Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - March 27, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Specialty Chemicals Lose Steam in February, Volumes Down
Mar 27, 2019 | Zacks.com (In Nasdaq)
By Anindya Barman
The U.S. specialty chemical industry lost some momentum in February with volumes easing on a monthly comparison basis following gains in the previous two months, according to the latest report from the American Chemistry Council... -
(ACC Mentioned) Fighting the Plastic Soup: Solutions for a Less Polluted World
Mar 27, 2019 | Impakter
By Maria Westerbos
One of the many reports regarding the issue of plastic pollution makes the following observation: 93% of the rubbish in low-income countries is dumped in landfills in open air compared to just 2% in high-income countries. Plastic waste... -
EPA Makes Studies on PV29 Publicly Available
Mar 27, 2019 | City-County Observer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the release of 24 studies on Pigment Violet 29 (PV29) used by EPA to develop the draft risk evaluation under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century... -
(ACC Blog) Part I – FORMALDEHYDE: The Science, The Truth, and The Industry’s Commitment to Objective Chemical Assessments
Mar 27, 2019 | American Chemistry Matters
The following blog is a segment of a three part series regarding EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program. Part I: The Science. For years, scientists have investigated formaldehyde chemistry to help determine... https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2019/03/part-i-formaldehyde-the-science-the-truth-and-the-industrys-commitment-to-objective-chemical-assessments/ -
EPA Defends Shifting Staff Between Chemical Risk Efforts
Mar 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
The EPA attempted to justify its decision to shift chemical risk assessment staff toward a program that determines whether chemicals should be restricted, responding to concerns raised March 27 by a House subcommittee leadership. -
US Asks EU To Postpone Titanium Dioxide, Cobalt Metal Classifications
Mar 27, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The US has asked the EU to postpone its proposal to classify titanium dioxide and cobalt metal as carcinogens, warning that these moves may be "unnecessarily disruptive to billions of dollars of US-EU trade." In a statement to the... -
States Draft Legislation Following EPA's PFAS Action Plan
Mar 27, 2019 | National Law Review
By Nessa Horewitch Coppinger and Megan L. Morgan
Shortly after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s February 2019 release of its PFAS Action Plan, many states are following suit with draft legislation and other actions addressing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). -
Army Waives Fee Of Nearly $300k For PFAs Testing Records
Mar 27, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Courtney Columbus
The Army has waived a fee of nearly $300,000 to complete an environmental group's Freedom of Information Act request for water testing records related to toxic nonstick chemicals known as PFAS. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl... -
Feature: Has The Saicm Programme Made Any Difference?
Mar 27, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Caroline Byrne
The UN's GCO-II summary report makes it clear that the goal to minimise adverse impacts of chemicals and waste worldwide will not be achieved by 2020, leading to speculation about the viability of Strategic Approach to International... -
New Jersey Is Making Companies Pay For Toxic Contamination — Shining A New Light On A Little-known Offender
Mar 27, 2019 | The Intercept
By Sharon Lerner
New Jersey laid financial responsibility for dealing with PFAS contamination squarely at the feet of the chemical companies responsible for it. The state’s Department of Environmental Protection issued a directive on Monday... -
We Need To Start Thinking About Paper Receipts In The Same Way As We Do Plastic Straws - Here’s Why
Mar 27, 2019 | Huffington Post
By Matty Cusden-Ross
Plastic straws; they’re everywhere – literally. According to Government research, it is estimated that each year in England alone we use 4.7 billion plastic straws. And not only are they littering our countryside, waterways and oceans... -
Hidden Hormone Disruptors In Beauty Products Might Be Behind Your Bad Skin (And Health)
Mar 27, 2019 | ELLE
By Chloe Burcham
When it comes to trying to be healthy, we’re pretty clued up on what we’re putting into our bodies. We know that junk and processed food is bad for us, and anything that’s been sprayed with pesticides could probably do with a good rinse... -
New Study Links Chemical Sunscreens To Birth Defects
Mar 27, 2019 | Treehugger
By Katherine Martinko
Oxybenzone may be effective at filtering UV light, but it comes at a dangerously high cost to human health. Chemical sunscreens have received a lot of press in recent months, with Hawaii, Palau, Aruba, Bonaire, and now Key... -
Houston Channel Importance Swelled As Oil, Gas Exports Rose
Mar 27, 2019 | Bloomberg (In the Houston Chronicle)
By Ben Foldy
On a normal day, 42 tankers, 19 freighters, 391 barges, 128 ferries and 2 cruise ships will move through the Houston Ship Channel. On any given day, one of those tankers may be as long as 1,500 feet. The last week, though, has been... -
Proposed Colorado Ballot Measure Designed to Repeal Expected Oil, Gas Reform Bill
Mar 27, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Officials in two of Colorado’s largest oil and natural gas producing counties are pushing a ballot measure that would repeal reform legislation on the fast track to the governor’s desk. -
Hundreds File Claims In Wake Of Texas Petrochemical Fire
Mar 27, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
A Houston-area petrochemical storage company that was heavily damaged by fire has received hundreds of compensation claims from residents seeking lost wages and other damages, a company executive said yesterday. -
Despite Recent Victories, New York Natural Gas Pipes Still Facing Fierce Opposition
Mar 27, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Opponents are once again lining up to challenge long-pending natural gas pipelines in New York after the projects scored recent victories at both FERC and in the courts, signaling that an uphill battle is still ahead to get the infrastructure in... -
PHMSA Gives Rio Grande LNG Green Light In Project Review
Mar 27, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Sergio Chapa
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has given Rio Grande LNG the green light in its review of the proposed $15 billion liquefied natural gas export terminal. In a letter of determination made public early Tuesday... -
Appalachian Petrochemical Prospects Abound on Cost-Advantages, IHS Says
Mar 27, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Prospects for a wide variety of chemical manufacturing in the Appalachian Basin are robust as low-cost methane, propane and butane supplies are expected to continue increasing in the coming years, according to a study released... -
New Mexico’s Sweeping Renewables Bill Unlikely to Impact Oil, Gas Ops
Mar 27, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed into law Friday a bill establishing a 100% carbon-free goal for the energy mix in 2045, which aims to transition from coal resources to total reliance on renewable energy sources. -
Wheeler To Face Appropriators in First Hill Test as EPA Head
Mar 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler will face House appropriators April 2 to defend the Trump administration’s fiscal 2020 budget request, which again seeks deep cuts to the agency’s budget and staffing levels. Wheeler will appear... -
Ewire: Democrats Respond To Senate 'Green' Deal Rejection
Mar 27, 2019 | Inside EPA
In the wake of the Senate's unanimous rejection of the Green New Deal (GND) climate resolution – a vote which Democrats protested as a “sham” – the chamber's minority party is now planning to create a special committee on... -
House Foreign Affairs To Hold Climate Change Hearing
Mar 27, 2019 | Politico Pro - Energy Whiteboard
By Anthony Adragna
The House Foreign Affairs committee will hold a hearing April 2 concerning the impacts of climate change on national security, according to a hearing notice. The hearing, entitled "How Climate Change Threatens U.S. National Security,"... -
Republican Proposes Green ‘Manhattan Project’ In Lieu Of Green New Deal
Mar 27, 2019 | Roll Call
By Emily Kopp
As the Senate conducted a vote on the Green New Deal this week, Sen. Lamar Alexander championed a Republican counterproposal that draws on the history of the production of nuclear weapons. The Tennessee Republican proposed... -
Paris Deal Bill Gives House Democrats a Climate Rallying Cry
Mar 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith and Tiffany Stecker
House Democrats are trying to present a united front on climate change, just one day after Republicans in the Senate forced an ultimately unsuccessful vote on the Green New Deal resolution. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)... -
The Energy 202: 'A political game.' 2020 Democrats explain why they didn't vote for Green New Deal
Mar 27, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
All six senators vying against each other for the Democratic nomination for president can at least agree on one thing: The political message for why they would note vote for the Green New Deal resolution. Each of the 2020 candidates... -
Air Pollution Tied to Mental Health Issues in Teenagers
Mar 27, 2019 | New York Times
By Nicholas Bakalar
Urban air pollution is associated with an increased risk for psychotic experiences in teenagers, researchers report. A study published in JAMA Psychiatry included 2,063 British teenagers whose health had been followed from birth...
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 - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Specialty Chemicals Lose Steam in February, Volumes Down
Mar 27, 2019 | Zacks.com (In Nasdaq)
By Anindya Barman
The U.S. specialty chemical industry lost some momentum in February with volumes easing on a monthly comparison basis following gains in the previous two months, according to the latest report from the American Chemistry Council ("ACC").
Per the Washington, DC-based chemical industry trade group, U.S. specialty chemicals market volumes fell 0.1% in February on a monthly comparison basis. This follows a 0.2% gain a month ago and a 0.4% increase in December. The data changes are reported on a three-month moving average basis.
Of the 28 specialty chemical segments monitored by the ACC, just 11 saw growth in February, down from 14 in January and 17 in December. Declines were witnessed across 13 markets while 4 were flat. During the reported month, large market volume growth (1% and over) was witnessed only in mining chemicals.Per the ACC, the overall specialty chemicals volume index went up 4.4% on a year-over-year basis in February. Volumes were driven by year-over-year growth in 19 markets and functional specialty chemical segments. Oilfield chemicals notched up the strongest growth with volumes climbing 15.8%.
Industry Poised to Run Higher in 2019
Specialty chemicals that include catalysts, surfactants, speciality polymers, coating additives and oilfield chemicals are used in specific fields based on their performance. They have application in the manufacturing process of a vast range of products including paints and coatings, cosmetics, petroleum products, inks and plastics.
The specialty chemical industry is set for an upswing in 2019 on healthy demand in end-use markets such as construction, electronics, automotive and agriculture. In particular, the U.S. specialty chemical industry is expected to ride the growth wave this year on the back of higher industrial activities and rising end-market demand.
The ACC envisions growth in construction markets along with gains in manufacturing and exports to drive the specialty chemicals segments. The trade group expects the specialty chemicals segment to see production growth of 2.2% in 2019.
Improvement in oilfield chemicals, electronic chemicals, coatings, adhesives, cosmetic chemicals, and flavors and fragrances are fueling growth in specialty chemicals. The ACC expects demand for specialty chemicals to grow in sync with gains in industrial and construction sectors in the years ahead.
Trade Tariffs Remain a Worry
Specialty chemical companies are bearing the brunt of trade tariffs. Trade tensions between the United States and China have clouded the prospects of the U.S. specialty chemical industry.
Washington and Beijing imposed billions of dollars in punitive tariffs on each others' products last year. China's list of American goods hit with tariffs includes a wide range of chemical products including specialty chemicals. Although recent negotiations between the world's two biggest economies have raised hopes of a possible resolution of the trade tiff, the tariffs currently in place are already doing damage to the industry.
Notably, China is one of the biggest export markets for U.S. chemicals and, thus, leaves the American chemical industry heavily exposed to Beijing's countermeasures. The trade tariffs have created an uncertain demand environment for U.S. chemical products in China. Particularly, the trade friction has led to a slowdown in demand in the automotive market (a major specialty chemical end-use market) in China.
Specialty Chemical Stocks Worth a Wager
A few stocks currently worth considering in the specialty chemical space are Ingevity Corporation NGVT, W. R. Grace & Co. GRA , Israel Chemicals Ltd. ICL and Tronox Limited TROX . Ingevity sports a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy), while W. R. Grace, Israel Chemicals and Tronox each carry a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy). You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank stocks here .
Ingevity has an expected earnings growth of 17.9% for the current year. Earnings estimates for the current year have been revised 2.7% upward over the last 60 days.
W. R. Grace has an expected earnings growth of 10.4% for the current year. Earnings estimates for the current year have been revised 3.2% upward over the last 60 days.
Israel Chemicals has an expected earnings growth of 10.8% for the current year. Earnings estimates for the current year have been revised 5.1% upward over the last 60 days.
Tronox has an expected earnings growth of 50% for the current year. Earnings estimates for the current year have been revised 2.4% upward over the last 60 days.
Today's Best Stocks from Zacks
Would you like to see the updated picks from our best market-beating strategies? From 2017 through 2018, while the S&P 500 gained +15.8%, five of our screens returned +38.0%, +61.3%, +61.6%, +68.1%, and +98.3%.
This outperformance has not just been a recent phenomenon. From 2000 - 2018, while the S&P averaged +4.8% per year, our top strategies averaged up to +56.2% per year.
https://www.nasdaq.com/article/us-specialty-chemicals-lose-steam-in-february-volumes-down-cm1120424
-
(ACC Mentioned) Fighting the Plastic Soup: Solutions for a Less Polluted World
Mar 27, 2019 | Impakter
By Maria Westerbos
One of the many reports regarding the issue of plastic pollution makes the following observation: 93% of the rubbish in low-income countries is dumped in landfills in open air compared to just 2% in high-income countries. Plastic waste that is dumped in open air often blows away. Plastic is an eternal plague in many ways because it does not biodegrade. This report, “What a Waste 2.0”, published in 2018 by the World Bank, also asserts that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by the United Nations in 2015 offer a framework for action. The implicit message to fix the problem is clear: just improve waste management systems in low-income countries.
While none of the 17 SDGs has plastic pollution as a main theme, the relationship between the SDGs and the need to curb plastic pollution is clear. The Plastic Soup Foundation, a UNEP-accredited NGO based in the Netherlands and founded in 2011, has highlighted the relationship between SDG 3 (Health and well-being), SDG 6 (Clean drinking water and good sanitation), SDG 11 (Resilient and sustainable cities), SDG 12 (Sustainable consumption and production), SDG 13 (Stopping climate change), SDG 14 (Protection of the seas and oceans), and SDG 15 (Restore ecosystems and preserve diversity).
One could easily link plastic pollution to other SDGs as well, given that plastic and plastic waste are omnipresent. The diverse negative impacts of plastic on sustainability clearly demonstrate that the world has to deal with a tough and persistent problem.
We believe that the fight against plastic pollution involves three essential, distinct actions: preventing plastic from entering the environment; avoiding health risks; realizing absolute reduction in plastic production.
Framing of the issue
When the United Nations adopted the Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 SDGs in 2015, the fight against plastic pollution was not recognized as a separate SDG. Following “The Honolulu Commitment” of 2011 it was presented as a marine debris problem. Plastic pollution was not yet conceived to compromise freshwater environments, land or human health. In the meantime, however, our insights have increased significantly. For instance, according to German scientists, land-based pollution with micro-plastics is an underestimated threat. The long-term impact of micro-plastics in soil can have all kinds of negative effects on terrestrial ecosystems with an even greater impact than that at sea.
The Stockholm Resilience Centre has indicated nine planetary boundaries for Earth, which includes climate change, loss of biodiversity, ocean acidification, and chemical pollution among others. When these planetary boundaries are exceeded, ecological restoration is almost impossible. Plastic pollution is not yet in this list, but scientists have recently argued that plastic pollution should be considered as one of the planetary boundaries. Environmental plastic is irreversible—it is impossible or unrealistic to clean up, particularly when discussing micro-plastics—and plastic is present everywhere in increasing quantities.
A more difficult aspect of assessment within the framework of the planetary boundaries is to what degree plastic pollution will affect the Earth System, particularly in regard to the irreversible consequences for humans and ecosystems.
In July 2017, the United Nations met to discuss the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 14 (Preserve and make sustainable use of oceans, seas and marine resources). The world adopted the resolution “Our Ocean, our future: call for action”. All countries agreed to “implement long term and robust strategies to reduce the use of plastics and micro-plastics, in particular plastic bags and single use plastics, including by partnering with stakeholders at relevant levels to address their production, marketing and use.”
However, in spite of this promise, reducing the plastic soup on an international scale has not yet been successful. On the contrary—American scientists argue that the expected 40% rise in plastic production in the next decade will risk “near-permanent contamination of the natural environment with plastic waste.” A frequently quoted prediction from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation report “The New Plastics Economy” of January 2016 is that in “a business-as-usual scenario the ocean is expected to contain 1 tonne of plastic for every 3 tonnes of fish by 2025, and by 2050, more plastics than fish (by weight).”
SDG target 14.1 is often referred to when combatting international plastic pollution. It reads: “By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution.”
The wording of this target is misused by global industries to frame the issue in their favor. This strategy entails stressing certain aspects while omitting others, which manipulates and misdirects readers. The emphasis on marine plastic pollution suggests that the problem of plastic pollution can be adequately solved through end-of-pipe initiatives, such as clean-ups, recycling, improvement of waste collection and incineration. Meanwhile, human health risks and the ongoing increase of plastic production are completely ignored.
A clear example of this strategy is the reaction of the World Plastics Council to the resolution adopted by the 3rd United Nations Environment Assembly in December 2017 in Kenya. That resolution called for the strengthening of international governance structures in order to fight plastic pollution. The World Plastics Council, which represents all plastics producers worldwide, instantly responded to the resolution with a press release, welcoming the resolution because of the worldwide consensus that “better waste management” is needed to put an end to plastic pollution. To further its case, the press release refers to a report published in 2015 entitled “Stemming the Tide; Land-Based Strategies for a Plastic-Free Ocean”.
The biggest contribution to the plastic soup originates from five Asian countries (China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand). The report, largely funded by companies such as Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical and The American Chemistry Council who have vested interests, advocates better refuse collection in these countries. The word ‘reduction’ is not even mentioned. The framing of the issue does not end there—the press release concludes by demonstrating how “good” plastics are. They are apparently “valued” for their benefits and environmental performance compared to other materials.
The implicit message of this industry is clear: the world can carry on buying and using plastics with impunity, since these products are “good” for the environment. Waste management is the where the problem truly lies. The responsibility of regulating plastic pollution therefore falls upon governments and consumers, and not upon companies.
Not SDG 14, but SDG 3 and 12
The Plastic Soup Foundation, together with an international coalition of NGOs united in the Break Free From Plastic movement, believe that it is not SDG 14—with its focus on ocean clean-up—that should be the starting point for strengthening international governance in the fight against plastic pollution. The world should instead concentrate on SDG 3 (Health and well-being) and SDG 12 (Sustainable consumption and production) in order to prioritize real solutions that address the problem at its core.
This would compel organisations to confront plastic pollution throughout its entire life cycle. The initial focus would then be to realize an absolute reduction in plastic production in order to avoid and prevent plastic from entering the environment and thereby imposing health risks.
The world must refute the solutions proposed by multinational firms that promise 100% recyclable packaging, which entails using recycled material to replace new plastic and to reduce the amount of plastic per product. These solutions, which are often implemented by national governments when determining policy, simply allow businesses to function as usual, which translates to an unlimited growth of plastic, especially single-use plastic packaging.
In “Plastics Exposed”, a recent study based on a large household brand audit conducted in the Philippines, it was revealed that Nestlé, Unilever and Procter&Gamble—the same multinationals that embrace these misleading solutions—contribute the most to plastic pollution. In the Philippines alone an estimated 118 million pieces of low-value non-recyclable multilayer sachets are used every day.
Another recent example of the industry’s approach is the foundation of the Alliance to End Plastic Waste, in which 27 companies have pledged more than 1 billion dollars to fight plastic pollution. This approach is two-fold: on the one hand, solutions are to be developed for size and treatment of plastic waste, yet on the other hand, reuse and recycling are promoted. The founding companies are among the world’s biggest investors in new plastic production plants. Signatories like Shell and ExxonMobil are actually investing tens of billions of dollars in new plastic production.
SDG 3 – Health and well-being
Countless illnesses are related to plastic. A recent report known as “The Plastic & Health. The hidden costs of a plastic planet” illustrates the severity of accumulated health risks due to the individual phases in the life cycle of plastic. The phases are not only plastic in the environment, but also include: mining and transport of fossil raw materials, refining and production, processing of the raw materials into plastic production pellets, consumer products and packaging, and waste processing. Plastic is posing a health risk worldwide that must be challenged. In order to call attention to the health effects, the Plastic Soup Foundation launched the Plastic Health Coalition. You may read our Position paper on this issue.
SDG 12 – Sustainable consumption and production
Plastic production based on fossil fuel feedstock consumes an estimated 8% of current global oil production. The natural gas boom, especially in the United States, made plastic feedstock cheap and abundant. Ethane, originating from shale gas sources, has become the new feedstock for the petrochemical ethylene, with crackers converting ethane into ethylene. This is then processed into an intermediate product of plastic production pellets, which are used to make a variety of plastic products, including polyethylene (PE), polyvinylchloride (PVC), polystyrene (PS) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET).
This development led to a significant drop in the cost of production of virgin plastic, therefore causing an increase in usage and waste of cheap plastic. Current investments of billions of dollars by major integrated oil companies compromise any international agreement on the reduction of plastic. To conclude, the SDGs do offer a framework for action, but the emphasis should not only be put on SDG 14, but also on SDG 3 and SDG 12 in a more equal manner.
What to do?
“How can we reduce plastic production and its associative harms in the first place?” As explained in a press release by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) in March 2019 at the 4th UNEA, a group of over twenty civil society organizations from the Break Free From Plastic movement will be pushing member states to ask this question, demanding that civil governments attack plastic pollution at its source.
If the fight against plastic pollution had been a separate SDG or an accepted planetary boundary, it would be easier to reach an international agreement. Fortunately, one solution comes in drafting a new global convention in order to prevent both growth in plastic pollution and in harm to human health at all phases of the plastic production cycle.
https://impakter.com/fighting-the-plastic-soup-solutions-for-a-less-polluted-world/
-
EPA Makes Studies on PV29 Publicly Available
Mar 27, 2019 | City-County Observer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the release of 24 studies on Pigment Violet 29 (PV29) used by EPA to develop the draft risk evaluation under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
“We are committed to being transparent with information on chemicals, as we work to develop risk evaluations under TSCA,” said EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Assistant Administrator Alexandra Dapolito Dunn.
The companies that submitted the studies had claimed the documents as confidential business information. Robust summaries of the studies were provided to the public along with the draft risk evaluation on November 15, 2018. Since that time, those companies have revised their confidentiality claims, dropping most of them. Following Agency regulations, EPA has reviewed the remaining claims of confidential business information and determined that the information is entitled to confidential treatment. That information has been redacted from the studies publicly released today.
The release of these studies does not change the Agency’s proposed “no unreasonable risk” determination as concluded in the draft risk evaluation published in November. EPA previously submitted the complete, unredacted versions of the studies to the TSCA Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) to use in their peer review of the draft risk evaluation.
The newly released studies can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/draft-risk-evaluation-pigment-violet-29 and next week will also be in the Supporting Documents folder of docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0604 on www.regulations.gov.
EPA will shortly be announcing the date to reopen the comment period on the draft risk evaluation in light of these newly released studies. The peer review panel on PV 29, canceled due to the lapse in appropriations, is in the process of being rescheduled.
https://city-countyobserver.com/epa-makes-studies-on-pv29-publicly-available/
-
Mar 27, 2019 | American Chemistry Matters
The following blog is a segment of a three part series regarding EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program.
Part I: The Science
For years, scientists have investigated formaldehyde chemistry to help determine appropriate regulatory levels, safe exposure threshold levels, and whether there is any causal link between formaldehyde exposure and cancer. Since the 1990s, published research has consistently demonstrated that safe thresholds for formaldehyde exposure exist. Numerous peer-reviewed studies have been published and submitted to EPA. Moreover, these peer-reviewed studies have not found an association with cancers at environmentally-relevant human exposure levels.
Most recently, research by the University of North Carolina (UNC) clearly identified a scientifically-based safe formaldehyde exposure threshold. This cutting-edge research also confirmed the biological implausibility for formaldehyde to cause leukemia. The UNC research is revolutionary – differentiating between inhaled formaldehyde exposures from the environment and those that the human body is naturally producing. The result: UNC’s research is the most accurate measure supporting that current safe exposure limits are protective of human health.
However, scrutiny of formaldehyde continues, specifically around EPA’s draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment. Chemical assessments should be based on realistic assumptions and the best available scientific information. Unfortunately, the 2010 draft IRIS assessment proposed a value would set an acceptable air concentration that is significantly below levels that naturally occur in the environment and the human body (see figure below).
EPA’s assessments must incorporate and integrate all of the recent, state-of-the-art science that demonstrates an association with leukemia is not biologically plausible and documents safe thresholds for formaldehyde exposure. Several international agencies have used a threshold approach when setting safe exposure levels. For example, in 2010 the World Health Organization (WHO) recognized that a threshold based approach is appropriate for establishing indoor air quality guidelines for formaldehyde. More recently, in 2018, the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES) also recognized a threshold for formaldehyde exposure when establishing its values for safe long-term exposure. WHO has set protective indoor air guidelines for formaldehyde at 80 ppb. Typical household formaldehyde concentration levels are between 16 and 32 ppb.
The public needs to have confidence that EPA will set acceptable levels that are based on relevant, best available science, like that conducted by UNC. Poor-quality science can lead to unwarranted restrictions or product de-selection, unfounded public alarm, and unnecessary costs for consumers and business. The scrutiny should be on the IRIS program’s use of questionable science that can mislead the public about chemical risk.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2019/03/part-i-formaldehyde-the-science-the-truth-and-the-industrys-commitment-to-objective-chemical-assessments/
-
EPA Defends Shifting Staff Between Chemical Risk Efforts
Mar 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
The EPA attempted to justify its decision to shift chemical risk assessment staff toward a program that determines whether chemicals should be restricted, responding to concerns raised March 27 by a House subcommittee leadership.
Under the Integrated Risk Information Program, also known as IRIS, the EPA studies the potential adverse health effects of human exposure to various chemicals and doses at which harm might occur. State and federal regulators combine the resulting health assessments with exposure information to set standards and regulations on air and water pollution, chemicals, and contaminated sites.
The Government Accountability Office found 28 of the agency’s 30 IRIS program staff were directed last October to work instead on the agency’s evaluations for chemicals that may be regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act, Alfredo Gomez, who directs the independent watchdog’s environmental protection work, said at a House Science, Space and Technology Committee subcommittee hearing.
Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas), chair of the committee’s environment subcommittee, asked the EPA to justify shifting those staff members.
An EPA official emphasized that the IRIS staff did that work without being moved to another office, and that they did so in partnership with colleagues working on scientific issues.
“We take a one EPA approach,” Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, principal deputy assistant administrator for science for the EPA’s Office of Research and Development and the EPA’s science adviser, said at the hearing.
Fletcher didn’t pursue the subject, and Gomez and Orme-Zavaleta didn’t provide additional information about the impact of shifting the staff.
“The changes achieve scientific leadership, better integrate scientific approaches to problems, support mission and customer focused solutions to environmental challenges, and create communities of practice within the organization,” a spokeswoman for the EPA said in an email to Bloomberg Environment.
Reorganization Ahead
An internal agency document, obtained by Bloomberg Environment, indicates proposed changes for almost every program under the research and development office.
The reorganization could help Environmental Protection Agency programs collaborate, but also could remove the leader of the center overseeing and supporting the chemical risk assessment program, said Robert Kavlock, former acting assistant administrator of the EPA’s Office of Research and Development.
The agency document indicates no staff would be cut, but Kavlock said there are likely to be fewer directors as a result.
The new structure would put the agency’s IRIS assessment-producing functions, currently part of the National Center for Environmental Assessment, under a newly created Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment. That center also would include the EPA programs that focus on human and ecological health assessments, according to the internal document.
On the EPA’s website, the agency describes the National Center for Environmental Assessment’s placement between research efforts and rulemakers as “critical.”
The Office of Research and Development last was reorganized in 1995, according to the EPA.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-defends-shifting-staff-between-chemical-risk-efforts
-
US Asks EU To Postpone Titanium Dioxide, Cobalt Metal Classifications
Mar 27, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The US has asked the EU to postpone its proposal to classify titanium dioxide and cobalt metal as carcinogens, warning that these moves may be "unnecessarily disruptive to billions of dollars of US-EU trade."
In a statement to the World Trade Organization (WTO) on 21 March, the US called for a clarification on why titanium dioxide, which is labelled as 'low toxicity' in Echa's scientific Opinion, was being classified as a category 2 carcinogen.
It says the US is concerned that products containing the substance, including paints, cosmetics and plastics, will have to be reformulated or labelled as containing a carcinogen.
And it asks if the EU is diverging from the GHS for titanium dioxide and if so why, given that there are "far less trade disruptive alternatives".
The EU draft proposal restricts the classification mainly to mixtures in powder form, based on the argument that titanium dioxide-induced carcinogenicity is only associated with inhalation.
However, a decision on the substance's CLP entry has been delayed several times amid accusations from NGOs that the Commission has diverged from Echa's Risk Assessment Committee (Rac) Opinion for the classification of all forms of the substance.
Industry body the Titanium Dioxide Manufacturers Association (TDMA) has made a strong case against classification, saying that the suspected hazard as described by Rac is not intrinsic to the substance and is unlikely to occur in real-life situations.
It said a Commission expert meeting last April had confirmed this view and concluded that the hazard outlined in Rac's Opinion does not exist in consumer products. TDMA is calling for a different regulatory mechanism for titanium dioxide, such as workplace legislation.
Commission sources have said it is pursuing the classification route and will look for a vote during one of the next REACH Committee meetings.
Cobalt metal
The US notification also raises concerns about the Commission's proposed classification of cobalt metal as a category 1B carcinogen.
Rac adopted an Opinion in 2017 for the harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) for all routes of exposure but, last year, the metals industry asked for more time to address concerns about specific concentration limits.
Echa responded to industry concerns in November, saying it would review the methodology used.
The US statement to the WTO says: "We do not understand why the Commission is rushing towards a restriction on the presence of cobalt in metal compounds." It asks the Commission to "consider delaying" the inclusion of metal compounds in the classification until the necessary testing is completed.
If the restriction goes ahead, it adds, it will affect US exports of medical products and food processing equipment to the EU, since the stainless steel in them contains 2-3% cobalt, which cannot be removed.
It is asking the EU to postpone its vote on both titanium dioxide and cobalt metal.
It has also asked Echa to clarify what products and articles, in addition to the chemicals, will be impacted by the proposed measures.
The US statement also questions the transparency of the EU's notifications to the WTO, saying it was disappointed that the Commission "rushed" to finalise the measure on titanium dioxide without meaningful consideration of WTO member comments.
The Commission's notification received over 400 via the WTO and the EU's Better Regulations consultation, it says, but the Commission met to vote on the draft regulation only four days after the WTO comment period closed.
It is asking the EU to undertake a review of the comments.
https://chemicalwatch.com/75435/us-asks-eu-to-postpone-titanium-dioxide-cobalt-metal-classifications
-
States Draft Legislation Following EPA's PFAS Action Plan
Mar 27, 2019 | National Law Review
By Nessa Horewitch Coppinger and Megan L. Morgan
Shortly after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s February 2019 release of its PFAS Action Plan, many states are following suit with draft legislation and other actions addressing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
California
The California Water Resources Control Board announced that it will not promulgate an MCL for PFAS in the near term and that it will immediately roll out a “PFAS Phased Investigation Plan” to obtain PFAS effluent and drinking water data across the state. Phase I will require source investigation and sampling at airports, landfills, and drinking water. Phase II will cover refineries, bulk terminals, non-airport fire training areas, and 2017-2018 urban wildfire areas. Phase III will cover secondary manufacturers, wastewater treatment plants and pre-treatment plants, and domestic wells.
Massachusetts
A previous article summarizes MassDEP’s January 2019 development of a drinking water maximum contaminant level (MCL) for PFAS. MassDEP will focus on a subset of PFAS compounds – PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFHpA, and PFNA – which it describes as compounds that are a threat to human health, are detectable, and can be treated with available technology. MassDEP also acknowledged a plan to develop reportable concentrations and cleanup standards for PFAS under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan.
Michigan
The Michigan legislature introduced three bills that would regulate PFAS. The first House bill would require fire departments to report the use of firefighting foam to the Department of Environmental Quality. A second House bill would require the promulgation of occupational safety and health rules addressing the use of firefighting foam concentrate containing PFAS in training and equipment calibration, and best practices for proper use, handling and storage of such materials. A third House bill would require firefighters to be trained on these best practices and prohibitions.
Minnesota
The Minnesota House and Senate each introduced bills that would prohibit a person from “manufacturing, knowingly selling, offering for sale, distributing for sale, or distributing for use in Minnesota food packaging to which PFAS have been intentionally added in any amount.”
New Jersey
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection issued a statewide PFAS directive and information request, which announces a notice of proposed rule amendments concerning PFAS that is to be published in the New Jersey Register on April 1, 2019. The notice will propose establishing MCLs and groundwater quality criteria standards for PFAS, and adding PFAS to the List of Hazardous Substances.
Vermont
A Vermont Senate bill passed by the Senate on March 13, 2019 proposes to adopt a MCL for PFAS under the Agency of Natural Resources’ (ANR) Water Supply Rule, and would require interim drinking water testing and monitoring. The bill would also require the adoption of surface water quality standards for PFAS and a statewide investigation of potentials sources of PFAS. The bill’s proposed requirement that the ANR report on the management of landfills of leachate containing contaminants of emerging concern is a step down from its initial language, which would have required landfills to treat leachate for PFAS before delivery to a wastewater treatment facility or discharge to the waters of the State.
Wisconsin
Bills introduced in Assembly and Senate would require the Department of Health Services to establish state health-based groundwater quality standards for PFAS.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/states-draft-legislation-following-epa-s-pfas-action-plan
-
Army Waives Fee Of Nearly $300k For PFAs Testing Records
Mar 27, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Courtney Columbus
The Army has waived a fee of nearly $300,000 to complete an environmental group's Freedom of Information Act request for water testing records related to toxic nonstick chemicals known as PFAS.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances are used in military firefighting foam and a wide range of other industrial and consumer products. Some of the roughly 5,000 chemicals in the PFAS family have been linked to health problems including liver disease and certain cancers.
The Department of Defense has identified 401 installations where known or suspected PFAS releases have occurred.
The Army and the rest of the military "must be part of the solution, not more of the problem," Environmental Working Group legislative attorney Melanie Benesh said in a statement.
"Collecting as much of the data as possible about where and how much PFAS contamination threatens service members, their families and others who live and work near these facilities is paramount to this effort," she added.
In a letter to EWG earlier this month, the Army had said there would be a fee of $290,400 for the records on PFAS water tests at roughly 150 installations (Greenwire, March 21).
In its FOIA request, EWG had asked that the fee be waived. EWG appealed the Army's initial decision not to waive the fee.
The Marine Corps and two Navy offices have also granted fee waivers, EWG said.
The Army did not provide any additional comment.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/03/27/stories/1060130951
-
Feature: Has The Saicm Programme Made Any Difference?
Mar 27, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Caroline Byrne
The UN's GCO-II summary report makes it clear that the goal to minimise adverse impacts of chemicals and waste worldwide will not be achieved by 2020, leading to speculation about the viability of Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management.
The voluntary policy framework was designed to promote global chemical safety, but were Saicm's lofty goals and unachievable timetable part of the problem? The issue was debated during Chemical Watch's Global Business Summit in Brussels, just days ahead of Saicm's third open-ended working group in Montevideo, Uruguay from 2-4 April.
Panelists were asked whether businesses and countries had taken action on chemicals management as a direct result of the programme.
"If I look first at Europe, we’ve changed basically all of the chemicals' legislation we’ve got," Bjorn Hansen, Echa's executive director, said. "A lot of directives have turned into regulations. They’ve become a lot more similar. We’ve modernised pesticides, biocides ... so we’ve done a lot."
While Europe may not be the world leader for change, the EU is on the right track, Mr Hansen added. Internationally, he says the process has shown that there can be global cooperation on a technical level.
"The OECD has shown how one can work in an apolitical way, where we basically all set our politics and legislation aside and say: Where do we have a common interest? Where do we have a common goal?"
"Roll up the sleeves and do it. And if you can do that at the OECD, I think you can do that worldwide," Mr Hansen said.
The US view
The US wants to see Saicm continue, Nancy Beck, deputy assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), said.
"I think it has been a tremendous help and supportive for continuing the flexible approach, just because so many different countries are in different phases of development and have different needs and different problems," Ms Beck told the forum.
The US expects to send two delegates to the Uruguay meeting in April: "We are excited for the opportunities," she added.
But do the EU and US views reflect the worldwide consensus?
The fact remains that the global goal to minimise adverse impacts of chemicals and waste will not be achieved by 2020, one of the objectives under the UN’s voluntary programme set out in Dubai some 14 years ago. And the summary version of the second Global Chemicals Outlook (GCO-II) report said that despite significant action, "scientists continue to express concerns regarding the lack of progress".A developing problem
Nhat Nguyen, Chemical Watch's chief analyst, said it is encouraging to see how governments have been examining these issues in the Asia-Pacific region. "And, if you look to Latin America, you see some activity is starting to carry over there ... Brazil being one such example. But I think this is where I have the ‘glass is half empty’ view."
Governments in developing countries face funding problems and training costs, Mr Nguyen added.The problems are not just in areas involving technology but they are about the local knowledge base.
"It is really about what to do and how to go about it."Doomed to fail?
It is difficult for experts to know how to evaluate the progress of a worldwide initiative, constantly balancing the 'half-full, half-empty glass' experience, while wondering whether Saicm was ever achievable.
One lesson learned is that there were so many items on the Global Plan of Action that the agenda may have been unattainable from the start. There are 273 actionable items listed in UN Environment Programme's Saicm report.
"What we are learning, gradually, is that perhaps some of these action items are more important than others," Achim Halpaap, a senior adviser at Unep, said yesterday.
"We need to go a step further to say: What are the top ten elements that every country should look at as a starting point?"
Countries may have to be much more strategic about Saicm's implementation should the programme continue. That includes working more closely with regional partners and thinking beyond the traditional international institutions to make real and lasting progress.
"It is not just even about writing a regulation but about training and people, the inspectors, the domestic industry, to understand the complexity about what to do," Mr Nguyen said. "Ultimately we want everyone to get there but also to recognise that it may not be possible – in the short term, at least."
Cefic's Erwyn Annys called Saicm "extremely ambitious" because there are so many different levels of progress around the world.
"It is nice to hear Achim (Halpaap) saying that the very first initiatives are taking place in Kenya and Nigeria, but that means we have a continent where, for the moment, nothing is in place," Mr Annys told Chemical Watch in an interview after the roundtable discussion.
"If you take the European Union, where we are light years before the rest of the world, that's where you see that it is becoming really difficult to come up with the kind of general recommendations that can be used in every place in the world."
So is the solution to carry on with Saicm the way it is now, modify it, or create an entirely new programme?
Mr Annys favours continuing with the existing programme but with modifications so developing countries can adopt the less onerous 'buy-ins' options rather than having to immediately tackle the more difficult issues.
What is Sacim?
In 2002, heads of state at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa, called for the development of Saicm.
The policy framework was adopted four years later by the First International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM1) on 6 February 2006 in Dubai. More than 1,000 delegates gathered to promote global chemical safety. Saicm's objectives encompass five themes: risk reduction ;knowledge and information; governance; capacity-building and technical cooperation; and illegal international traffic.
The voluntary programme aims to achieve the sound management of chemicals throughout their lifecycle so that, by 2020, chemicals are produced and utilised in ways that minimise significant adverse impacts on the environment and human health. The UN, however, has said the goal will not be achieved next year.
Saicm is administered by the UN Environment Programme (Unep) and engages relevant stakeholders such as the World Health Organization (WHO), governments, and intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations.
ICCM reviews and govern's Saicm's operations.
The UN summary report, released in March, was not the first indication that the programme's goals would not be achieved by 2020.
By 2015, at a meeting in Geneva two things were becoming apparent, Mr Halpaap told delegates at Chemical Watch's Global Business Summit.
First, the international community realised that there would probably be a need to go beyond 2020. Second, they could already foresee that some of the original intentions had not been achieved.
"This wide, multi-sectoral engagement that was anticipated didn't really take place," Mr Halpaap told the meeting in Brussels yesterday. "Also some of the multilateral treaties that were to be included in the 2002 decision were not really fully engaged in the strategic discussions."
https://chemicalwatch.com/75211/feature-has-the-saicm-programme-made-any-difference
-
Mar 27, 2019 | The Intercept
By Sharon Lerner
New Jersey laid financial responsibility for dealing with PFAS contamination squarely at the feet of the chemical companies responsible for it. The state’s Department of Environmental Protection issued a directive on Monday ordering five companies to pay the costs of dealing with the toxic chemicals that have been associated with numerous health problems, including cancer. The companies include 3M, which created both PFOA and PFOS; DuPont, the chemical giant that used PFOA to make Teflon since the 1950s at the now massively contaminated plant Chambers Works; and DuPont’s spinoff, Chemours.
Monitoring, research, and cleanup of the chemicals, which the state has already begun, is likely to ultimately total “hundreds of millions of dollars,” according to the order.The hefty price tag reflects the state’s serious PFAS problem. New Jersey is thought to be one of the states most contaminated with these chemicals.
The hefty price tag reflects the state’s serious PFAS problem. New Jersey is thought to be one of the states most contaminated with these chemicals. Seventy percent of drinking water samples taken from 20 of New Jersey’s 21 counties contained at least one compound from the class of chemicals, according to research done in 2009 and 2010. And, last year, another state study showed that all surface water samples taken from 11 waterways and ecosystems around New Jersey contained PFAS. All the fish found there contained the chemicals as well. The state is also home to military bases that have been contaminated by firefighting foam, as well as several industrially polluted sites.
The order also announced the state’s intention to propose the lowest drinking water limits in the country for both PFOS and PFOA on April 1.
New Jersey, which has led the country in setting stringent safety levels for PFAS chemicals, is the first state in the U.S. to use these numbers to force cleanup costs onto the two mammoth companies.
But the state’s order also shines a light on a company that is not a household name: Solvay. A division of a Belgian chemical company, Solvay Specialty Polymers USA began producing a compound known as PFNA in West Deptford, New Jersey, in 1990.
THE LARGELY UNTOLD story of PFNA, which Solvay used to make specialty plastic for semi-conductors and lithium batteries, parallels that of PFOA in several important ways. Like DuPont’s notorious chemical, PFNA was found to persist indefinitely in nature and harm pregnant mice and their developing offspring in lab experiments. Also like DuPont’s PFOA, PFNA also got into the air and water near the plant where it was used. A 2015 report Solvay submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency showed that more than 100 water samples around its plant contained PFNA. According to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s order, 83 wells around the site are now contaminated with PFNA and PFOA. And, like PFOA, the chemical at the Solvay plant was also accumulating in the blood of workers, according to a report filed with the EPA in 2004.
There is another unfortunate parallel between the two PFAS chemicals. Like the residents of Parkersburg, West Virginia, who had PFOA from a nearby DuPont plant in their bodies for years, the people of West Deptford, too, wound up being unwitting receptacles of a substance produced by their local chemical factory. In 2015, Solvay submitted a document to the EPA showing that the blood of seven people living near the plant had very elevated levels of PFNA. In one case, the level was 63 times the national average. Research has also shown that the chemical can be passed to infants through breast milk.
According to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection order, Solvay, like DuPont, also knew about the contamination around its plant and kept it secret. “Solvay knew that it was discharging large amounts of PFNA into the environment from their West Deptford, New Jersey facility as least as early as 1991,” the order stated.
The revelation stunned local advocates. “It’s unconscionable that Solvay knew about the pollution and never disclosed it,” said Tracy Carluccio, deputy director of Delaware Riverkeeper Network, who has been working to address PFAS contamination in New Jersey since 2005. “People were exposed for years to a toxic substance without even knowing it.” Carluccio learned of PFNA in 2013 when she filed an open records request for water testing done in New Jersey and saw the chemical listed but didn’t realize the company had known of the pollution more than two decades earlier.
Solvay did not respond to multiple calls and emails seeking comment for this story.
Like DuPont and six other companies that made or used PFAS chemicals. Solvay had agreed to phase out PFNA as part of a voluntary deal with the EPA struck in 2006, in which eight companies promised to stop using and making PFAS compounds that were based on chains of eight carbons or more. (PFOA is based on an eight-carbon chain; PFNA has nine carbons.) These relatively “long-chain” chemicals are thought to take longer to clear from the human body. According to documents the company submitted to the EPA, Solvay stopped using the chemical in 2010.
RATHER THAN STOPPING its use of PFAS compounds altogether, Solvay replaced PFNA with another toxic chemical in the same family. As with DuPont’s replacement for PFOA, GenX, which has been found in water in North Carolina, West Virginia, Italy, and Holland, the product Solvay introduced to solve environmental problems also wound up causing more contamination. According to the Department of Environmental Protection’s order, Chemours is still using both GenX and a related replacement chemical, HFPO-DA, at the Chambers Works plant. And HFPO-DA is now in New Jersey’s air and water.
Solvay’s substitute for PFNA has also spread beyond its plant. “Solvay’s Compound” — as New Jersey refers to the otherwise nameless chemical — “has been identified in environmental matrices in New Jersey’s Salem and Gloucester counties,” according to the state order.
Despite the 2006 agreement to limit the production and use of PFAS to compounds based on chains of seven or fewer compounds, Solvay’s replacement for PFNA inexplicably contains perfluorinated chemicals based on more than seven carbons, according to comments New Jersey submitted to the EPA in January.
The EPA did not immediately respond to questions about why it approved a replacement for PFNA based on more than seven carbons after it brokered a phase-out of such compounds.
Last year, New Jersey became the first state to regulate PFNA, adding the compound to its list of hazardous chemicals and setting a maximum level of the contaminant allowed in drinking water at 13 parts-per-trillion. The state had been using that number to find, treat, and remove PFNA from around the Solvay plant.
The New Jersey order gave Solvay 30 days to reimburse the state for the more than $3 million this work has already cost the state. The company has an additional 60 days to take over the treatment systems the state has already installed to deal with PFNA contamination from its site.
New Jersey has also tasked Solvay and the other companies named in the order with identifying not just all the PFOA, PFOS, and PFNA they ever manufactured, supplied, transported, stored, used, disposed of, and discharged in the state, but also giving the agency a complete accounting of any PFAS chemicals the companies used to replace them.
If they comply, the order, which ends with an address to which the chemical companies can send their checks, will mark the beginning of the end of an era. In the absence of federal regulations, citizens have up until this point been shouldering the enormous burden of PFAS contamination.
“States are taking actions to protect their citizens and can’t wait for the federal government to act,” said Rob Bilott, the lawyer who has been involved in battles over PFAS since he took on the first case over PFOA almost 20 years ago. “Taxpayers should not be forced to incur these costs.”
https://theintercept.com/2019/03/27/new-jersey-pfas-contamination/
-
We Need To Start Thinking About Paper Receipts In The Same Way As We Do Plastic Straws - Here’s Why
Mar 27, 2019 | Huffington Post
By Matty Cusden-Ross
Plastic straws; they’re everywhere – literally.
According to Government research, it is estimated that each year in England alone we use 4.7 billion plastic straws.
And not only are they littering our countryside, waterways and oceans, these straws are all over our news outlets and social media feeds, too.
Of course, the latter is no bad thing.
Finally, we are waking up to the disastrous consequences of our addiction to single-use items, which take hundreds of years to break down. In October last year, the Government set out its plan to ban the distribution and sale of plastic straws (along with plastic drink stirrers and cotton buds, too).
Meanwhile many multinational restaurant and cafe chains have pledged to ditch their plastic straws, and campaigns such as The Last Plastic Straw and #stopsucking continue to build momentum.
All of these movements are incredibly important. They help all of us feel empowered to make small changes to our habits for the good of the environment. And the good news is that straws are something we can all give up fairly easily, without it being to the detriment of our lifestyle.
But there’s more to plastic waste than straws.
Let’s think about other, equally ubiquitous but perhaps more ‘hidden’, plastics: receipts.
The thing is – in very basic terms – everyone understands that plastic is bad, but no one has realised that the same chemicals used in single-use plastics (like straws) are also used in receipts.
This is because receipts are printed on shiny thermal paper, which contains Bisphenol A (BPA) or Bisphenol S (BPS). These chemicals are endocrine disruptors and have been classified by the EU as toxic to humans and to the environment.
Furthermore, of 11.2 billion receipts that are printed each year in the UK, 9.9 million are left unused. And the majority will not be able to be recycled because of the risk of transferring these chemicals into other recycled products.
When you consider not only the sheer scale of waste associated with unused receipts, but also the millions of trees, barrels of oil and litres of water that are required to print them, the environmental impact is clear.
So why do so few people care?
Perhaps it’s that, with receipts, the problem is harder to visualise. Unlike plastic straws, there isn’t specific footage to press our emotional buttons and put receipts on the radar, there isn’t a viral film of sea turtles choking on receipts or stories of whales with stomachs full of them.
Perhaps it is simply that receipts are so omnipresent in our lives, lingering in coat pockets, stuffed into wallets, piled up on kitchen worktops, that we don’t even notice they are there any more.
Whatever the reason, we need to start caring about receipts in the same way we have started caring about straws. Because right now, no one does.
The number of receipts wasted each year in the UK alone comes to the equivalent of 53,000 trees. That’s almost as many trees as Sherwood Forest – and more than all of London’s Royal Parks.
Faced with figures like this, the problem can feel overwhelming. But there are small steps you can start taking today, and the good news is it’s not actually that hard.
Only ask retailers for a receipt when you know that you’ll need one. And, if you must have a receipt, think about digital alternatives.
Several UK retailers are already looking at how they can use technology to come up with smarter, more efficient and more environmentally friendly options to the traditional paper receipt. Some give you the option to send your receipt via email. Others use partners to send digital receipts through your banking app.
Educate yourself about the options available, and remember that the responsibility lies not only with the retailer, but with anyone who shops (and I’m pretty sure that’s all of us).
Because even though they perhaps don’t get their fair share of the ‘bad plastic’ spotlight, paper receipts suck just as much as straws.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/paper-receipts-plastic-straws_uk_5c9a1925e4b07435554a6124?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKowQikRdqF93jhYYnBwiqSRfNeZN99fYEhjwlsNsuO2ug2rFJrwOQFY0_-GnaiYTVUeVtLnrAzvgQgBUXryb3G9ODjjEUf3ITCfmvUeX9gd9rS9Viephlg-XFPksQG5oP6E0wViV1Kyk4ZIKIQ2zs3VBmXxcdqQ83ZcpLXgKNRA
-
Hidden Hormone Disruptors In Beauty Products Might Be Behind Your Bad Skin (And Health)
Mar 27, 2019 | ELLE
By Chloe Burcham
When it comes to trying to be healthy, we’re pretty clued up on what we’re putting into our bodies. We know that junk and processed food is bad for us, and anything that’s been sprayed with pesticides could probably do with a good rinse before we eat it. But do you know the real effects of what you’re putting on your body? Turns out, our favourite everyday beauty products might be secretly packed with ingredients that are actually wreaking havoc with our hormones.
Your endocrine system i.e. the system in which all of your hormones are secreted into the blood, is affected by everyday toxins and pollutants. These pollutants trick our hormones into acting in different ways than they’re naturally supposed to behave— and so they’re called ‘endocrine disruptors’. These changes to your hormones can cause anything from irregular periods, hormonal breakouts and (in very extreme cases) birth defects, illnesses and cancer. Yikes.
'We’re exposed to over 80,000 toxins, circulating in our environment every day,' says nutritionist and hormonal health expert Angelique Panagos. 'There is growing evidence that pesticides, bisphenol A (BPA), phthalates and other chemicals act as endocrine disruptors, meaning they interfere with the body’s carefully regulated hormonal system and they artificially increase the levels of hormones in the body, or impede their proper and essential breakdown.'
Of course, exposure to these everyday hormone disruptors aren’t going to cause our bodies any major harm in the short term. 'Certain chemicals such as dioxins, parabens and BPAs which have been clinically shown to interfere with the hormonal system are banned in the beauty industry and/or widely avoided by responsible companies,' explains Mark Curry, co-founder of The Inkey List.
But, many endocrine disruptors can still be found in our every day products, and might want to be avoided— or cut down on— especially if you’re pregnant, or breastfeeding.
'Almost anything can be a hormone disruptor,' says wellness and skin health expert Marie Reynolds. 'The water you drink, toothpaste, food with pesticides or preservatives, shampoo, skincare, make-up, hair dye, tooth fillings, pollution, plastics and medication are all, to some extent, endocrine disruptors.'ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW
But, short of living in a glass box, it can be hard to avoid them completely. And of course, some are worse than others. 'If we’re looking at hardcore hormone disruptors then recreational drugs and smoking are definitely the worst offenders,' says Marie. 'If you think how many chemicals one cigarette alone contains, it’s not surprising that they’re so bad for us.'
But there are ways in which you can cut down on the every day ingredients that might affect our hormones, with just some small tweaks.
'I personally avoid parabens and phthalates in skincare and use mineral make-up where possible. I eat organic and do not drink tap water at all. The thing is to not over obsess but try to eliminate what you can. Making small mindful changes every day will make a difference,' says Marie.
How To Shop For Happy Hormones
1.Avoid parabens in beauty products
Parabens are a controversial ingredient and can be found in many every day beauty products. They’re used as a type of preservative, to prolong shelf life, but are widely believed to disrupt hormone function by mimicking oestrogen.
Too much oestrogen can trigger cell division and the growth of tumours, which is why paraben use has been previously linked to breast cancer and reproductive issues.
Of course, the actual percentage of parabens in our beauty products is tiny— but something that many people choose to avoid.
2. Ditch plastic packaging
It’s hard, but try to ditch plastic packaging where possible. This means food packaging, water bottles and beauty products. Look out for glass, cardboard or plastic-free alternatives. You’ll be doing your body, and the environment, a favour.
3. Avoid synthetic fragrances
Studies have shown phthalates and synthetic fragrances to have adverse effects on the male reproductive system and thyroid irregularities. Instead, look for natural perfumes made from essential oils and botanical ingredients.
Where To Shop Toxic-Free Beauty
If you’re unsure which beauty products are free from hormone disruptors, then a good place to start is by shopping at a ‘clean’ beauty retailer. Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop.com now ships to the UK and stocks tonnes of toxic-free beauty brands.
PureSkinLab.com is a non-stop beauty shop stocking beauty, cleaning and home products that do not contain any harsh chemicals or parabens.
FreePeople’s beauty and wellness section offers a great variety of natural beauty products and you can always rely on The Organic Pharmacy for an edited selection of organic beauty.
https://www.elle.com/uk/beauty/skin/a26957334/hormone-disruptors-skincare/
-
New Study Links Chemical Sunscreens To Birth Defects
Mar 27, 2019 | Treehugger
By Katherine Martinko
Oxybenzone may be effective at filtering UV light, but it comes at a dangerously high cost to human health.
Chemical sunscreens have received a lot of press in recent months, with Hawaii, Palau, Aruba, Bonaire, and now Key West all banning their sale and use. There is growing concern over the toxicity of chemicals used in the formulas, primarily oxybenzone and octinoxate, and the harm they cause both to human and marine health.
These chemicals are used by sunscreen manufacturers to filter and absorb UV light, block out the sun's radiation, and extend the amount of time a person can spend in the sun; but in February 2019 the Food and Drug Administration delisted oxybenzone and 13 other petroleum-based UV sunscreen chemicals from being 'generally recognized as safe and effective.'
Haereticus Environmental Laboratory in Virginia has been a leading force in the research into chemical sunscreen's toxicity. Researchers from the laboratory have just published a study in the journal Reproductive Toxicology indicating a link between oxybenzone exposure and the formation of birth defects during the first trimester of pregnancy – specifically, a defect called Hirschsprung’s Disease. The following graphic explains more:
The study authors strongly urge pregnant women to avoid using sunscreen products with oxybenzone in their first trimester, as well as women trying to conceive, since oxybenzone is a fat-soluble chemical that can linger in the body for weeks. Joe DiNardo, one of the study co-authors, said,
"A pregnant woman who follows the instructions for the recommended use of sunscreen products containing 6% oxybenzone (two 1-ounce application of sunscreen) could have concentrations of oxybenzone and fetal blood levels reach as high as 3,800 part per billion in the woman, and 384 parts per billion in the fetus. These concentrations of oxybenzone can potentially cause these toxic cellular changes, and give rise to Hirschsprung’s Disease."
A second paper, also published this week by the scientists at Haereticus, reveals the dangers of applying chemical sunscreens to children under the age of 5. A review of 169 sunscreen products labeled as safe for use on babies and children found unsafe levels of six common chemical UV absorbers – all of which are known endocrine-disrupting chemicals – when applied according to manufacturers' recommendations.
In an email to TreeHugger, researcher Craig Downs said that oxybenzone is a risk even when not applied directly.
"Oxybenzone that is contaminating swimming pools and beaches can be absorbed directly into the skin of pregnant women and children, increasing their exposure to oxybenzone and the risk associated with that exposure. I won’t let my own children get into public swimming pools or many beaches because the levels of oxybenzone and octocrylene can be dangerously high."
It is clear that we should not be using chemical sunscreens, and that physical sunblocks with minerals such as zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are a much safer choice. Fortunately there are a growing number of these on the market – and even some that won't make you look like Snow White. Check the EWG's guide to safe sunscreens for more info.
Better yet is the use of UV-blocking clothing, which Downs says should be the first line of protection against the sun. "UPF clothing is sunscreen that doesn’t wash off, has fantastic broad-spectrum UV protection, and can make the same marketing claims as sunscreens."
https://www.treehugger.com/health/new-study-links-chemical-sunscreens-birth-defects.html
-
Houston Channel Importance Swelled As Oil, Gas Exports Rose
Mar 27, 2019 | Bloomberg (In the Houston Chronicle)
By Ben Foldy
On a normal day, 42 tankers, 19 freighters, 391 barges, 128 ferries and 2 cruise ships will move through the Houston Ship Channel. On any given day, one of those tankers may be as long as 1,500 feet.
The last week, though, has been anything but normal.
The second busiest U.S. port by tonnage was closed for three days by a cloud of cancer-causing benzene and toxic runoff that’s settled on the water from nearby chemical fires. It’s not the first time the channel has closed. Fog and hurricanes have shut it in the past. But the channel’s significance has grown almost daily as drillers in the shale fields of Texas have made the region one of the world’s fastest growing exporters of oil, gasoline and diesel.
In the past few days, about 60 ocean-going ships were unable to move either into or out of the region’s most important business artery, supporting roughly 12 percent of the nation’s refining capacity. But it’s not only the number of ships that makes the 1,000-foot-wide channel unique, or important. It’s also the size.
In the past year, because of the 45-foot depth at its center line, the channel has seen its first visits by new Panamax ships, named to reflect the fact that their 1,200-foot lengths can only be accommodated by the new larger lock on the Panama Canal, and by so-called Very Large Crude Carriers, or VLCCs, tankers able to carry 2 million barrels of crude.
“The channel isn’t getting any larger, but the ships are,” said Chris Hebert, a meteorologist who tracks the Gulf’s hurricane and fog seasons for StormGeo, a weather service used by the Houston Pilots Association.
The channel was partially opened on March 25 while the clean-up continues. Pilots have been ordered by the U.S. Coast Guard to stay at least 30 minutes apart so each vessel can be inspected to ensure it’s not dragging oily residue through the water.
Life and work across Houston’s eastern suburbs have been disrupted since Intercontinental Terminals Co.’s chemical storage facility erupted in flames 10 days ago. After the fires were out, nearby residents and companies were menaced by benzene leaks and a wall collapse that allowed toxic fluids to stream into the ship channel.
‘Texas Chicken’
Even in good times, navigating the waterway can be challenging. Pilots passing one another perform a maneuver called the “Texas chicken” which requires setting a near head-on course, then swinging their bows away from each other before using the cushion provided by the other ship’s wake to swing their sterns out and come back to the center of the channel--all while avoiding any barges in the outside lanes.
The maneuver requires a deft touch, as the giant ships displace huge quantities of water that can seriously affect handling.
These factors were partially to blame for one of the last major shipping incidents on the channel when, in 2015, an inbound bulk carrier, the 623-foot Conti Peridot, lost control and collided with the 600-foot Carla Maersk, an outbound tanker. No one was injured, but 2,100 barrels of methyl tertiary-butyl ether spilled into the water, closing the channel for three days.
The waterway was expanded in a decade-long project completed in 2005. Ships now transit the channel through a 530-foot wide center lane, flanked on both sides by 235-foot wide lanes for barges and tow vessels. The ship lane was dredged five feet deeper to 45 feet.
Safety Margins
“Anyone who thought we were getting increased safety margins out of that didn’t quite understand the nature of maritime traffic,” said Steven Nerheim, the retired Navy captain now directing the Coast Guard’s Vessel Traffic Service for Houston-Galveston. “What it got us was bigger ships.”
Restoring order after after a closure is a complex logistical feat for the port’s stakeholders, according to Nerheim. “We prioritize and open the valve slowly so that it doesn’t look like the Oklahoma land rush,” he said in a telephone interview.
“We’re always working to find a combination of mitigation strategies to continue moving an ever larger number of ever larger ships in a ship channel that’s not growing,” Nerheim said. “Even if we started digging tomorrow to widen it, it would take years to get it done. So my hope is that we start digging tomorrow because the traffic is here.”
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Houston-Channel-s-Importance-Has-Swelled-as-Crude-13719862.php?cmpid=ffcp
-
Proposed Colorado Ballot Measure Designed to Repeal Expected Oil, Gas Reform Bill
Mar 27, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Officials in two of Colorado’s largest oil and natural gas producing counties are pushing a ballot measure that would repeal reform legislation on the fast track to the governor’s desk.
Subscription required for full text.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/117846-proposed-colorado-ballot-measure-designed-to-repeal-expected-oil-gas-reform-bill
-
Hundreds File Claims In Wake Of Texas Petrochemical Fire
Mar 27, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
A Houston-area petrochemical storage company that was heavily damaged by fire has received hundreds of compensation claims from residents seeking lost wages and other damages, a company executive said yesterday.
Brent Weber, a senior vice president for Intercontinental Terminals Co., told reporters that about 2,000 people have called an ITC claims hotline and another 300 submitted claims in writing. He didn't specify how many callers to the hotline made a formal claim.
Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Caren Damon said a portion of the Houston Ship Channel remained closed yesterday but that ships have navigated the restricted portion of the channel without a gas component tainting their hulls. She did not say when all of the commercial waterway will be reopened, explaining that the "channel will reopen when there's no visible product still in the water."
The Deer Park facility caught fire March 17 and burned for days, sending waves of thick, black smoke thousands of feet into the air. Schools and roads were closed, and gasoline and other materials seeped into nearby waters. Air monitors last Thursday detected elevated levels of benzene in the air, prompting public officials to order people living in the area to remain indoors.
The next day, a dike failed adjacent to the tank farm, allowing flammable chemicals to seep into nearby bayous and then into the ship channel. The tanks at ITC contained components of gasoline and materials used in nail polish remover, glues and paint thinner.
Harris County commissioners yesterday, in their first meeting since the fire, said they'll hold ITC accountable for the hazards unleashed by the blaze. They gave approvals for the county to sue ITC.
Seven people who live near the storage facility earlier filed what was believed to be the first civil lawsuit against ITC over the fire. The suit was filed in state district court in Houston. The residents are asking for at least $1 million in damages, accusing ITC of negligence. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) filed a lawsuit against ITC on Friday and said the state must hold the company "accountable for the damage it has done to our environment."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/03/27/stories/1060130901
-
Despite Recent Victories, New York Natural Gas Pipes Still Facing Fierce Opposition
Mar 27, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Opponents are once again lining up to challenge long-pending natural gas pipelines in New York after the projects scored recent victories at both FERC and in the courts, signaling that an uphill battle is still ahead to get the infrastructure in service after years of delays.
Subscription required for full text.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/117843-despite-recent-victories-new-york-natural-gas-pipes-still-facing-fierce-opposition
-
PHMSA Gives Rio Grande LNG Green Light In Project Review
Mar 27, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Sergio Chapa
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has given Rio Grande LNG the green light in its review of the proposed $15 billion liquefied natural gas export terminal.
In a letter of determination made public early Tuesday morning, PHMSA Deputy Associate Administrator Massoud Tahamtani wrote that the proposed project complies with federal pipeline safety standards.
Among other safety features, Tahamtani noted that the proposed LNG facility is being designed to withstand winds up to 150 miles per hour.
PHMSA's review will be used by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to determine if the facility will receive a permit to begin for construction for six production units that will be able to make more than 16 million metric tons of LNG per year.
A final permit decision by FERC is expected in July.
Rio Grande LNG is one of two proposed export terminals being developed by NextDecade Corp. The Houston company is also seeking state and federal approval to build the Galveston Bay LNG export terminal in Texas City.
However, as one of three LNG export terminal proposed to be built at the Port of Brownsville, Rio Grande LNG and the supporting Rio Bravo Pipeline face stiff opposition from a coalition of shimpers, fishermen, environmentalists, neighbors and communities working under the banner Save RGV From LNG.
Rio Grande LNG and the Rio Bravo Pipeline have nonetheless taken some steps forward. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality issued state permits for the two projects in December. Earlier this month, NextDecade entered into a 30-year lease to develop the project on 984 acres of land along the north shore of the Brownsville Ship Channel.
If approved by federal regulators, NextDecade is expecting to make a final investment decision on the project during the third quarter. The liquefied natural gas export terminal and pipeline are expected to result in more than $15 billion of private investment and create more than 5,000 construction jobs.
Founded in 2010 and headquartered in downtown Houston, NextDecade employs 36 people and 11 contractors. The company reported closing 2018 with a $43.5 million loss and no revenue.
With no plants or facilities in operation, NextDecade has thus far, been funded by investors – similar to other LNG companies waiting on permit decisions. A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission show that the Houston company is still in the black with at least $3.2 million cash on hand and another $72 million in a highly liquid short-term cash management fund.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/PHMSA-gives-Rio-Grande-LNG-green-light-in-project-13720157.php?cmpid=ffcp
-
Appalachian Petrochemical Prospects Abound on Cost-Advantages, IHS Says
Mar 27, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Prospects for a wide variety of chemical manufacturing in the Appalachian Basin are robust as low-cost methane, propane and butane supplies are expected to continue increasing in the coming years, according to a study released last week by IHS Markit.
Subscription required for full text.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/117838-appalachian-petrochemical-prospects-abound-on-cost-advantages-ihs-says
-
New Mexico’s Sweeping Renewables Bill Unlikely to Impact Oil, Gas Ops
Mar 27, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed into law Friday a bill establishing a 100% carbon-free goal for the energy mix in 2045, which aims to transition from coal resources to total reliance on renewable energy sources.
Subscription required for full text.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/117845-new-mexicos-sweeping-renewables-bill-unlikely-to-impact-oil-gas-ops
-
Wheeler To Face Appropriators in First Hill Test as EPA Head
Mar 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler will face House appropriators April 2 to defend the Trump administration’s fiscal 2020 budget request, which again seeks deep cuts to the agency’s budget and staffing levels.
Wheeler will appear before the House Appropriations subcommittee for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, the committee confirmed March 27.
The hearing will be Wheeler’s first Hill test since he was formally confirmed to the Environmental Protection Agency’s top slot in February. Wheeler last testified before Congress in January, when he was acting agency head, during his confirmation hearing for the job.
The Trump White House is proposing to slash the EPA’s budget by around $2 billion—including eliminating many voluntary climate programs and requesting large reductions in the EPA’s grant programs that help state and local regulators implement federal environmental protections.
The request is consistent with previous Trump administration proposals.
Wheeler is likely to face scrutiny over those proposed cuts from appropriators on both sides of the aisle. Congress hasn’t matched the Trump administration’s requested steep cut to the EPA in prior years, even when both chambers were controlled by Republicans.
It isn’t clear whether Wheeler will publicly back all of the Trump administration’s proposed cuts, but he recently defended the 2020 budget request’s proposal to cut nearly 2,000 EPA jobs.
He told Bloomberg Environment March 25 the agency under a reduced staff would work more closely with states to implement environmental protections.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/wheeler-to-face-appropriators-in-first-hill-test-as-epa-head
-
Ewire: Democrats Respond To Senate 'Green' Deal Rejection
Mar 27, 2019 | Inside EPA
In the wake of the Senate's unanimous rejection of the Green New Deal (GND) climate resolution – a vote which Democrats protested as a “sham” – the chamber's minority party is now planning to create a special committee on climate in part to highlight “Republicans refusal to take action” on the issue.
Meanwhile, one Democratic presidential candidate is breaking from his primary contenders to explicitly criticize the GND, with former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) charging that the resolution sets “unachievable goals,” citing provisions in the resolution that both critics and some supporters have interpreted to require “net zero” carbon emissions in a decade.
Hickenlooper's op-ed in the Washington Post argues that climate change is the “defining challenge of our time,” but that the GND “sets us up for failure because it fails to harness the power of markets to cut greenhouse gases.
Democrats on the Hill, however, are striving to remain united on climate issues and instead focus attention on Republicans' refusal to support any carbon controls.
Ahead of the March 26 vote – in which four Democrats joined the entire GOP caucus to reject the measure while the remaining 43 Democrats voted “present” – GND sponsor Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) said that GOP lawmakers “continue to ignore climate change at their political peril. They will pay a price at the ballot box in 2020.”
Now, Democrats are scheduled to unveil a partisan Special Committee on Climate Change, charging that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has refused to allow for a vote on a resolution creating a bipartisan panel.
The Democrats' committee will be chaired by Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI), and several of the party's biggest climate hawks will be at a March 27 press conference to discuss the new panel, as well as Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
“The creation of this new committee is one of many steps Democrats are taking to remain on the offense and highlight the economic and human cost of inaction on climate change,” Schumer's office said in a press release.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-democrats-respond-senate-green-deal-rejection
-
House Foreign Affairs To Hold Climate Change Hearing
Mar 27, 2019 | Politico Pro - Energy Whiteboard
By Anthony Adragna
The House Foreign Affairs committee will hold a hearing April 2 concerning the impacts of climate change on national security, according to a hearing notice.
The hearing, entitled "How Climate Change Threatens U.S. National Security," will feature testimony from Dennis McGinn, former assistant secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations and Environment, and Sherri Goodman, former deputy undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security.
It comes after the Defense Department report released in January warned that climate change posed threats to 74 of 79 of the military installations it studied.
WHAT'S NEXT: The hearing is scheduled for April 2 at 10 a.m. in Rayburn 2172.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard/2019/03/house-foreign-affairs-to-hold-climate-change-hearing-2949895
-
Republican Proposes Green ‘Manhattan Project’ In Lieu Of Green New Deal
Mar 27, 2019 | Roll Call
By Emily Kopp
As the Senate conducted a vote on the Green New Deal this week, Sen. Lamar Alexander championed a Republican counterproposal that draws on the history of the production of nuclear weapons.
The Tennessee Republican proposed the “New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy” this week, borrowing branding from the secret government project to build atomic bombs.
Alexander, who will not run for re-election in 2020, broke with Republican ranks to acknowledge the urgency of action on climate change, but also sought to divert responsibility from U.S. energy production to foreign countries.
“It will strengthen our economy. It will raise family incomes. This strategy also recognizes that when it comes to climate change, China, India and other developing countries are the problem. American innovation is the answer,” Alexander said in a floor speech Monday.
While Alexander has not yet put forward bill text, he outlined the proposal’s broad goals — which he calls the “Ten Grand Challenges” — in a Fox News editorial.
Alexander placed an emphasis on nuclear energy.
“Within the next five years, we need to build one or more advanced reactors to demonstrate the capabilities they may bring — lower cost, increased safety and less nuclear waste,” he wrote.
Alexander’s proposal comes against the backdrop of a vote on the Green New Deal Tuesday.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced the Green New Deal resolution in the Republican-controlled Senate in a gambit to test Democrats’ dedication to the ambitious plan outlined by Democrats Sen. Ed Markey, of Massachusetts, and New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Democrats voted “present” on the cloture vote, allowing Senators to skirt what they considered a sham vote on the progressive policy. But they criticized Republicans for not advancing their own solutions to climate change.
While the Green New Deal proposes a transformation of the economy in order to phase out fossil fuels completely, the Manhattan Project states a vaguer goal of forging “a path toward dealing with climate change, and at the same time produce large amounts of reliable, clean energy that lifts family incomes in our country and around the world.”
Like the Green New Deal, Alexander’s proposal cites a historical precedent for large-scale industrial investment. But, unlike the New Deal, the Manhattan Project investment was made towards weapons that killed and wounded nearly a quarter-million Japanese people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Alexander acknowledged that he formulated the idea in response to the momentum gathering behind the Green New Deal in an interview with National Public Radio this week.
“At this point, would you say that you feel like there has been a shift in the way people talk about this? And is that, in part, because of the Green New Deal proposal?” asked host Audie Cornish.
“I would answer that yes,” Alexander answered. “I think it’s such a radical proposal and has attracted so much derision and caused so many Democrats political problems that it’s caused Republicans to jump into the fray and say, OK. We’ve got a better idea.”
Alexander, who sits on the Senate Appropriations subcommittee overseeing energy and water development, has accepted roughly $198,000 from oil and gas interests since 2013, according to the non-partisan campaign contribution tracking website OpenSecrets.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/republican-proposes-green-manhattan-project-in-lieu-of-green-new-deal
-
Paris Deal Bill Gives House Democrats a Climate Rallying Cry
Mar 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith and Tiffany Stecker
House Democrats are trying to present a united front on climate change, just one day after Republicans in the Senate forced an ultimately unsuccessful vote on the Green New Deal resolution.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced new climate change legislation March 27 alongside several committee chairs, including the chairwoman of the select climate committee, Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), the lead sponsor on the bill.
The Democratic Party has made climate change a “caucus-wide priority,” Pelosi said during a news conference unveiling the legislation.
The bill, H.R. 9, also known as the Climate Action Now Act, would work to put the U.S. on track to meet its Paris Agreement targets. The legislation would require the White House to submit a plan to Congress, within 120 days on enactment, that outlines how the United States would meet the greenhouse gas emissions target set by the Obama administration under the Paris Agreement.
That voluntary target required the United States to cut economywide greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28 percent below 2005 by 2025. President Donald Trump in June 2017 announced he would pull the U.S. out of climate pact, but that withdrawal won’t take effect until November 2020.
‘Fairly Simple Bill’
The committees with jurisdiction on climate issues would consider the bill in the coming weeks, Pelosi said. House Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) said his panel would hold a climate change hearing in the first week of April.
Democratic lawmakers say the bill resists Trump’s decision to walk away from the Paris Agreement and puts a spotlight on that global deal as the centerpiece of U.S. climate legislation.
That step will likely deter support of many Republican lawmakers, as even many of those who have recently expressed willingness to work on climate solutions still oppose the Paris deal. The bill also stands little chance of being considered in the Republican-controlled Senate.
“It’s a fairly simple bill,” Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.), part of the group of lawmakers introducing the bill and a member of the select climate committee, told Bloomberg Environment. “It recommits the United States to the Paris Agreement.”
“It is an opportunity for us to remind the world that this president, in his withdrawal, didn’t speak for the majority of the American people who wanted us to take bold, aggressive action on climate,” he added.
The decision to take the U.S. out of the Paris deal rests with Trump. Congress didn’t have a role in approving the Paris Agreement, because the Obama administration used existing authority to join and didn’t submit it to the Senate for ratification as a treaty.
The legislation doesn’t prohibit the Trump administration from leaving the climate pact, but the bill would tie up funding, restricting the Trump administration from using federal money to take actions to formally withdraw from the deal.
Broader Climate Agenda
The bill’s introduction comes as Democrats are trying to shape their broader policy agenda on climate change.
Discussions on the issue have in recent months been dominated by the Green New Deal, the ambitious plan led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) that calls for a quick transition to clean energy as well as solutions to several other progressive priorities on healthcare, education, and social justice.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) held a March 26 vote on a version he introduced of that resolution, S.J. Res. 8, in an effort to expose splits among his Democratic colleagues on the issue. All Democrats voted present, except three and one independent in the Democratic caucus who voted no, and all Republicans voted no.
House Democrats haven’t moved the Green New Deal resolution yet, although more than 90 members of the caucus are co-sponsoring the measure.
Republicans in the House, who sharply oppose the resolution, have called for Democrats to hold hearings on the policy.
Castor, though, said at the March 27 press event that Democrats intend to quickly move the new Paris Agreement-focused legislation into committees for mark-up and then to the floor.
Environmental groups applauded the measure as strong opening steps to comprehensive climate action.
The bill “is an important first step against one of the most irresponsible and dangerous decisions made by President Trump—the decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement,” League of Conservation Voters president Gene Karpinski said in a statement.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/paris-deal-bill-gives-house-democrats-a-climate-rallying-cry
-
The Energy 202: 'A political game.' 2020 Democrats explain why they didn't vote for Green New Deal
Mar 27, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
All six senators vying against each other for the Democratic nomination for president can at least agree on one thing: The political message for why they would note vote for the Green New Deal resolution.
Each of the 2020 candidates in the Senate voted "present" with 43 other Democrats on the climate measure, in a show of unity orchestrated by party leadership.
In sharing why they would not vote for a resolution they co-sponsored, they were reading from the same playbook.
“Because it’s a political game,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) while walking to the vote.
And a moment later, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) explained: “Because this is a political game.”
As Felicia Sonmez and I reported yesterday, the 57 to 0 decision against moving forward on the Green New Deal amounted to a political show vote as President Trump and Republicans deride the resolution spearheaded by star freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) as an unachievable socialist dream. The resolution, which is nonbinding and would not carry the force of law if passed, envisions the United States achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions within a decade while guaranteeing Americans high-paying jobs and high-quality health care.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who called the plan a “far-left wish list," held the vote in hopes of dividing Democrats -- pitting liberals who have embraced the idea, including the 2020 presidential hopefuls, against moderates from Republican-leaning states.
As Democrats unified around what they called a "sham" vote held without any hearings or expert testimony, McConnell panned Democrats’ strategy to vote "present."
"Do you believe it’s a prescription for America? Then why would you not want to vote for it? A vote for 'present' is a vote for it," he said.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), added on the Senate floor: "To hide behind some cop-out vote like ‘present’ is just to take the easy way out."
Yet some Democrats running for president insisted that their vote for "present" does not mean they will give up their push for the ideas behind the Green New Deal.
“We don't know if we can get to net zero carbon emissions in 10 years, but we should certainly try,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said at a news conference held by Democrats and climate activists. “Why not this be a measure of how great we are as a nation?”
But Gillibrand was the only 2020 candidate to show up to the event, though that didn't concern young climate activists who waved off concerns about their absence and pointed to candidates’ messaging on the campaign trail.
“Elizabeth Warren has been making campaign videos for the Green New Deal,” said Varshini Prakash, executive director of the Sunrise Movement. “Beto O’Rourke has been standing on tables talking about the Green New Deal.”
Indeed, other 2020 candidates on Tuesday indicated ways they'd like to push forward ideas within the resolution.
Booker said he wants to pick off “low-hanging fruit” with legislation “doubling down on research and innovation” and “major infrastructure investments” that could reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
“Doing nothing," he added, "is not an option.”
It has been about a decade since Democrats and Republicans have tried to work together to pass comprehensive climate legislation. And it is hard to imagine that changing while Donald Trump is president.
Yet irony of the Green New Deal proposal is that it is forcing some Republicans to put forward their own climate proposals after being led by for two years by Trump, who has repeatedly dismissed as a hoax the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that humans are warming the world.
“Over the past six weeks we've engaged in more debate about climate change than we have over the past 10 years,” said Markey, the lead Senate sponsor on the Green New Deal. “That was always part of the goal.”
Those GOP approaches often emphasize innovation in nascent forms of nuclear energy or methods of capturing carbon dioxide before it is released into the air.
Yet doubling down on such research is not incompatible with the Green New Deal resolution, Warren noted.
“It is time for new ideas, not old ideology,” Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat running for president, said in a floor speech Tuesday. “It is time for innovative research, not tired rhetoric. It is time for groundbreaking science, not political stunts. It is time to roll up our sleeves and get to work on climate solutions — because this crisis is upon us, and it is time to act.”
At the press conference, the Green New Deal's supporters argued it was actually politically savvy to set a seemingly aspirational goal, like President John F. Kennedy did when he called for sending a man to the moon, in the face of a planetary crisis.
Yet a chorus of detractors, including some Democrats, said the goal of drastically curbing the release of the heat-trapping gases across U.S. electricity, manufacturing, transportation and agricultural sectors within just 10 years is impossible to achieve.
Among them is former Colorado governor and 2020 Democratic presidential aspirant John Hickenlooper, who said in an op-ed published Tuesday in The Washington Post that the vision being pushed by Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) has “laudable aims but also takes an approach that limits our prospects for success.”
“The resolution sets unachievable goals,” Hickenlooper said. “We do not yet have the technology needed to reach ‘net-zero greenhouse gas emissions’ in 10 years. That’s why many wind and solar companies don’t support it.”
About 10 years is how long a panel of U.N. scientists says the world has to rein in emissions and keep the global temperature increase to moderate levels.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2019/03/27/the-energy-202-a-political-game-2020-democrats-explain-why-they-didn-t-vote-for-green-new-deal/5c9a68cf1b326b0f7f38f270/?utm_term=.0e2846abfe50
-
Air Pollution Tied to Mental Health Issues in Teenagers
Mar 27, 2019 | New York Times
By Nicholas Bakalar
Urban air pollution is associated with an increased risk for psychotic experiences in teenagers, researchers report.
A study published in JAMA Psychiatry included 2,063 British teenagers whose health had been followed from birth through age 18. Almost a third of them said they had at least one psychotic experience, ranging from a mild feeling of paranoia to a severe psychotic symptom, since age 12.
Researchers linked air pollution data to locations where they spent most of their time — at home, school or work.
Compared with teenagers who lived where pollution was lowest, those in the most polluted areas were 27 percent to 72 percent more likely to have psychotic experiences, depending on the type of pollutant; exposure to two pollutants, nitrogen dioxide and nitrogen oxides, accounted for 60 percent of the association.
The study controlled for family psychiatric history, maternal psychosis, substance use, socioeconomic status, neighborhood social characteristics and other factors, but it is an observational study that does not prove causation.
“From this one study, we can’t say that air pollution causes psychosis,” said the lead author, Helen L. Fisher, a research psychologist at King’s College London. “The study only says that these things commonly occur together.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/27/well/mind/air-pollution-tied-to-mental-health-issues-in-teenagers.html
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 - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested