Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 18/02/19
-
(ACC Blog) The Strength & Safety of Lightweight Vehicles
Feb 15, 2019 | American Chemistry Matters
There’s nothing lightweight about the safety of lightweighting. -
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics Task Force and Gov. Endorse Statewide Bag Ban
Feb 18, 2019 | ecoRI News
By Tim Faulkner
Gov. Gina Raimondo is all-in on a statewide bag ban and past opponents of the concept aren’t objecting. -
EPA Cites Chemours' PFAS Plants Under TSCA, In Possible Enforcement Push
Feb 15, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA has cited chemical company Chemours for violating the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) at two of its plants that manufacture per- and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS), a sign that environmentalists say may indicate stepped-up EPA enforcement over the issue though they say it also raises concerns about the accuracy of EPA's PFAS data. -
Common Nail Salon Solvent Proposed for California’s Toxics List
Feb 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joyce E. Cutler
California is proposing to add a solvent commonly used in nail salons to its list of toxic chemicals to be regulated in a push to get the manufacturers to adopt safer alternatives. -
Chemical Testing Program Mulls Disease-Centric Approach
Feb 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A federal chemical testing program may flip its usual approach to understanding how people get sick from exposure to harmful substances. -
Chemours Failed Chemicals Reporting Rules in N.C., W.Va.
Feb 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard
Chemours failed to notify the EPA how it planned to process some toxic chemicals like GenX at facilities in North Carolina and West Virginia, the agency said in a notice of violations. -
EPA Hits Chemical Maker for Not Notifying on New Compounds
Feb 15, 2019 | AP (In The New York Times)
A chemical maker's North Carolina plant may have broken federal law by failing to notify the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency before it started manufacturing and repurposing new industrial compounds, the agency said this week. -
EPA Releases PFAS Action Plan
Feb 15, 2019 | The National Law Review
On February 14, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its much-anticipated PFAS Action Plan. -
In Roundup Case, the Science Will Go on Trial First
Feb 15, 2019 | The Wall Street Journal
By Sara Randazzo
In a San Francisco courtroom this month, a jury will be asked to weigh a complicated question: Did Roundup weedkiller cause a man’s cancer? -
A New Analysis Claims To Show Evidence Linking Glyphosate Exposure To A Rare Cancer
Feb 17, 2019 | Forbes
By Geoffrey Kabat
But the paper, which provides no new data, is not what it presents itself to be. -
Alarmed by Cancer-Causing Ethylene Oxide Pollution, Gov. J.B. Pritzker Orders Shutdown of Sterigenics in Willowbrook
Feb 15, 2019 | Chicago Tribune
By Michael Hawthorne
Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s administration on Friday banned Sterigenics from using ethylene oxide at its Willowbrook sterilization plant, responding to an intense public outcry about toxic air pollution that left surrounding neighborhoods with some of the highest cancer risks in the nation. -
Illinois EPA Blocks Sterigenics Use of Toxic Gas (1)
Feb 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Joyce
An Illinois medical sterilization plant must stop using a toxic chemical, the state’s Environmental Protection Agency ordered. -
Suffolk County Sues Air Force Over Firefighting Foam
Feb 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Suffolk County, N.Y., filed hazardous waste claims against the federal government alleging contamination firefighting foam used at a Long Island airfield contaminated local water sources. -
Reprotox Study of Disodium Molybdate in Rats Finalised
Feb 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
A contract research organisation (CRO) operating in the US has completed an industry funded, two generation reproductive toxicity study of disodium molybdate in rats, with no adverse effects on reproduction or development. -
Rejection of Special Use for Banned Chemical Is EU’s First
Feb 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
A committee of European Union country representatives for the first time rejected a company’s application to use a hazardous substance that is normally banned under the EU’s REACH chemicals law. -
Texas Fines Chevron Phillips Chemical, Others for Environmental Violations
Feb 15, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Erin Douglas
Chevron Phillips Chemical Company was fined for violating Texas air quality regulations, state regulators said Wednesday. -
Gas Shortages Give New York an Early Taste of the Green New Deal
Feb 15, 2019 | The Wall Street Journal - Opinion
By Robert Bryce
The combination of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling—sometimes known as the “shale revolution”—has enabled Texas, Pennsylvania and other states to produce record quantities of natural gas, some of which is being frozen, loaded onto giant ships, and transported to customers in places like Chile, China and India. -
PHMSA Issues Final Rule to Strengthen Oil Train Spill Preparedness
Feb 15, 2019 | Oil & Gas Journal
By Nick Snow
The US Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, in coordination with the Federal Railroad Administration, issued a final rule requiring railroads to develop and submit comprehensive oil spill response plans covering route segments used by high hazard flammable trains (HHFT). -
Chamber Sounds Alarm Over California Carbon Tax Study
Feb 15, 2019 | Inside EPA
The California Chamber of Commerce is voicing concerns about about a bill that would require the state air board to study the feasibility of a broad new carbon tax as a replacement for the state's current sales and use tax, raising a number of questions for stakeholders to ask before lawmakers consider the bill next month. -
It's Official: Trump's Policies Deter EPA Staff from Enforcing the Law
Feb 16, 2019 | The Hill - Opinion
By Joel A. Mintz
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released an annual report Feb. 8 on its enforcement activities in fiscal 2018.
Congressional Hearings - There are no hearings to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) The Strength & Safety of Lightweight Vehicles
Feb 15, 2019 | American Chemistry Matters
There’s nothing lightweight about the safety of lightweighting.
And although lightweighting is shown by the federal government’s own studies to be lifesaving (the EPA estimates that reducing vehicle weight can save approximately 451 lives per billion miles traveled), the current political climate is espousing that the “relatively cost-effective technology option of vehicle lightweighting…will increase on-road fatalities.”
The lightweighting materials industry strongly disagrees with the conclusions made in the recent CAFE-proposed rule.
The proposed rule contradicts NHTSA’s own studies from 2012 and 2017, which concluded that plastics and composites offer considerable weight savings while maintaining or improving safety. Evidence continues to support the view that heavier no longer means safer. Improved vehicle design has enabled lightweight materials and safety equipment to reduce mass and increase safety. In addition, lightweight plastic and polymer composites have improved design flexibility, enabling driver assistance and improving autonomous technology — two additional developments that can make our roads safer than ever before.
When a vehicle is constructed with lightweight materials, it leads to a reduction in fatalities per vehicle miles traveled (see chart). This is due in part to the properties of less stiff materials, such as plastic, which canprevent injury and save lives when used in the crumple zone. Plastic composite structures in the front end of a vehicle can lightweight without compromising safety. Fiber-reinforced polymer composite materials weigh around 50 percent less than steel, but are characterized by a higher absorption of crush energy per kilogram. On impact, carbon fibers can have four to five times higher energy absorption than steel or aluminum. This leads to the structure crushing in a relatively gradual, predictable way that absorbs much of the impact energy, keeping it away from the occupants and improving safety.
“We will always work to ensure the target number in the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 at the federal government level, is not based on incorrect assumptions regarding the safety of lightweight vehicles. We intend to continue highlighting the importance of automotive plastics and composites for lightweighting and safety innovations, enabling autonomous and electric vehicles, creating jobs, and establishing the U.S. as the global leader in advanced automotive manufacturing technologies. At the same time, the team will continue working with EPA and DOT leadership to illustrate the essential role of polymers for improved safety, autonomous driving, enhanced fuel economy and reduced GHG emissions,” according to Gina Oliver, Senior Director, ACC Automotive Center,
For additional resources on the safety of lightweighting cars and for use in social media, please use the links below.
Resources:Brochure: Plastics in AutomotiveFact Sheet: Vehicle Lightweighting Saves LivesHouse Appropriations Bill: Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, Appropriations Bill 2018Senate Appropriations Bill: 1655New Website: AutomotivePlastics.comMore Sharable Infographic, Brochure, YouTube video links, and White-Paper available hereWebsite: Institute for Advanced Composites Manufacturing Innovation (IACMI)Website: S. DOE’s Vehicle Technologies Office
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2019/02/the-strength-safety-of-lightweight-vehicles/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics Task Force and Gov. Endorse Statewide Bag Ban
Feb 18, 2019 | ecoRI News
By Tim Faulkner
Gov. Gina Raimondo is all-in on a statewide bag ban and past opponents of the concept aren’t objecting.
Raimondo gave her support Feb. 14 at the final meeting of the Task Force to Tackle Plastics, an advisory board she created last July with the mission of cutting plastic pollution in the state.
Early on, a statewide ban on plastic retail bags was the focus of the committee, but a few people on the 22-member committee objected. Tony Fonseca of Packaging & More Inc. in Central Falls had been a regular opponent of statewide bag ban legislation, but he voted in favor of the proposal recommended by the task force.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) had also argued against a statewide bag ban and other bans on plastics. But Joan Milas, a local lobbyist for the ACC, applauded the efforts of the task force. She asked that she and other local plastics representatives be invited to sit on the task force.\n","url":"https://youtu.be/ZegcHvZcLDc","width":640,"height":480,"providerName":"YouTube","resolvedBy":"youtube"}" data-block-type="32" id="block-yui_3_17_2_1_1550243729464_93485" style="position: relative; height: auto; padding: 17px; outline: none; box-shadow: rgba(128, 128, 128, 0) 0px 0px 0px 1px inset; transition: box-shadow 0.2s ease-in-out 0s; clear: both; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: minion-pro; font-size: 19px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
" data-provider-name="YouTube" id="yui_3_17_2_1_1550479913383_104" style="position: absolute; top: 0px; left: 0px; width: 697px; height: 522.75px;">Some task force members, such as Save The Bay, wanted a broader plan that included addressing stormwater runoff. The Conservation Law Foundation advocated for a bottle deposit law and regulations on product packaging.
Others on the committee wanted assurance that a statewide ban doesn’t weaken or preempt existing municipal bag bans or prevent cities and towns from enacting restrictions on other plastics such as straws and foam containers.
“You don’t want to take away that local control,” said Dave McLaughlin, executive director of Middletown-based Clean Ocean Access and a task force member.
McLaughlin said a number of communities are considering restrictions on other nuisance plastics that are collected at beach cleanups, such as balloons.
“You want to keep that momentum going,” he said.\n","url":"https://youtu.be/anftUxJbwrQ","width":854,"height":480,"providerName":"YouTube","thumbnailUrl":"https://i.ytimg.com/vi/anftUxJbwrQ/hqdefault.jpg","resolvedBy":"youtube"}" data-block-type="32" id="block-yui_3_17_2_1_1550317934835_6959" style="position: relative; height: auto; padding: 17px; outline: none; box-shadow: rgba(128, 128, 128, 0) 0px 0px 0px 1px inset; transition: box-shadow 0.2s ease-in-out 0s; clear: both; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: minion-pro; font-size: 19px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
" data-provider-name="YouTube" id="yui_3_17_2_1_1550479913383_147" style="position: absolute; top: 0px; left: 0px; width: 697px; height: 391.75px;">“I’m all for uniformity and state law overriding local laws, but only if the state law is as strong or stronger than local ordinances,” said Kate Weymouth, a task force member and vice president of the Barrington Town Council.
So far, 11 Rhode Island communities have bans on plastic bags. Barrington recently adopted a ban on foam containers and other plastics. Cranston is the latest municipality to consider a bag ban. Mayor Allan Fung opposes the ban.
Unlike the existing municipal bans, Raimondo’s bag ban would the be the only one to include a mandatory fee on paper bags. The 5-cent tax would be paid to the store to recover the cost of paper bags. A single plastic bag costs a retailer about 2 cents; a paper bag about 10 cents. Consumers can also use reuseable bags.
“We want to have that fee on paper to incentivize consumer behavior change; to make up some of the additional costs to businesses. But we want to be mindful of the fact that 5 cents for a bag is a lot for some Rhode Islanders,” said Jonathan Berard, executive director of Clean Water Action Rhode Island and co-chair of the plastics task force.
Last year, Providence nearly passed a bag ban with a 10-cent fee, but it was vetoed by Mayor Jorge Elorza after the Sierra Club of Rhode Island and the Racial and Environmental Justice Committee objected, saying the fee is a financial burden for low-income residents.
To avoid that issue with the proposed statewide bag ban, Berard said the task force would be asked to launch a program to distribute free reusable bags to residents. Providence currently offers a bag exchange at city libraries.
Berard noted that the task force agreed that a statewide ban is preferable to municipal bans because it helps businesses comply with a single regulation while reducing confusion about recycling rules for residents.
Raimondo promised that the bag ban would be the first of additional acts by the task force to reduce plastic waste.
“You all know as I know that plastics are an enormous source of our pollution and so this is only a first step,” the governor said. “I want to announce today that I plan to sign another executive order leading to stage 2 of this work.”
A final report from the plastics task force is expected to be delivered to Raimondo on Feb. 18. Legislation will be introduced at the Statehouse soon after. Sen. Josh Miller, D-Crantson, a member of the task force, introduced a bill calling for a statewide ban on plastic bags and foam containers. A bill banning plastic straws is also before the General Assembly.
Raimondo and Janet Coit, director of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, urged everyone to help pass something so that it creates momentum to pass other regulations and/or create programs.
The environmental group Burrillville Against Spectra Energy interrupted the meeting to deliver a paper valentine to Raimondo stating its opposition to the proposed Burrillville power plant.
https://www.ecori.org/government/2019/2/15/plastic-task-force-and-governor-endorse-bag-ban
-
EPA Cites Chemours' PFAS Plants Under TSCA, In Possible Enforcement Push
Feb 15, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA has cited chemical company Chemours for violating the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) at two of its plants that manufacture per- and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS), a sign that environmentalists say may indicate stepped-up EPA enforcement over the issue though they say it also raises concerns about the accuracy of EPA's PFAS data.
“Hopefully this action signifies that EPA is taking a much closer look at the companies producing PFAS chemicals and that additional auditing and enforcement actions will be forthcoming,” says David Andrews, senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group (EWG).
But he says that the company's alleged violations, including its failure to submit a series of mandatory notifications to EPA and report product data “raise fundamental concerns about the accuracy of the information that EPA does have on chemicals being produced and used in the [United States].”
And he also raises concerns that Chemours allegedly failed to notify a customer that a chemical they were selling was subject to a TSCA use restriction. “I would be incredibly worried,” he said.
EPA Feb. 13 issued a notice of violation (NOV) against Chemours for violations related to the manufacture of new chemicals subject to TSCA, specifically identifying violations at its Fayetteville Works facility, near Fayetteville, NC, and Washington Works plant near Parkersburg, WV.
The NOV alleges a series of TSCA violations at the two plants stemming from 2017 inspections at the two plants as well as information the company provided.
Among other things, EPA says that at the Fayetteville plant, the company failed to comply with a TSCA significant new use rule (SNUR) that requires GenX compounds -- newer, shorter-chain chemicals in the PFAS class -- to be manufactured in “an enclosed process,” but that inspections found air emissions.
Also, it found other TSCA reporting and pre-manufacture notice violations at the plant related to unnamed chemicals.
Chemours in a statement says that while it is still evaluating the NOV, it has already addressed many of the issues EPA raises “and [has] responses to address the others.”
EPA's enforcement action came just a day before EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced a comprehensive “action plan” to address widespread concern over contamination from PFAS, in part touting that the agency was taking enforcement actions on PFAS and would not slow down those efforts.
In particular, he stressed EPA would not “slow down on enforcing the current drinking water” health advisory of 70 parts per trillion.
While Wheeler emphasized enforcement, he offered few new commitments to regulatory action -- for which the agency was heavily criticized -- though the plan does indicate the agency will consider potential regulatory actions.
For example, the action plan says the agency is considering whether to revise a proposed SNUR for PFAS chemicals that the Obama administration issued in 2015 but which was never finalized.
“Depending on the outcome of its review and determination, under TSCA the EPA may take actions on a new PFAS or significant new PFAS use, ranging from imposing restrictions or limitations (e.g., use restrictions, production volume cap, limitation on releases to water, etc.) to an outright prohibition on manufacture to ensure that the substance does not present an unreasonable risk,” the action plan says.
TSCA Regulation
PFAS are a class of over 4,000 chemicals that are widely used for their nonstick properties. But they have been linked to adverse health effects including certain cancers, ulcerative colitis and other conditions, sparking concern among communities as their discovery in community drinking water supplies has grown.
As a result, the agency has faced criticism over its lack of regulation, including under TSCA, where it has approved thousands of PFAS for various uses.
For example, EWG has urged EPA and other regulatory agencies to “stop approving new PFAS chemicals” and has urged EPA to “finalize a rule that would require companies to get EPA approval before using some kinds of PFAS chemicals.”
The enforcement actions against Chemours stops short of such actions though it does require the company to limit releases.
At the Washington Works facility, EPA cited Chemours for failing to “properly control the effluent and emissions during the use of GenX as required by a 2009 TSCA Section 5(e) consent order.” Under the order, the company is required to recover and destroy or recycle GenX at an efficiency rate of 99 percent from effluent process streams and air emissions, the NOV says.
The violations under both facilities fall under TSCA sections 5 and 8. Section 5 generally requires notice to EPA if a company plans to manufacture a new chemical for a non-exempt commercial purpose, according to EPA. Under Section 8, EPA has the authority to mandate reporting and record-keeping by entities that manufacture, import, process or distribute chemicals in commerce, the notice says.
The notice comes not long after EPA in December issued a “Notice of Temporary Objection” to Chemours Netherlands branch concerning GenX wastes it was to import into the United States for waste management.
EPA says its investigation at the Fayetteville and Parkersburg sites is continuing.
While the agency says it has the authority to assess penalties, seek injunctive relief or pursue criminal actions, it is not. Rather, it calls on the company to take “immediate action to correct the violations identified in the NOV and come into compliance with TSCA.” It says Chemours within 30 days should outline actions it has taken to comply, or a timeline for complying. It also asks Chemours for additional information related to the violations.
Further, EPA reiterates a previous unfulfilled request for Chemours, pursuant to TSCA Section 11, to provide documentation on when it “first learned about the GenX-related contamination in and around” the two facilities, including contamination in drinking water. “Submission of this information is significant to Chemours' compliance with substantial risk information required under TSCA Section 8(e),” the notice says.
The company says in its statement that NOV references inspections completed in 2017, adding that it has “already taken significant action to address PFAS emissions between 2017 and today.” For instance, it cites a $100 million investment at the Fayetteville site to install new emission control technology to meet the 99 percent efficiency reduction in PFAS air and water emissions by the end of this year.
Further, overall, Chemours last year adopted a company-wide goal of reducing air and water emissions of fluorinated organic chemicals by 99 percent or greater at all of its sites, it says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-cites-chemours-pfas-plants-under-tsca-possible-enforcement-push
-
Common Nail Salon Solvent Proposed for California’s Toxics List
Feb 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joyce E. Cutler
California is proposing to add a solvent commonly used in nail salons to its list of toxic chemicals to be regulated in a push to get the manufacturers to adopt safer alternatives.
State environmental and health officials visited one of San Francisco’s more than 250 nail salons Feb. 15 to announce that toluene would be listed as a “Priority Product” under California’s Safer Consumer Products program. Toluene is the nail polish ingredient used to create a smooth application and finish.
“Toluene is one of the toxic trio of chemicals,” Meredith Williams, California Department of Toxic Substances Control acting director, said, adding that problems with the substance are well-known and are labeled as such in nail products. “And they’re solvents, and there are alternatives to solvents,”
Exposure to toluene can affect the central nervous system, cause respiratory problems, and is associated with developmental issues, such as increased risk for low birth rate, the state said. The other two toxics are dibutyl phthalate and formaldehyde, Williams said.
‘Ground Zero’
An estimated 2,200 technicians work in San Francisco’s salons, making it a good place to announce the listing. said Pauli Ojea, commercial toxics reduction coordinator at the city’s Environment Department.
“This really is ground zero where the movement will happen nationally and internationally,” California Environmental Protection Agency Secretary Jared Blumenfeld told Bloomberg Environment.
San Francisco adopted its own Healthy Nail Salon Program that recognizes shops that use safer products and practices to protect the health of staff, customers, and the environment, Megan Kalsman, in the toxics reduction office for the department, said. So far, 53 nail salons are deemed healthy under that program.
“The feds unfortunately, aren’t doing anything when it comes to cosmetic safety,” Blumenfeld said. “When you look at the European Union, for instance, Revlon, Estee Lauder, because they have reach, they have different lines that are producing different nail polish for the U.S. market versus the European market.”
Kicks Off Process
The announcement kicks off the roughly 18-month regulatory process to review the toluene and propose regulations aimed at improving the health of 130,000 nail salon workers in the state. The industry would then have to prove the alternatives selected to replace toluene are safe.
The American Chemical Society, California section, declined to immediately comment on the announcement.
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment added the chemical to the list of carcinogens it maintains under Proposition 65, the state’s law requiring businesses to provide warnings about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.
The state decided to list toluene after two years of review and will consider other chemicals used in nail salons, Williams said.
The process from proposal to review and respond to comments should take about 18 months. The toxic substances agency will hold a March 13 hearing in Sacramento.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/common-nail-salon-solvent-proposed-for-californias-toxics-list
-
Chemical Testing Program Mulls Disease-Centric Approach
Feb 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A federal chemical testing program may flip its usual approach to understanding how people get sick from exposure to harmful substances.
The National Toxicology Program may start studying the biological changes that lead to health conditions like cancer and heart disease—and afterward focus on chemicals that may contribute.
That’s a reversal of the usual order, which starts with study of chemicals via exhaustive research on test animals and computer-based technologies. The cascade of events that lead to sickness come toward the end of the process.
The toxicology program was also set up to focus on only one chemical at a time—something health professionals and some environmentalists say is unrealistic because the public is exposed to a “chemical soup” of contaminants.
Now the National Toxicology Program is considering shifting its focus away from studying one chemical at a time, Associate Director Brian R. Berridge said during a Feb. 15 meeting of its Board of Scientific Counselors.
The program is inviting ideas on new strategies to determine whether, when, and how chemicals cause cancer. Those ideas will be discussed at an April National Toxicology Program workshop.Research Informs Policy
The toxicology program conducts research that helps states and federal agencies protect workers and others exposed to chemicals.
Program research also helps decide whether contaminants at hazardous waste sites threaten local communities, said William Cibulas, associate deputy director for science at the Atlanta-based Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. That agency works with affected communities to help them understand if there is a cancer cluster that results from contamination, for example.
The small agency has an annual budget of roughly $74 million Some years it has spent about a quarter of that supporting the toxicology program’s research, Cibulas said.Key Characteristics
The idea to focus chemical toxicity research on biological changes that lead to disease makes a lot of sense, said Gina Solomon, a physician who served from 2012-2017 as deputy secretary for science and health for California’s Environmental Protection Agency.
Scientists have recognized 10 key characteristics of carcinogens—things like a chemical’s ability to damage DNA or to suppress the immune system, said Solomon, who teaches at the University of California, San Francisco’s School of Medicine.
Identifying chemicals that trigger those types of changes allows researchers to study how the compounds may have different effects depending on the circumstances, she said.New Measures, Technologies
Increased use of new technologies that can measure people’s exposure to chemicals—and reveal biological changes those chemicals cause even before someone gets sick—are expected to be part of a broader effort to update the program’s research, Berridge said.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is interested in using new types of sensors to estimate workers’ exposures to chemicals, said John D. Piacentino, associate director for science at the institute.
The institute would continue to depend on the toxicology program’s research to understand whether those exposures affect workers’ health, he said.
“Workers likely will want to know what was detected and what it means,” Piacentino said.https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/chemical-testing-program-mulls-disease-centric-approach
-
Chemours Failed Chemicals Reporting Rules in N.C., W.Va.
Feb 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard
Chemours failed to notify the EPA how it planned to process some toxic chemicals like GenX at facilities in North Carolina and West Virginia, the agency said in a notice of violations.
The violations come after Chemours in 2017 agreed to stop dumping GenX, a toxic chemical used in nonstick coatings, in the the Cape Fear River after an Environmental Protection Agency probe.
The EPA in a Feb. 13 notice said 2017 inspections found Chemours had violated chemical notification and reporting requirements at its Fayetteville, N.C., plant, and notification and control requirements at its Washington, W.Va. facility.
At the Washington Works facility, EPA said the company didn’t provide accurate data about two chemical substances and didn’t control discharges and air emissions of GenX as required under a 2009 consent order.
GenX is part of a family of toxic chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that are used to make stain-resistant coatings for carpets, rain gear, fast food wrappers, and frying pans.
As part of the violations, Chemours failed to tell the EPA the company was going to use two restricted chemicals, including hexafluoropropylene oxide, without giving the agency an opportunity to determine that use would pose undue risks.
Chemours has 30 days to give the EPA a full response, and the company has already taken some steps to address the cited issues, spokesman Thom Sueta told Bloomberg Environment Feb. 15.
The company is investing $100 million in emission control technology at its Fayetteville site to reduce by 99 percent the air and water releases of chemicals of concern by the end of the year, he said. Chemours also pledged last year to reduce air and water emissions of fluorinated organic compounds by 99 percent or greater at all its sites worldwide, Sueta said.
Geoff Gisler, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center in Chapel Hill, N.C., called the notices troubling.
Although associated documents are “heavily redacted, they appear to document Chemours’ failure to properly disclose its use of GenX and to account for its air and water pollution,” he told Bloomberg Environment. “These documents emphasize the importance of swift action to ensure that the contamination leaving this site is identified and cleaned up.”
The notices of violation come as the EPA has pledged to decide by the end of the year whether to set enforceable national drinking water standards for two common PFAS chemicals. North Carolina officials were critical of the plan Feb. 14 because it didn’t specifically address GenX, which the EPA said needs further study.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/chemours-failed-chemicals-reporting-rules-in-n-c-w-va
-
EPA Hits Chemical Maker for Not Notifying on New Compounds
Feb 15, 2019 | AP (In The New York Times)
A chemical maker's North Carolina plant may have broken federal law by failing to notify the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency before it started manufacturing and repurposing new industrial compounds, the agency said this week.
The Chemours Co. also failed to provide information showing when the company learned the chemical GenX contaminated water wells and properties around its factories near Fayetteville and Parkersburg, West Virginia, the EPA said in a violation notice letter dated Wednesday.
Federal law requires the producers of potentially toxic substances that "may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment" to notify the EPA before the companies start making new chemicals or use an existing compound for a significantly new use. That would allow the agency to investigate their effects.
"The review process exists to make sure that new chemicals are safe and that new uses those chemicals are put to are also safe," environmental lawyer Robin Smith said. "It's a basic requirement that's intended to protect health and safety."
ADVERTISEMENT
Operators of Chemours' Fayetteville plant failed to give those required notices for several chemicals including HFPO, a chemical used to make the compound GenX. GenX has been found in drinking water wells near the plant and also the municipal utility serving the city of Wilmington, about 100 miles (161 kilometers) down the Cape Fear River.
The EPA classifies GenX as an "emerging contaminant" needing research. Animal studies show GenX has the potential to affect the kidneys, blood, immune system, liver and developing fetuses following oral exposure, the EPA said in a draft report released last year. "The data are suggestive of cancer," the report said.
Chemours also failed to contain GenX within its West Virginia plant despite a 2009 agreement with the federal agency that the company would stop 99 percent of the chemical from getting into the water and air.
EPA said it found the violations after inspecting the two plants in 2017. Since then, Chemours has made changes to address some of the issues raised, company spokeswoman Lisa Randall said in an emailed statement. She wouldn't say why Chemours didn't provide EPA with the required notices.
Chemours also should provide within 30 days information EPA previously asked for describing when the Fortune 500 company first learned that GenX had contaminated drinking water wells near the two plants, the agency said.Editors’ Picks‘A Pumping Conspiracy’: Why Workers Smuggled Breast Pumps Into PrisonOne Lawyer, 194 Felony Cases, and No TimeHe Committed Murder. Then He Graduated From an Elite Law School. Would You Hire Him as Your Attorney?
ADVERTISEMENT
Its Chemours investigation may find other violations and fines could follow, EPA said.
"It's significant that EPA is now weighing in," said Geoff Gisler, a Southern Environmental Law Center attorney. "EPA ensuring the company is properly documenting and registering the chemicals they're using at the site is an important thing to have happen."
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/02/15/us/ap-us-chemical-river.html
-
Feb 15, 2019 | The National Law Review
On February 14, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its much-anticipated PFAS Action Plan. The Plan identifies short and long term actions EPA plans to take regarding per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), some of which could significantly affect compliance obligations and costs, enforcement actions, and litigation.
As part of the Plan, EPA reported that it has initiated the regulatory development process to list PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances. This action could dramatically expand the number of potentially responsible parties and cleanup costs at CERCLA sites. Because CERCLA sweeps in substances designated as hazardous under the other major environmental statutes, in addition to providing its own never-before-used mechanism to designate hazardous substances, EPA indicated it has already begun evaluating which federal environmental statute would best allow it to designate PFOA and PFOS as hazardous. EPA also plans to develop interim groundwater cleanup recommendations for PFOA and PFOS in 2019.
EPA’s Plan also indicates it will move forward with the Safe Drinking Water Act’s (SDWA) Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) process for PFOA and PFOS by proposing a regulatory determination sometime in 2019. EPA will also evaluate whether a broader class of PFAS should be regulated in drinking water. The Plan indicates EPA also may use the full scope of federal enforcement, regulatory, and response authorities to address or prevent PFAS contamination, including, “the SDWA; RCRA sections 3004(u) and (v); 3005; 3008(h); 3013; and TSCA sections 5, 6, 7, and 8.”
Although PFOA and PFOS were included in a previous round of testing pursuant to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UMCR), the Action Plan indicates that additional PFAS substances will be included in the next round of UMCR monitoring.
The Plan identifies a number of additional short-term actions related to PFAS, including data collection and sharing, risk communication, development of improved testing and treatment methods, and Significant New Use Rules under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The Plan also lays out long-term actions related to PFAS, including exploring listing PFAS to the Toxics Release Inventory and evaluating information around developing effluent limitation guidelines for PFAS and ambient water quality criteria for PFAS.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-releases-pfas-action-plan-0
-
In Roundup Case, the Science Will Go on Trial First
Feb 15, 2019 | The Wall Street Journal
By Sara Randazzo
In a San Francisco courtroom this month, a jury will be asked to weigh a complicated question: Did Roundup weedkiller cause a man’s cancer?
The jurors will assess the credibility of competing studies that delve into cell mutations, cancer epidemiology and genotoxicity. They’ll hear evidence purporting to show why California resident Edwin Hardeman’s exposure to Roundup was dangerous, and other analyses arguing it was perfectly safe.
But unlike in a prior trial brought against the herbicide’s maker, Bayer AG, the jurors won’t simultaneously hear allegations that the company hid dangers about its product from the public. Instead, they’ll take part in an unusual split trial focused first on the science, and then, only if they find the plaintiff’s claims valid, on the question of negligence.
A federal judge approved a request by the company for this slimmed-down trial, over the objection of the plaintiff’s lawyers, to let the jury evaluate the alleged dangers of Roundup without what he called the significant distraction of attacks on the company’s behavior.
The approach is the latest attempt by courts to resolve a long-running debate over how to ensure the fairest decisions in cases concerning complicated science. The results could influence hundreds of similar Roundup cases—and guide judges in other cases that hinge on science.BABY POWDER, XARELTO: AP; ACCUTANE: BLOOMBERG NEWS
Courts have grappled for decades to find the right balance of what scientific evidence jurors can see. On one hand, the threshold for admissible scientific evidence needs to be low enough to encourage consumers to bring legitimate grievances against makers of potentially harmful products. On the other hand, it needs to be high enough to prevent floods of frivolous lawsuits based on faulty science or bogus claims.
Judges have typically played a central role in the debate by screening expert witnesses at the outset of trial. But the level of expertise of the judges themselves varies, as does the leeway afforded them to decide what gets in or not.
At the federal level, judges follow a uniform standard for how to allow in expert witnesses and scientific evidence. States, however, have diverged in their approaches. New Jersey last year tightened expert-witness standards to help block what corporate defendants often deem “junk science.” Florida’s highest court, meanwhile, in October reversed a legislative proposal that would have aligned the state with the generally more stringent federal threshold.
Further complicating the issue: Science is often unsettled within the medical community, and the root causes of a disease are often unknown.
“If the science is not junk, but at a stage of knowledge that’s truly indeterminate, what do we do about that?” said Alexander Lemann, a professor at Marquette University Law School. “It’s a problem that’s not solved by having the judge be a more aggressive gatekeeper.”KEY DATES IN ROUNDUP LITIGATION
1974: Environmental Protection Agency first registers glyphosate, the primary chemical in Roundup, for use in the U.S. as Monsanto brings the product to market.2015: International Agency for Research on Cancer, a World Health Organization unit, deems glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans.2016: Bayer makes a play for Monsanto as the company faces a few hundred cases alleging harms from Roundup.2017: EPA most recently reaffirms glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”June 2018: Bayer closes its acquisition of Monsanto.August 2018: San Francisco jury awards former groundskeeper $289.2 million in first Roundup trial.October 2018: Judge reduces trial award to $78.5 million, maintains finding that Monsanto acted with malice. Decision is on appeal.
In the Roundup case, around 9,300 home gardeners, landscapers and agricultural workers have sued Bayer in the U.S., claiming the weedkiller causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other cancers. Bayer inherited the potential liability through its acquisition last summer of seed and pesticide maker Monsanto Co.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has said for decades that glyphosate, the primary chemical in Roundup, is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a World Health Organization branch, designated glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” That kicked off a wave of litigation and regulatory scrutiny around the world.
Bayer calls the IARC designation an outlier that contradicts more than 800 studies submitted to the EPA and other regulators. The company contends glyphosate is an essential farming tool that has been deemed safe for more than 40 years.
In August, the first Roundup cancer trial resulted in a $289.2 million verdict for a former school groundskeeper who blamed his non-Hodgkin lymphoma on repeated exposure to two Bayer weedkillers. A California state court judge in October cut the verdict to $78.5 million, which the company is appealing.
Over 17 days of trial, jurors learned the three prongs of science that the plaintiff’s lawyers say proved their case: animal studies, epidemiological studies of human populations, and studies showing how glyphosate affects cellular processes.
‘Our role was not to deal with the nitty-gritty of the science.’—Gary Kitahata, a juror in last summer’s Roundup trial
Day after day, each scientific point came with a counterpoint.
The plaintiff’s lawyers discussed a 2010 study of 20 mice painted with a glyphosate formulation that caused 40% to develop tumors. Bayer lawyers called the study flawed and said research on rodents isn’t directly applicable to humans.
Bayer showed a study tracking farm workers over time that concluded there was no association between non-Hodgkin lymphoma and glyphosate exposure. A plaintiff’s expert said the study suffered from measurement errors.
Each side says it wins on the science, which will be tested at the trial starting Feb. 25 before U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco. If jurors find Roundup caused Mr. Hardeman’s non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a second phase will question whether Bayer acted with negligence.
Judge Chhabria has been vetting experts for the case using the Daubert standard, named for a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case. The standard, employed in all federal courts and many states, requires judges to consider the soundness of scientific methods employed by experts as well as whether the expert is qualified and the evidence is relevant. Daubert replaced the Frye standard, still used in some states, which looks at whether the scientific evidence has gained general acceptance in its field.
The Daubert method assumes judges are capable of understanding scientific methods. But sometimes even the smartest judges are out of their league, said David Faigman, the dean of University of California Hastings College of the Law.Newsletter Sign-up
He and other academics have proposed the idea of litigants hiring neutral experts to present opinions to the jury or sending expert reports out for peer review. Mr. Faigman even launched the peer-review concept as a company. But outside a few scattered cases, such alternatives haven’t gained traction.
Mr. Faigman said judges often say they’re persuaded by a plaintiff’s report explaining why a product is dangerous—only to change their thinking after seeing the defense’s report. “And they have no ability to distinguish who’s correct,” he said, adding that as a result, “judges punt, and turn it over to a jury to decide.”
Kevin Burke, a Minnesota state court judge and past president of the American Judges Association, said he believes reforms are needed to help juries better understand science but dismisses critics who say judges and juries are so ill-equipped “we need to throw the whole system out.”
Gary Kitahata, a juror in last summer’s Roundup trial, said he “determined our role was not to deal with the nitty-gritty of the science” but rather to do a “broader-scale analysis.” Equally important, the 65-year-old municipal adviser said, were emails purporting to show Monsanto’s resistance to conducting more scientific studies, information that may not be included in the science-only phase of the trial.
Monsanto said the record demonstrates the products have been extensively studied and that the company “has been a leader in supporting research regarding their safety.”
Debates surrounding scientific evidence grip courts around the country. New Jersey had long been known as a favorable place to bring product-liability lawsuits against the state’s many pharmaceutical companies. Last year, the state’s highest court tightened standards, directing judges to consider both the methodology used by experts and the underlying data.
The ruling came in long-running litigation claiming acne drug Accutane causes Crohn’s disease. The court effectively ended the case by concluding that the plaintiffs’ experts “deviated from core scientific principles and strayed from their own claimed methodology in order to reach their conclusions.”ROUNDUP READING
Bayer Pursued Monsanto Despite Weedkiller Suits and Executive’s Concern (Nov. 25, 2018)Bayer Hit by More Lawsuits Over Safety of Roundup Weedkiller (Nov. 13, 2018)EPA Allows Farmers to Keep Using Bayer’s Weedkiller (Oct. 31, 2018)Behind Bayer’s Tough Defense of Roundup (Oct. 23, 2018)Judge Reduces Jury Award Against Bayer’s Roundup (Oct. 23, 2018)$289 Million Verdict in Roundup Cancer Case (Aug. 10, 2018)
Other cases have fizzled after science didn’t hold up in court, including claims that birth-control device Mirena caused hypertension, that morning-sickness pill Bendectin led to birth defects, and litigation aiming to tie silicone breast implants to autoimmune diseases.
Other product-liability cases have led to big payouts when the science backing plaintiffs’ claims is affirmed, like against painkiller Vioxx, cigarettes and asbestos products.
In Judge Chhabria’s courtroom last month, the plaintiff’s attorneys argued the science can’t be viewed in isolation from Monsanto’s conduct and that splitting the trial is unheard-of in major product-liability cases.
Attorneys for Bayer and Mr. Hardeman later tussled over what to include in the first phase of the trial. Would internal emails allegedly showing Monsanto influencing a scientist’s research count? Should the opinions of regulators stay out?
Judge Chhabria conceded parsing out just the science isn’t clean-cut, saying: “It’s going to be difficult to draw the line on some of these questions.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-roundup-case-the-science-will-go-on-trial-first-11550246311
-
A New Analysis Claims To Show Evidence Linking Glyphosate Exposure To A Rare Cancer
Feb 17, 2019 | Forbes
By Geoffrey Kabat
But the paper, which provides no new data, is not what it presents itself to be. The authors combine the results from several different studies, which are in no way comparable, selecting data that will produce the desired result. They then highlight that result in order to scare the public.
Could exposure to glyphosate -- an herbicide often paired with genetically engineered corn, soybeans, cotton, and other crops – be causing cancer? That question has become the central contention advanced by critics of agricultural biotechnology.
Multiple studies and assessments from regulatory agencies around the world have concluded that glyphosate poses no significant health risks, either to the public from trace residues in our food or to workers exposed through farm work or manufacturing.
However, a new analysis -- what’s called a “meta-analysis” because it crunches data from multiple studies -- is raising a cautionary flag about the consensus that glyphosate is safe. What are we to make of this study?
A 41% increased cancer risk?
The analysis, which appeared in the journal Mutation Research, purports to show that human exposure to glyphosate increases the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, or NHL. The paper analyzes no new data but instead combines results from a number of different studies. The first author is Luoping Zhang of the University of California-Berkeley. I will refer to the study as the Zhang paper.
The final print version of the paper is not yet published. Nevertheless, the available preprint has already attracted media attention and stirred much Internet debate. An article citing the study appeared in The Guardian on February 14 under the headline: “Exposure to weed killing products increases risk of cancer by 41% – Evidence ‘supports link’ between exposures to glyphosate herbicides and increased risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”1YOU MAY ALSO LIKECivic Nation BRANDVOICESchool Counselors: Unveiling The “Amazing” WithinUNICEF USA BRANDVOICEMeet Bismack: Basketball Star, Humanitarian, UNICEF Supporter
Before examining the actual Mutation Research paper, some background is essential.
The question whether the world’s most widely used weed killer is causing cancer has been the focus of intense controversy since March, 2015, when the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) issued a report classifying glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen.” It needs to be understood that IARC doesn’t evaluate risk in the way other health agencies do, taking into account actual exposure to a substance or agent in the real world, in terms of intensity and duration of the exposure. Rather, IARC chooses to evaluate “hazard” – that is, whether a substance or agent could possibly cause cancer under some conditions, no matter how far removed from everyday experience. Under this much-relaxed standard, of the more than 500 agents that have been classified by IARC with respect to carcinogenicity, only one was judged by the Agency to be “probably not carcinogenic.”
IARC’s conclusion regarding glyphosate conflicts with the assessment of every other health or regulatory agency that has reviewed the safety of the chemical. That includes the Environmental Protection Agency, European Food Safety Authority, Food and Agriculture Organization in a joint study with the World Health Organization, European Chemicals Agency, Health Canada, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, and others.
These agencies have all concluded that, at the levels to which farmers and the general population are exposed, glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk. Following the release of the IARC report in 2015, a major epidemiological study was published based on data collected by the Agricultural Health Study. The AHS gathered data on 54,000 pesticide applicators, including 45,000 who had handled glyphosate, beginning in the mid-nineties. The authors of the paper (Andreotti et al., “Glyphosate Use and Cancer Incidence in the Agricultural Health Study,” 2018) concluded:
“In this large, prospective cohort study, no association was apparent between glyphosate and any solid tumors or lymphoid malignancies overall, including NHL and its subtypes. There was some evidence of increased risk of AML among the highest exposed group that requires confirmation.”
It should be noted that IARC’s conclusion was based on animal evidence (studies conducted in rats and mice), rather than on human, epidemiologic evidence, which the IARC considered to be “limited.” However, IARC has been criticized for selecting the few “positive” results from rodent studies that seemed to show an increased tumor yield in exposed animals, while ignoring exculpatory results that showed decreasing tumor yield in exposed animals.2
Despite the many questions surrounding the IARC glyphosate report, its conclusion has caused widespread concern in the public and has been taken up by environmental activists. In addition, there are currently roughly 9,300 pending lawsuits in U.S. courts brought by plaintiffs who claim that their cancer was caused by exposure to Roundup, which contains glyphosate as its active ingredient.
In the first case to go to trial, a California school groundskeeper, Dwayne Johnson, sued Monsanto (the manufacturer of Roundup), claiming that his terminal NHL was caused by his exposure to Roundup in the course of his work. Last August, he was awarded $39 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages. The punitive damages were later reduced to $39 million. The jurors claimed in interviews that they were heavily influence by the IARC hazard designation.
We can now turn to the Mutation Research paper.
The background summarized above is relevant, because Zhang et al. refer to “considerable controversy” surrounding the question of the carcinogenicity of glyphosate, but they describe a situation in which opinion is evenly divided, rather than acknowledging the overwhelming consensus among health agencies regarding the safety of glyphosate or making any mention of the questions pertaining to IARC’s assessment.
Drilling down into the meta-analysis
At the outset, we should note that this is a very long paper – three or four times the length of the average paper in epidemiology. The unusual length is due, in large part, to the fact that the authors include many secondary analyses by which they attempt to bolster the case they are making. However, the secondary analyses serve to obscure much more important issues, which the authors avoid addressing.
The bulk of the paper is devoted to a meta-analysis of the small number of epidemiologic studies that examined the association of glyphosate exposure and risk of developing NHL.
In the main analysis presented in the paper, Zhang et al. combine the results from the large Agricultural Health Study cohort with the results of five case-control studies. The result was a summary relative risk of 1.41 (95% confidence interval 1.13-1.75). This means that, compared to those who were not exposed to glyphosate, those exposed to the compound had a 41 percent higher likelihood of developing NHL. For reference, this is a very modest increase in risk, and NHL is a rare disease. In the U.S. roughly 20 new cases are diagnosed per 100,000 men and women each year. If the 41 percent figure were real, that would mean that 8 additional new NHL cases would be expected each year for every 100,000 exposed to glyphosate. But 41 percent figure, as we will see below, is almost certainly too high, based on the best human evidence. Yet, the authors highlighted this highly questionable number in the abstract, knowing that it would be picked by journalists and activists and instill fear in the public.
Meta-analysis is a statistical technique used to combine a number of relatively small studies in order to obtain a more stable, and therefore more credible estimate of an association. A meta-analysis produces a summary relative risk (RR), which is a weighted average of the RRs from the individual studies.
The cardinal requirement for conducting a valid meta-analysis is that the individual studies are similar enough in their methods, study design, and data quality to justify combining them to obtain an overall summary measure of risk. The results of a meta-analysis are only as good as the individual studies that go into it.
In their primary meta-analysis, Zhang et al. combine 6 studies. Five of these are case-control studies; one is a cohort study.
In a case-control study, the researcher identifies cases of the disease of interest (through hospitals, cancer registries, etc.) and selects a comparison group that is generally similar to the case group but is free of the disease under study. Cases and controls are then interviewed about their personal habits and past exposures. This method has the strength of enabling one to enroll large numbers of cases, even when a disease is rare, as in the case of NHL.
However, a major weakness of the case-control study design is that one is obtaining information about exposures of interest from cases, after they have already developed the disease. Cases may respond to questions about their exposures differently from controls. Specifically, cases may be more apt to ruminate about what caused their illness, and this may lead them to emphasize their exposures, whereas the controls do not have the same motivation. This is referred to as “recall bias” and can lead to a spurious association.
An additional problem, which is pertinent to the issue at hand, is that population-based case-control studies are not suitable for studying environmental or occupational exposures, due to the small percentage of people exposed to any particular agent.
Cohort studies start by enrolling a study population (a cohort) that can be assessed at the outset in terms of their health and exposure history and then followed for a number of years in order to identify new cases of disease that develop during follow-up. Cohort studies usually take more time and are more expensive to conduct than case-control studies. Furthermore, the cohort needs to large enough and followed for an adequate duration in order to obtain enough cases of a rare disease to evaluate the association of interest. The principle advantage of a cohort study over a case-control study is that in the former, the researcher obtains information about the exposures of interest prior to the development of disease. Thus, recall bias is not an issue in cohort studies. An additional advantage is that cohorts can be made up of people working in a particular occupation, which increases the exposure prevalence to occupational exposures of potential interest (e.g., pesticides in a cohort of farmers).
Zhang et al. perform many subsidiary analyses to determine whether the estimate of a 41 percent increase in risk for those exposed to glyphosate stands up under different assumptions. But much of their lengthy discussion is beside the point and serves only to distract the reader from what is the key question regarding their analysis: Are the different studies sufficiently comparable in the quality of their data and the calculation of risk to justify combining them?
A look at Table 4 of the Zhang paper, which reports the results of the individual studies combined in the meta-analysis, helps answer this question. Detailed exposure information was available in the AHS enabling the researchers to classify the study population of ~54,000 pesticide applicators into quartiles of exposure. The risk estimate selected by Zhang et al. (from among many results in the 2018 paper by Andreotti et al.) for farmers in the quartile with the highest exposure in AHS, compared to farmers unexposed to glyphosate, is 1.12 (95% CI 0.83-1.51), indicating no increased risk for those with the highest cumulative exposure. (We will return to the crucial choice of this estimate below.) Owing to the large size of the AHS, the confidence limits are fairly narrow. In fact, 440 of the 575 NHL cases in the AHS study were exposed to glyphosate.
If we look at the case-control studies, the risk estimates for 4 of the 5 studies were elevated, ranging from 1.85 to 2.36, while the remaining study showed no elevation in risk. The confidence intervals are much broader, reflecting both the smaller size of the case-control studies, and the smaller number of cases who are exposed to glyphosate. The number of cases in all of the case-control studies is only 136 out of a total of 2,836 NHL cases. As mentioned earlier, a key point that is not well understood, even by some epidemiologists, is that population-based case-control studies of occupational exposures have relatively small – often, very small -- numbers of cases and controls who are exposed to the agent of interest. This not only means lower statistical power to detect an effect, but it also tends to produce estimates that are highly unstable (that is, small changes in how one categorizes exposure can result in large differences estimates).
A related point that is clear from Table 4 is that “exposure” does not mean the same thing in the different studies. Whereas, in the AHS the highest quartile of exposure is contrasted with “no glyphosate exposure” to estimate risk, in three of the case-control studies, the exposure contrast is simply “ever” vs. “never exposed to glyphosate.” In two other case-control studies, the definition of exposure is “greater than 10 days/year” (vs. “no exposure to any pesticide”) and “greater than 2 days/year” (vs. “no exposure to glyphosate”). Thus, the exposure classification in the case-control studies is much cruder than in the AHS, and one would not expect such crude, dichotomous, comparisons to show a higher risk than the sharper contrast used in the AHS between the highest and lowest exposure groups.
The AHS examined glyphosate exposure in relation to the risk of 20 different cancers, including different types of lymphohematopoietic cancers, including NHL. In their analysis, the researchers adjusted for exposure to other pesticides, as well as for important confounding factors, such as smoking and body weight. In contrast, the case-control studies focus on a single type of cancer, NHL, which actually has different subtypes. And they were unable to adjust for many confounding factors.
Owing to the size of the AHS and the large number of cohort members who were exposed to glyphosate, and the long follow-up of the cohort, this study provides much finer-grained information about the health effects of exposure than the case-control studies with the weaknesses described above.
Given the differences in data quality and methods between the case-control studies and the cohort study, it is highly questionable to combine them. The authors devote a lot of space to discussing potential weaknesses of the AHS to explain why it might have failed to detect a positive association with glyphosate exposure. Much of this discussion is beside the point. They devote much less space to describing the real deficiencies of the case-control studies.
One further point needs to be made. When conducting a meta-analysis, one is often faced with the choice of which risk estimate to use from a given study, which may present a number of different risk estimates. The updated analysis of the AHS by Andreotti et al. (2018) presented a large number of risk estimates resulting from different analyses of lymphohematopoietic malignancies, including NHL. These include results for 5-year, 10-year, 15-year, and 20-year lag periods. Zhang et al. chose to use the 20-year lag result for inclusion in the meta-analysis (RR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.83-1.51). In fact, the unlagged, and the 5-year, 10-year, and 15-year lagged RRs for the highest quartile are all below 1.00 (0.87, 0.87, 0.83, and 0.94, respectively). There is no particular justification for picking the 20-year lagged result, as Zhang et al. do. They could just as reasonably have picked the 10-year lag analysis, which gave RR = 0.83 (95% CI 0.62-1.10). But it is interesting to note that the 20-year lagged RR was the largest of five risk estimates presented in the paper and the only one above 1.00. If Zhang et al. had picked the 10-year lagged RR for inclusion in the meta-analysis, the overall result would likely not have been statistically significant, since, even with the selection of the largest RR, the lower confidence limit of the summary RR is barely above the threshold for statistical significance (lower bound = 1.13). (The data from the AHS account for more than 50% of the total data in the meta-analysis, so using a RR below 1.0 would exert a strong downward pull on the summary RR).
Let’s recapitulate the key points:
1) Zhang et al. set out to combine the results of studies of drastically different quality. Yet they never question the appropriateness of conducting a meta-analysis, which, in this case, is the weighted average of one high-quality cohort study with five case-control studies of much poorer quality.
2) Confronted with the choice of which risk estimate to select from the AHS, the researchers chose the highest RR of 5 reported in Andreotti et al. (2018), thus, ensuring that the resulting summary RR would reach statistical significance.
3) In order to give their paper the appearance of academic rigor, the authors conducted a huge number of secondary analyses, varying different conditions, to convince us that the 41 percent increase in risk is a solid result that is not affected by varying different aspects of their analysis. But these “sensitivity analyses” and subtle statistical considerations are presented instead of addressing more basic issues that determined the results of the meta-analysis. For example, if the authors were truly interested in the validity of their meta-analysis, they would have acknowledged the weakness of the case-control studies. Furthermore, they would have presented an analysis showing the effect of using each of the 5 different risk estimates reported in the AHS study, not just the highest one. Such an analysis would likely have shown that using most of the RRs reported in the AHS in the meta-analysis yielded a result that was not statistically significant. Of course, this would have been much less newsworthy and would have made their paper much less likely to be published.
4) The authors highlighted the questionable 41 percent result, which they knew would grab headlines and inspire fear.
One can’t escape the impression that the motivation behind what presents itself as a disinterested academic study was to include a selected and unrepresentative result from the highly-respected AHS in their meta-analysis and use the far inferior case-control studies to jack up the summary relative risk to obtain a statistically-significant finding.
Apparently, the authors judged that few lay people, and likely few scientists, would notice the sleight of hand amidst the large number of secondary analyses and lengthy obfuscatory discussions.
One final observation. This paper underwent peer review, most likely with at least two outside reviewers as well as the editor(s) at the journal evaluating it. We must ask how such a misleading and tendentious paper could have passed the peer review process.3
Notes
1. For context, it’s important to note the byline on the article. Carey Gillam is a former Reuters reporter who was fired after evidence emerged that she was biasing articles against modern agricultural technologies, including biotechnology and the use of crop protection chemicals. I’ve written about her before. Gillam recently wrote a book claiming to document that alleged dangers of glyphosate. She now works as the ‘research director’ for US Right to Know, an organic industry-funded anti-biotechnology group that has been in the headlines for its repeated attacks against agricultural biotechnology, university scientists and science communicators, and has provided assistance to law firms involved in glyphosate litigation.
2. There is also evidence, noted in an extensive investigation by Reuters, that IARC had initially concluded that the weight of evidence showed glyphosate posed no serious carcinogenic threat, but that conclusion was changed days before the report’s release. The Invited Specialist for the IARC panel that evaluated glyphosate, Christopher Portier, began working with law firms suing Monsanto less than two weeks after the IARC classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen was announced.
3. It is ironic that the authors cite the classic paper by John Ioannidis, “Why most published research findings are false” (2005), since, by making the cardinal errors pointed out above, they have produced a result that no amount of secondary analyses and statistical fine points can make up for.
---
Geoffrey Kabat is a cancer epidemiologist and the author of Hyping Health Risks: Environmental Hazards in Daily Life and the Science of Epidemiology and Getting Risk Right: Understanding the Science of Elusive Health Risks.
-
Feb 15, 2019 | Chicago Tribune
By Michael Hawthorne
Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s administration on Friday banned Sterigenics from using ethylene oxide at its Willowbrook sterilization plant, responding to an intense public outcry about toxic air pollution that left surrounding neighborhoods with some of the highest cancer risks in the nation.
Pritzker, the state’s new Democratic governor, ordered the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to step in a week after the Trump administration told residents it still didn’t have enough evidence to take action against the Oak Brook-based company, which is owned in part by a private equity fund co-founded by former Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner.
Invoking rarely used authority in state law, Illinois EPA Director John Kim prohibited Sterigenics from pumping ethylene oxide gas into massive chambers used to sterilize medical equipment, pharmaceutical drugs, spices and food.
Kim’s order cited a federal study that said the chemical is so toxic that even tiny concentrations routinely leaking from the company’s two buildings pose a significant health risk.
“Governor Pritzker is committed to using every available tool to protect the health and well-being of Illinoisans,” spokeswoman Jordan Abudayyeh said in a statement. “The governor will continue to take any available and necessary action.”
Political appointees at the Trump EPA are taking a more cautious approach, even though testing in Willowbrook, Burr Ridge and Darien during late November and December revealed spikes of the volatile gas that were higher than concentrations detected before the company installed new pollution-control equipment last year.
William Wehrum, the administration’s top air official, said last week that the U.S. EPA will re-evaluate cancer risks in the Willowbrook area after collecting more air samples during the coming month and combining the results with computer modeling of pollution emitted by Sterigenics.
Samples analyzed so far suggest that on some days the air monitors are registering other, unknown sources of ethylene oxide, Wehrum said, meaning the agency needs more time to assess the dangers, determine the extent of Sterigenics’ responsibility and figure out how to limit future emissions. He also said there is no doubt that Sterigenics is responsible for alarming levels of the chemical in the community.
About 19,000 people in southeast DuPage County live within a mile of the Willowbrook facility. Four schools and a day-care center are close by, including Hinsdale South High School in Darien and Gower Middle School in Burr Ridge.
Sterigenics vowed to fight the order in court.
“The Illinois EPA’s actions to suspend operations at the Sterigenics Willowbrook facility are indefensible,” the company said in a statement. “Unilaterally preventing a business that is operating in compliance with all state permits and regulations from carrying out its vital function sets a dangerous precedent.”
Frustrated with the pace of federal and state investigations, Willowbrook officials hired their own consultants to collect air samples using the same type of equipment deployed in the community by the federal EPA. The village posted an update Friday showing that high levels of ethylene oxide were detected in early February outside the Willowbrook Police Department, across the street from Sterigenics in a cluster of government and industrial buildings near Illinois Route 83 and the Stevenson Expressway.
Pollution levels spiked as high as 160 micrograms per cubic meter of air, according to the village’s testing summary. Higher-than-expected levels also were detected at Gower Middle School (6.12) and Gower Elementary (3.1).
Regular exposure to 2.1 micrograms of ethylene oxide per cubic meter of air could trigger more than 6 cases of cancer for every 1,000 people exposed, according to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, an arm of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Federal regulators generally target polluters when local cancer risks are greater than 100 in a million.
“We have to work to make sure they don’t reopen,” Willowbrook resident Melissa Alvarado said at news conference organized by the Stop Sterigenics community group. “We need to ban ethylene oxide emissions. No level of poison is safe.”
The Chicago Tribune first reported that federal and state officials began taking a closer look at Sterigenics in late 2017 after determining the cancer risks in one census tract near the facility are more than nine times higher than the national average.
By the time the U.S. EPA quietly posted its findings online in August, another federal agency had estimated the effects could be significantly more dire, prompting demands from local, state and federal lawmakers for an in-depth investigation.
People protesting Sterigenics hold signs and wave at passing cars at the corner of Spring Road and Commerce Drive Saturday, Dec. 15, 2018, in Oak Brook. (John J. Kim / Chicago Tribune)
The Tribune reported in December that chemical companies and government health agencies have known since at least the late 1970s that ethylene oxide mutates genes and causes breast cancer, leukemia and lymphomas. After owners of the Willowbrook plant applied for a new permit in the mid-1980s, state regulators estimated that people living within a mile of the facility could end up breathing the highly toxic gas at concentrations 14 times higher than studies suggested was safe at the time.
Ethylene oxide has been on the federal list of carcinogens since 1985. In December 2016, the U.S. EPA released a long-delayed reassessment that officially added the agency to a list of other national and international organizations declaring the chemical poses significant cancer risks for people.
Every time federal or state regulators attempt to protect Americans from ethylene oxide, industry groups stoke the public’s fear of hospital infections.
More nuanced views are outlined in a 2017 report from the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, a trade group that counts Sterigenics as a member. Charts compiled by the group’s standards board show virtually every type of material in medical products can be sterilized without ethylene oxide. The report noted that companies might not switch to alternatives because they “have significant investment in one particular sterilization method.”
Sterigenics became a major issue during the 2018 elections, with politicians from both parties urging the company to shut down the Willowbrook facility, and introducing legislation in Washington and Springfield that would phase out use of the chemical.
Earlier this week, U.S. Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, along with Reps. Sean Casten, Bill Foster, Dan Lipinski and Brad Schneider, called for an independent investigation of the company’s pollution. The U.S. EPA’s inspector general already is probing the Trump administration’s response to the situation.
“I appreciate the efforts of everyone who has worked together over the past year to finally bring safety and peace of mind back to our community,” Illinois House Minority Leader Jim Durkin, R-Darien, said Friday. “Sterigenics has failed our residents, and today’s action should put any other entity that threatens the health and safety of residents in Illinois on notice.”
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-pritzker-sterigenics-shutdown-willowbrook-20190215-story.html
-
Illinois EPA Blocks Sterigenics Use of Toxic Gas (1)
Feb 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Joyce
An Illinois medical sterilization plant must stop using a toxic chemical, the state’s Environmental Protection Agency ordered.
The seal order, announced late Feb. 15, prohibits the Willowbrook, Ill.-based Sterigenics U.S. LLC facility from using ethylene oxide for any purpose, which could essentially shut down the plant.
The move is a win for state and federal lawmakers, who for months pressed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and state officials to monitor emissions at the plant.
The federal EPA’s own data showed ethylene oxide emissions more than doubled on some monitoring days in December compared with earlier monitoring results.
But U.S. Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), a key Sterigenics critic, told Bloomberg Environment the Illinois EPA action may be invalidated by a state court. And the company said while it will comply with the order it also will “take all legal actions necessary to reverse this decision.”
“The Illinois EPA’s actions to suspend operations at the Sterigenics Willowbrook facility are indefensible,” the company said in a statement.
The company has continually claimed its facility complies with all state and federal permitting requirements, and emits less than 0.1 percent of the ethylene oxide used during its process of sterilizing medical equipment. It also has criticized emissions data issued by the U.S. EPA as inconsistent and inconclusive.
“Unilaterally preventing a business that is operating in compliance with all state permits and regulations from carrying out its vital function sets a dangerous precedent,” the company said. “The Illinois EPA’s decision will place the health and lives of thousands of patients who rely on the critical medical products sterilized at Willowbrook at risk.”
The U.S. EPA has concluded breathing air containing elevated ethylene oxide levels over many years increases the risk of some types of cancers.
The state EPA in its statement said the move was taken to prevent emissions that pose an imminent and substantial endangerment to residents and off-site workers in the Willowbrook community. “Recent elevated sampling results, along with Sterigenics’ refusal to voluntarily suspend operations, have resulted in the issuance of the Seal Order,” a Feb. 15 Illinois EPA statement said.
State Sen. John Curran (R), a Sterigenics critic who has urged the facility to shut down following disclosure of the emissions data, said: “This was a positive step made necessary by Sterigenics’ refusal to cooperate and value the health concerns of our community. We must continue to ensure a safe, healthy environment and push forward with legislative changes to protect the health of our residents.”
Lipinski said he is “not confident” the decision will be upheld upon judicial review and will continue pressuring the federal EPA to order the facility be shut down. The U.S. EPA, under the Clean Air Act, has the authority to shutter the facility, he said.
The seal order will remain in effect until it is rescinded by state EPA Acting Director John Kim.
(Updates with new information throughout. )
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/illinois-epa-blocks-sterigenics-use-of-toxic-gas-1
-
Suffolk County Sues Air Force Over Firefighting Foam
Feb 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Suffolk County, N.Y., filed hazardous waste claims against the federal government alleging contamination firefighting foam used at a Long Island airfield contaminated local water sources.
The suit alleges the foam, sprayed at the Francis S. Gabreski Airport in Westhampton, N.Y., contained perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and polluted both ground water and the public drinking water supply.
The suit comes eight months after New York state sued 3M Co. and five other foam manufacturers used at military and civilian airports, including at Gabreski.
The complaint includes claims under the federal Superfund law, the Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. It also asserts public nuisance and trespass claims.
The U.S. Air Force opened a base at the airport in 1970 under a lease from the county for air refueling, fighter-inception missions and aerospace rescue and recovery, the complaint says.
Since then, the Air Force has used the aqueous film forming foams at the base to extinguish fires during military drills and exercises.
Stagg, Terenzi, Confusione & Wabnik, LLP represents the county.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/suffolk-county-sues-air-force-over-firefighting-foam
-
Reprotox Study of Disodium Molybdate in Rats Finalised
Feb 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
A contract research organisation (CRO) operating in the US has completed an industry funded, two generation reproductive toxicity study of disodium molybdate in rats, with no adverse effects on reproduction or development.
The new information comes at a time of EU scrutiny on the substance – also known as sodium molybdate dihydrate. In December Echa’s Board of Appeal ruled in favour of the agency in a case concerning the substance and the need for a prenatal developmental toxicity (PNDT) study.
Scientists at Charles River Laboratories conducted the two generation study, published in Reproductive Toxicology, according to OECD test guideline 416 in 24 male and 24 female rats that were exposed to disodium molybdate in their drinking water.
They found systemic toxicity, including decreased body weight, food consumption and water consumption, in rats exposed to 40 milligrammes of molybdenum per kilogram of body weight per day. However, there were no significant dose-related effects on estrous cycles, sperm parameters, mating, fertility, gestation, litter size, pup survival, growth or postnatal development.BoA Decision
In December, the BoA ruled that Echa had not erred when, in 2017, during its compliance check, it asked REACH registrants for the substance to submit data for a further prenatal developmental toxicity (PNDT) study owing to deficiencies in the existing one.
The appeal was submitted by chemicals company Climax Molybdenum, which argued that further testing was unnecessary.
The registrants have until 17 December 2019 to submit the results of a new PNDT study conducted according to OECD test guideline 416.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74371/reprotox-study-of-disodium-molybdate-in-rats-finalised
-
Rejection of Special Use for Banned Chemical Is EU’s First
Feb 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
A committee of European Union country representatives for the first time rejected a company’s application to use a hazardous substance that is normally banned under the EU’s REACH chemicals law.
German company Hapoc GmbH’s application to continue to use sodium dichromate in a specialized treatment for micro-surgical instruments was thrown out.
Under REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals), the most hazardous industrial chemicals are identified and banned from use and trade in the EU. Bans have so far been issued for 43 substances in the bloc.
Companies that want to continue to use the substances in industrial applications can apply for continued-use authorizations, which are granted as long as substitutes for the substances are not available and as long as the risks posed by the substances can be tightly controlled.
Until Hapoc’s, out of more than 170 applications for continued-use authorizations, none was refused.Specialized Medical Application
The company wanted the authorization for a new technique that is still under development, Hapoc spokesman Uwe Konig told Bloomberg Environment Feb. 15.
Because the technique was still under development, Hapoc requested an extension to its REACH authorization application to provide new data to the Helsinki-based European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), which oversees the authorization process, Konig said.
However, it had proved impossible to provide the required data even after a first extension of the deadline, Konig said. Missing the deadline meant ECHA’s scientific committees were unable to assess the application.
Hapoc was continuing to develop the specialized technique, and would consider how to continue in the absence of an authorization, Konig said.
In a statement to Bloomberg Environment Feb. 15, ECHA said it had attempted to accommodate Hapoc, but “at the same time the application system needs to function; we need to be strict regarding the requirements of the applications and the timelines set out in the REACH Regulation.”
The experience showed the authorization process could be an obstacle to companies developing new applications and techniques involving hazardous substances that have been banned under REACH, Konig said.’Monster’ Chrome Plating Application
Separately Feb. 15, the committee of EU country representatives deciding on authorization applications gave the green light to one of the most extensive ever REACH authorizations.
The committee approved a single authorization covering a group of companies and several uses of chromium trioxide in the aerospace and automotive sectors including chrome-plating which prevents corrosion.
The authorization application has been criticized for being too wide-ranging. Critics also said it could undermine the aim of REACH which is governed by the principle that uses of highly hazardous substances should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances.
“This monster application is unfeasibly big and straining the EU process. It is so big that governments are afraid to reject it,” Dolores Romano, a policy officer with the European Environmental Bureau, said in a Feb. 13 statement ahead of the committee vote.Jobs Concern
The chromium trioxide authorization was granted to Lanxess Deutschland GmbH and six other companies. The substance is widely used in chrome plating but is carcinogenic and has been banned from use in the EU without an authorization since September 2017.
The European Commission—the EU’s executive arm that formally finalizes decisions on REACH authorizations—said in a Feb. 15 statement that the chromium trioxide authorization would cover activities at more than 1,500 industrial sites involving “tens of thousands of jobs.”
The commission added that the authorization application was “marked by a number of weaknesses,” and consequently the applicants had been given between 2.5 and 3.5 years to submit improvements if they wished to continue using the substance. The commission didn’t provide details about the improvements companies would have to make.
Lanxess spokeswoman Daniela Eltrop and Susanne Richter, spokeswoman for another of the applicant companies, Atotech Deutschland GmbH, told Bloomberg Environment they were unable to comment Feb. 15.
The commission said the terms of the authorization “should help the companies to improve risk management, emission monitoring, and encourage them to look for safer alternatives,” while protecting “European jobs that could easily be transferred to other world regions.”
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/rejection-of-special-use-for-banned-chemical-is-eus-first
-
Texas Fines Chevron Phillips Chemical, Others for Environmental Violations
Feb 15, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Erin Douglas
Chevron Phillips Chemical Company was fined for violating Texas air quality regulations, state regulators said Wednesday.
The company, which is jointly owned by Chevron Corp. and Phillips 66, will pay a little under $250,000 to the state for air quality violations stemming from its failure to comply with allowable emissions limits, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state's environmental agency, decided at its bi-monthly agenda meeting.Recommended Video
00:3501:10
Chevron Phillips did not immediately comment.
The commission fined 30 organizations for environmental violations, totaling $878,327. On Feb. 12, the executive director of the TCEQ approved 43 penalties, totaling $93,253.
The Houston-Galveston Area Council for Clean Vehicles Partnership Project will get $124,200 of that to replace older and high emitting buses with lower emitting buses or to retrofit buses with emissions-reducing equipment.
Circle K Stores, Inc., a gas station company based in Arizona, received one of the larger fines of the 30 companies. The TCEQ fined it $110,520 for petroleum storage tank violations that included failing to report suspected leaks at multiple locations.
TCEQ has been criticized by environmental groups for failing to impose hefty enough fines on large companies, like Chevron Phillips, for infractions. Analysis of TCEQ data by Texas Environment found that while there were more than 4,000 reported unauthorized emissions events reported in the state in 2017, the TCEQ only imposed penalties on 58 emissions events that year.
"TCEQ's spotty record of penalizing companies for emissions events has emboldened permittees to continue their violations with little fear of meaningful repercussions," the report states.
While the TCEQ declined to comment on the report specifically, Brian McGovern, TCEQ spokesperson, said the commission "vigorously" defends its enforcement process.
The commission's next meeting will be Feb. 27.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Texas-fines-Chevron-Phillips-Chemical-others-for-13616536.php
-
Gas Shortages Give New York an Early Taste of the Green New Deal
Feb 15, 2019 | The Wall Street Journal - Opinion
By Robert Bryce
The combination of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling—sometimes known as the “shale revolution”—has enabled Texas, Pennsylvania and other states to produce record quantities of natural gas, some of which is being frozen, loaded onto giant ships, and transported to customers in places like Chile, China and India. Thanks to the environmental policies of Gov. Andrew Cuomo, New York has missed out on this windfall.
Now, in a preview of what life might be like under the Democrats’ proposed Green New Deal, some New Yorkers are about to face a natural-gas shortage. Consolidated Edison , an energy utility that provides gas and power to the New York City area, announced last month that beginning in mid-March it would “no longer be accepting applications for natural gas connections from new customers in most of our Westchester County service area.” The reason for the shortage is obvious: The Cuomo administration has repeatedly blocked or delayed new pipeline projects. As a Con Ed spokesman put it, there is a “lot of natural gas around the country, but getting it to New York has been the strain.”
New York policy makers have also killed the state’s natural-gas-drilling business. In 2008 New York drillers produced about 150 million cubic feet of natural gas a day—not enough to meet all the state’s needs, but still a substantial amount. That same year legislators in Albany passed a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, the process used to wring oil and gas out of underground rock formations. In 2015 the Cuomo administration made the moratorium permanent. By 2018 New York’s gas production had declined so much that the Energy Information Administration quit publishing numbers on it.
New York now imports nearly all of its gas even though part of the Marcellus Shale, one of the biggest and most prolific sources of natural gas in the country, extends into the state’s Southern Tier region. To get an idea of how much gas the state might have been able to produce from the Marcellus, New Yorkers can look across the state line to Pennsylvania, which now supplies about two-thirds of the gas consumed in New York. At the end of 2018, Pennsylvania drillers were producing about 18 billion cubic feet of gas a day. That’s more gas than Canada now produces.
By keeping its natural gas in the ground, New York has lost out on jobs and tax revenue. By 2015, some 106,000 people were directly employed by Pennsylvania’s oil and gas industry, making it a bigger employer than the state’s famous steel sector. This year Pennsylvania’s state government is expected to take in some $247 million in gas-related fees.
New York’s government-imposed gas shortage will likely get worse. In April 2020, Entergy, the utility that owns Westchester’s Indian Point Energy Center, will permanently shutter one of the two reactors at the 2,069-megawatt nuclear facility. It will shut down the other reactor in April 2021. The closures are the result of low electricity prices and years of costly legal battles with environmental groups and state regulators. Indian Point supplies about 25% of the electricity consumed in New York City.
According to the New York Independent System Operator, the nonprofit that manages the state’s electric grid, Indian Point’s output will be replaced by three gas-fired generators, two of which are in New York state. If utilities are already running short on gas, where will they get the fuel for the generators to replace the juice now coming from Indian Point?
New York Public Service Commission Chairman John B. Rhodes doesn’t appear overly concerned. A few days after Con Ed announced the moratorium on new gas connections, he issued a statement saying his agency is “taking quick and diligent steps to address” the issue by pushing utilities to seek “natural gas supply alternatives.” His statement had four mentions of “clean energy” but no mentions of the word “pipeline.”
The gas shortage means more bad news for Westchester County, which is already wobbling at the prospect of losing about 1,000 jobs when Indian Point closes. Last month Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, a Democrat from Scarsdale, told a local newspaper that the moratorium on new gas connections would “devastate” development in her district. She said the gas shortage would pose a particular problem for the development of affordable housing units.
“This probably represents a billion dollars of development that will just stop,” said Yonkers Mayor Mike Spano in an interview with the local CBS affiliate. “These big-pocketed developers are just going to move their developments to other communities.”
Less than two weeks after Con Ed announced the moratorium on new gas connections, the utility announced it would seek an 11% hike in residential natural-gas rates and a nearly 6% increase in residential electricity rates.
Policies have consequences. The moratorium on gas connections in Westchester is one of the knock-on effects of the antihydrocarbon policies of the Cuomo administration, and consumers will be forced to pay the bill.
Mr. Bryce is a Manhattan Institute senior fellow and producer of the forthcoming documentary “Juice: How Electricity Explains the World.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/gas-shortages-give-new-york-an-early-taste-of-the-green-new-deal-11550272395
-
PHMSA Issues Final Rule to Strengthen Oil Train Spill Preparedness
Feb 15, 2019 | Oil & Gas Journal
By Nick Snow
The US Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, in coordination with the Federal Railroad Administration, issued a final rule requiring railroads to develop and submit comprehensive oil spill response plans covering route segments used by high hazard flammable trains (HHFT).
The rule applies to HHFTs that are transporting crude oil in a block of 20 or more loaded tank cars and trains that have a total of 35 tank cars loaded with crude, PHMSA said on Feb. 14. It takes effect 180 days after its publication in the Federal Register, which the US Department of Transportation agency expects in a few more days.
The rule revises oil spill response plan requirements currently in place to require railroads to establish geographic response zones along various rail routes and assure that both personnel and equipment are staged and prepared to respond if an accident occurs, PHMSA said.
Railroads also will have to identify a qualified individual responsible for each response zone, as well as the organization, personnel, and equipment capable of removing and mitigating a worst-case discharge, it said.
Rail carriers also will be required to provide information about HHFTs to state and tribal emergency response commissions in accordance with the 2015 Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, PHMSA said.
https://www.ogj.com/articles/2019/02/phmsa-issues-final-rule-to-strengthen-oil-train-spill-preparedness.html
-
Chamber Sounds Alarm Over California Carbon Tax Study
Feb 15, 2019 | Inside EPA
The California Chamber of Commerce is voicing concerns about about a bill that would require the state air board to study the feasibility of a broad new carbon tax as a replacement for the state's current sales and use tax, raising a number of questions for stakeholders to ask before lawmakers consider the bill next month.
"This new type of 'carbon tax' would result in BOTH a cap on emissions from facilities AND a carbon-based sales tax on the products manufactured in those facilities, potentially driving up the already-high cost of living for Californians," writes chamber policy advocate Leah Silverthorn in a Feb. 4 blog post, citing the state's current greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program that caps emissions on industries.
The bill, SB 43, introduced on Dec. 3 by state Sen. Ben Allen (D), likely will be heard first by the Senate Environmental Quality Committee next month.
A source in Allen's office says there are no answers yet to the chamber's questions precisely because the bill would require a study to gather information that addresses such questions and concerns.
"The whole point of doing a study bill is to get robust data that can be used for policymaking," the source says.
SB 43 would require the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to study replacing the state's current sales and use tax with a new tax based on products' carbon intensity, as a way to "encourage the use of less carbon-intensive products." ARB, in consultation with the California Department of Tax & Fee Administration, would be required to submit a report by 2021 to the Legislature on the results of the study
The study must include details of a carbon tax proposal and a determination about the feasibility and practicality of such a new levy.
SB 43 would also require CARB to revise its 2017 GHG regulatory "scoping plan" to reflect the carbon reduction benefits "that may be realized through the imposition of the assessment based on carbon intensities of products and to consider the results of the study in future updates to the scoping plan."
The chamber's Silverthorn is raising a host of questions about the plan, including whether any tax would apply to products made in a facility that already has its emissions capped under cap-and-trade, resulting in a stacking of carbon taxes and whether the tax would apply to the carbon content of fossil fuels before combustion, or the CO2 in combustion gas.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/chamber-sounds-alarm-over-california-carbon-tax-study
-
It's Official: Trump's Policies Deter EPA Staff from Enforcing the Law
Feb 16, 2019 | The Hill - Opinion
By Joel A. Mintz
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released an annual report Feb. 8 on its enforcement activities in fiscal 2018. After wading through a bushel full of cherry-picked case studies and a basket of bureaucratic happy talk, the report paints a dismal picture of decline in a crucially important EPA program.
EPA’s data indicate that it initiated and concluded approximately 1,800 civil judicial enforcement cases in 2018 — fewer than half the number it handled in fiscal 2008, the last year of the George W. Bush administration. The agency required violators to invest $3.95 billion to control their excessive pollution last year, a far cry from the $21.3 billion in pollution control expenditures that resulted from EPA enforcement in 2011. Similarly, the total amount of administrative and civil penalties that EPA extracted from environmental violators was at its lowest level in the past decade, thus reducing the disincentive for companies to break the law. The same was true with regard to the number of criminal cases opened by the agency in 2018 and the number of defendants charged with federal pollution crimes — all were down to the lowest levels in ten years.
Contributing to those dismal numbers was a dramatic decline in EPA’s facility inspections and plant evaluations. Those activities fell to 10,600 in 2018 — less than 50 percent of the number of plant visits conducted by the agency in 2010.
Inspections are particularly important for their deterrent effect. In addition to uncovering unreported violations, EPA plant visits are supposed to send a message to would-be violators that an environmental “cop is on the beat.” The more inspections decline, the more likely it is that some companies will attempt to cut their operating costs by cutting corners on pollution controls.
As troubling as these numbers are, they do not fully portray the extent to which EPA’s enforcement efforts have been suppressed in the first two years of the Trump administration.
Against a backdrop of numerous proposals that ignore legitimate scientific findings and eliminate or water down safeguards designed to mitigate climate change and protect the nation’s air and water, many among the agency’s career staff now perceive that EPA's political leadership frowns upon meaningful enforcement of pollution control standards. This perception stems, in part, from policy directives from the agency’s enforcement chief, Susan Bodine, and from the Trump administration’s proposals to significantly cut the budget for EPA’s enforcement and compliance programs. In addition, some politically appointed regional administrators have been meeting behind closed doors with top company executives who want to weaken regulatory requirements that affect their firms.
Taken together, these developments devastated EPA staff morale at all levels. A number of experienced enforcement personnel have left the agency over the past two years, taking with them experience and expertise vital to effective environmental enforcement. Among the groups most affected has been the EPA’s Senior Executive Service (SES), the agency’s top rung of permanent career staff. The agency's political leadership can legally subject SES staff to duty changes and relocations to another part of the country with little notice. Such sudden reassignments have already happened to some SES staff, while others are fearful of suffering the same fate if they disappoint political appointees.
Not surprisingly, these circumstances have deterred some within EPA’s SES from pursuing vigorous enforcement of agency regulations, protecting the nation’s air and water and requiring the cleanup of toxins.
Beyond this, EPA oversight of state enforcement work has been all but eliminated in the past two years. Even though a number of state environmental agencies lack the resources, expertise and political will to enforce pollution control requirements, EPA regional officials have been encouraged to defer to state preferences in enforcement matters — which in many cases means standing back and allowing pollution to continue unabated. Thus, even in circumstances of extreme violations, where a state fails to pursue needed and appropriate enforcement measures in a given case, EPA personnel are largely precluded from stepping in and enforcing the law.
While EPA enforcement is not completely moribund, it now appears to be limping along at far lower levels, and with less overall impact, than was true prior to the Trump administration. Given these ongoing failings, now is the time for Congress to conduct thorough and vigorous oversight of the agency’s steeply declining enforcement efforts.
Joel A. Mintz is a professor of law emeritus and the C. William Trout Senior Fellow in Public Interest Law at Nova Southeastern University College of Law. Mintz is a former EPA enforcement attorney and chief attorney. He is the author of three books and numerous articles regarding EPA enforcement and a member scholar at the Center for Progressive Reform.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/430326-its-official-trumps-policies-deter-epa-staff-from-enforcing-the
Congressional Hearings - There are no hearings to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested