintenance. Last month, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) urged DOT's inspector general to evaluate the effectiveness of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, which recently sent a "comprehensive" set of oil-by-rail safety regulations to the White House for review (EnergyWire, Feb. 4).
DeFazio said in his letter to the IG that "the potential for catastrophic accidents is not a matter of if, but when."
He said in a statement yesterday that DOT's IG had formally accepted his request and is reviewing it.
"PHMSA needs increased scrutiny and I am hoping the IG report will shine some light on this agency and force them to act to protect the American public," DeFazio said.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested