Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - May 20, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics Industry Pushes Back Against Bans
May 20, 2019 | Wall Street Journal
By Saabira Chaudhuri
The backlash against single-use plastic has engulfed straws, bags and takeout containers, but the plastics industry is fighting back, arguing alternatives can be worse for the environment and disruptive for businesses. -
Trump Heads to Pennsylvania, Where China Trade War Is Hitting Home
May 20, 2019 | Roll Call
By John T. Bennett
President Donald Trump heads to Pennsylvania on Monday evening — another battleground state vital to his chances of winning a second term. But Air Force One will touch down in Montoursville for a campaign rally just when his trade war... -
Round 2 on PV29 Reveals Even Deeper Flaws in EPA’s TSCA Risk Evaluation of the Chemical
May 20, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
On Friday, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) submitted a new set of extensive comments to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to its March release of additional information on Pigment Violet 29 (PV29), the... -
EPA Issues Proposed Rule on Chemical Identity CBI Claims Substantiation and Review
May 20, 2019 | Wiley Rein
The 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a plan to review all confidential business information (CBI) claims for specific chemical identities on the... -
Awwa’s Mehan Testifies on PFAs in Drinking Water
May 20, 2019 | Water Finance & Management
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) testified recently before the U.S. House Subcommittee on the Environment and Climate Change about approaches to addressing PFAS in drinking water. -
MAGA: Making Asbestos Great Again? | Editorial
May 20, 2019 | NJ.com
Asbestos, which most people falsely assume has already been banned, still causes thousands of deaths a year. A study last year found nearly 40,000 Americans die annually from diseases related to its exposure – more than gun... -
(ACC Mentioned) INSIGHT: The Case for Regulating All PFAS Chemicals as a Class
May 20, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Andrews
In 1968, a scientist named Donald Taves discovered that samples of his own blood contained a distinct form of fluoride, which he later surmised was widespread in people because of the extensive use of organic fluoride-based... -
(ACC Mentioned) INSIGHT: With PFAS One-Size-Fits-All Isn’t the Answer
May 20, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jessica Bowman
The modern world is a marvel of innovation, ideas, and inventions that have transformed our daily lives and the course of history. When Thomas Edison said, “there’s a way to do it better—find it,” the world took note. Today, whether we are... -
(ACC Mentioned) A Shocking Amount Of Plastic Is Burned Every Second: Report
May 20, 2019 | Huffington Post
By Kate Bratskeir
The world is facing an enormous trash problem. Even in countries like the United States, which has strong infrastructure for waste disposal and collection, the sheer scale of trash production presents a challenge. Poorer... -
(ACC Mentioned) R.I. Balks at Call for Stricter Drinking-Water Standards
May 20, 2019 | EcoRI News
The House Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources was recently awakened to the health concern known as PFASs. Pronounced pee-fahs, this class of chemical compounds called perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl... -
Feature: US States Adopt Tough Line on Volatile Organic Compounds
May 20, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Jodi Frank
Colorado may join more than a dozen states who have approved strict VOC regulations beyond EPA requirements. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are invisible, carbon-based chemicals that vaporise at room temperature. -
Vermont Governor Signs Law Setting Strict PFAS Limits
May 20, 2019 | National Law Review
By Nessa Horewitch Coppinger and Daniel M. Krainin
Vermont Governor Phil Scott signed into law on May 16, 2019, one of the most stringent limits in the country on the presence of perfluorinated alkylated substances (PFAS) in drinking water. The law, which was passed by the Vermont... -
US EPA Struggles to Replace Animal Tests for Pesticide Toxicity
May 18, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
In early 2016, the US Environmental Protection Agency set an immediate goal to reduce the number of animals used to test the toxicity of pesticides. The agency claims that it is making significant progress toward meeting that goal, but... -
DuPont, 3M Hit With Delaware Groundwater Pollution Class Claims
May 20, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
DuPont, 3M Co., and other companies should be held liable for the contamination of Delaware groundwater by a chemical used to manufacture non-stick products, a new class complaint alleges. The case is the latest in a series of lawsuits... -
Proposed EU Ban on Halogenated Flame Retardants Set for July Adoption
May 20, 2019 | Chemical Watch
A proposed ban on halogenated flame retardants in electronic displays under the EU's Ecodesign Directive is slated for adoption in early July. The scrutiny period ended on 8 May without the European Commission or the Council of... -
Washington State Crude-by-Rail Law Faces Possible Challenge by North Dakota
May 20, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
North Dakota officials are viewing as a constitutional duty to possibly file a lawsuit challenging a new law in Washington state that could restrict oil shipments from the Bakken Shale. Director of the Department of Mineral... -
E.P.A. Plans to Get Thousands of Deaths Off the Books by Changing Its Math
May 20, 2019 | New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
The Environmental Protection Agency plans to change the way it calculates the future health risks of air pollution, a shift that would predict thousands of fewer deaths and would help justify the planned rollback of a key climate change... -
Trump EPA Cuts off Funding for Kids' Health Research Centers
May 20, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar and Ariel Wittenber
Despite repeatedly expressing public support for children's health, EPA is ending funding for a network of research centers focused on environmental threats to kids, imperiling several long-running studies of pollutants' effects on child... -
The Energy 202: What blue states are doing on the environment while Trump is in office
May 20, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
For the past two years, federal regulators under President Trump have spent much of their time relaxing environmental regulations the previous administration put in place. And when it has chosen to write new rules, it is often criticized for... -
EPA Science Advisers Interested in Examining 'Co-Benefits'
May 20, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
One of EPA's top advisory panels could soon tackle some contentious questions surrounding the agency's use of "co-benefits" to help justify new regulations, according to a newly released proposal. Under the proposal, the Science... -
Tim Cook Says His Era Has Failed by Over-Debating Climate Change
May 20, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Hailey Waller
Tim Cook told graduates at Tulane University that his “generation has failed” them by fighting more than making change on issues including immigration, criminal justice and, pointedly, climate change.
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) Plastics Industry Pushes Back Against Bans
May 20, 2019 | Wall Street Journal
By Saabira Chaudhuri
The backlash against single-use plastic has engulfed straws, bags and takeout containers, but the plastics industry is fighting back, arguing alternatives can be worse for the environment and disruptive for businesses.
Trade groups are spending more on lobbying, reaching out to consumers and promoting recycling amid mounting regulation. Their message: Plastic bans target only waste and don’t take account of environmental negatives associated with raw materials and the production of alternatives.
Bags have been a key battleground. A United Nations report shows 127 countries of 192 reviewed had adopted bans or other laws to manage plastic bags as of July. New York recently joined California in passing a state ban on single-use plastic bags. Advocates say bans cut plastic consumption and litter without a significant burden on consumers and businesses.
Critics of bans say single-use plastic bags are often used several times, and that they can be recycled at many supermarkets.
The American Progressive Bag Alliance, a trade body for plastic-bag manufacturers, is battling proposed bag bans in states including Maine and New Jersey.
“We’ve ramped up previous efforts,” said APBA head Matt Seaholm, who recently lobbied lawmakers in Denver on the relative environmental benefits of plastic bags and says he has traveled to 19 states this year for similar conversations.
“Many ordinances are driven by emotion and aren’t really fact-based in terms of good public policy,” Mr. Seaholm said.
The APBA highlights a U.K. government analysis that found paper bags must be used three times for their carbon footprint to drop below that of single-use plastic bags made from high-density polyethylene—or HDPE—and cotton bags 131 times. The study measured the impact of making paper bags by counting the use of energy and palm oil, and the disposal of ash from production. It said growing cotton and producing yarn depletes natural resources, emits damaging chemicals and depletes oxygen in water bodies.
The trade group, which says bans aren’t successful at reducing overall waste, said a study found thicker, reusable plastic bags wound up in Austin’s waste stream after the Texas city banned single-use plastic bags in 2013.
Ban advocates like Melissa Gates, a manager at nonprofit Surfrider Foundation, say this can be mitigated by imposing charges on thicker plastic and paper bags to encourage shoppers to bring their own reusable bags.
Recycler Advanced Disposal Services Inc. says many people don’t return bags to stores and that plastic bags are the main item found in recycling bins that shouldn’t be there, sometimes jamming up machinery. About 5.5% of HDPE bags, sacks and wraps are recycled in the U.S., according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Plastics makers also are stepping up efforts to defend takeout containers and packaging.
The American Chemistry Council said Maine’s recent ban on polystyrene containers is misguided because foam uses less energy and water than paper- or corn-based alternatives, mainly because it weighs less.
The Flexible Packaging Association, whose lobbying expenses more than doubled last year, has launched a consumer-focused website it said is “dedicated to combating bad press and misinformation” about plastics. The trade body commissioned studies comparing the sustainability of plastic pouches with alternatives such as glass jars and paper, and directed members to use them to “tell the good story to policy makers.”
Facing further restrictions, the U.S. plastics industry has begun lobbying for federal spending on recycling infrastructure, which it said would cut litter and the use of fossil fuels for plastic.
“We’re trying to tell people, don’t focus on the specific product,” said Scott DeFife, head lobbyist at the Plastics Industry Association, who says the focus should be on building and improving recycling infrastructure, particularly given China’s recent ban that has pushed many recycling plants to capacity. The trade body is seeking a sponsor for a bill that would require $500 million in federal spending on such infrastructure over the next five years.
A group of plastics makers and consumer-goods companies earlier this year committed to spend more than $1 billion on initiatives to help reduce waste but “maintain the critical benefits” plastics offer.
Mixed messages have left some consumers confused. Kyle Taylor, a 25-year-old research analyst based in Washington, D.C., said listening to a podcast about how alternatives to plastic can be worse for the environment spurred him to do research but won’t necessarily change his bag choices.
“I don’t think it will change my behavior because I have limited options and set habits,” said Mr. Taylor, who uses a tote bag as often as possible but otherwise uses paper or plastic depending on what is available at grocery stores.
The debate is prompting lawmakers to hit pause. Some 13 U.S. states have pre-empted local bag bans and fees, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, with lawmakers saying local bans increase complexity and costs for businesses.
The Florida Senate recently passed a bill halting local bans on plastic straws for five years and mandating a study to examine existing restrictions. Lawmakers say they responded to restaurants grappling with unhappy customers and disability groups who say some people need straws to drink.
Some companies feel caught in the middle. McDonald’s Corp. scrapped plastic straws in the U.K. last year but now faces a backlash. Over 44,000 people recently signed a petition calling for the chain to bring back plastic straws, complaining that paper replacements go soggy and make it hard to drink milk shakes.
Others point to their use of plastics as a sustainability selling point.
Garçon Wines—a London-based firm that makes flat plastic wine bottles that fit through a mail slot—said its recycled bottles are 87% lighter than glass and shaped to allow more wine to be shipped in the same space, reducing emissions.
“There are undoubtedly some businesses who have not engaged with us because of the antiplastic sentiment,” Chief Executive Santiago Navarro said. “However, that does not change what we do.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/plastics-industry-pushes-back-against-bans-11558358911?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1
-
Trump Heads to Pennsylvania, Where China Trade War Is Hitting Home
May 20, 2019 | Roll Call
By John T. Bennett
President Donald Trump heads to Pennsylvania on Monday evening — another battleground state vital to his chances of winning a second term. But Air Force One will touch down in Montoursville for a campaign rally just when his trade war with China is squeezing many of his core supporters there.
Trump has complicated his own quest to reassemble the Electoral College map he cobbled together in 2016 by slapping tariffs on Chinese-made products, according to political strategists, some lawmakers and state officials. The Keystone State is a prime example as China’s retaliatory levies are hitting its manufacturers, farmers and consumers particularly hard.
The former real estate mogul and reality television star had few entrenched positions when he started his presidential campaign, according to Steve Bannon, his former top strategist. But he had one solid belief, Bannon recently said: that China had been taking advantage of America’s trade policies for decades — and he would stop that, if elected.
Ostensibly, the president is going to Pennsylvania to weigh in on a Tuesday special election in the 12th District to replace former Republican Rep. Tom Marino, who resigned in January, shortly after the new Congress began. GOP state Rep. Fred Keller is expected to defeat Democrat Marc Friedenberg, an assistant cybersecurity professor, for this safe Republican north-central Pennsylvania seat. Inside Elections with Nathan L. Gonzales rates the race Solid Republican.
That means when Trump steps onstage at the Montoursville airport’s Energy Aviation Hangar, he will have to reassure voters in deep-red Lycoming County — which backed him over Hillary Clinton by 45 points in 2016 — that any short-term economic pain they feel from his get-tough approach to Beijing will pay off for them down the road.
“We’re having a little squabble with China because we’ve been treated very unfairly for many, many decades — for, actually, a long time,” Trump told reporters last week. “And it should have been handled a long time ago, and it wasn’t. And we’ll handle it now.”
On Friday, Trump again downplayed the trade dispute while blaming China for backing out of a deal his team has said was mostly done. He contended that the Asian giant’s tariffs on U.S. goods means “people are paying a little bit more.”
“But it’s worth it,” he added.
Flashback: Congress has given too much trade authority to the president, Grassley says
Taking a toll
When it comes to the trade war and electoral politics, the bottom line is the president better hope he can “handle it” in a way that prevents further pocket-book problems in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin — states he surprisingly won three years ago. After all, he won the state he will visit Monday by a little over 44,000 votes, or 0.7 points.
The Trump administration and Canada announced Friday they had reached an agreement for the U.S. to lift Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs on Canadian products and for Ottawa to end retaliatory duties on U.S. goods. The president later said Mexico was also part of that stand-down pact.
But it is the China tariff tit-for-tat that has conjured worries among Republican and Democratic officials in Pennsylvania. “There’s a frustrating lack of strategy on the part of the administration,” Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf said Thursday, according to local media reports.
“Pennsylvania, along with Michigan and Wisconsin, denied Hillary Clinton the presidency in 2016,” said Kyle Kondik, an analyst at the University of Virginia Center for Politics. “The Democrats’ most obvious path to winning back the White House in 2020 involves holding Clinton’s states and recapturing these three states, all of which were decided by less than a percentage point.”
“Generally speaking, Trump’s numbers in Pennsylvania have reflected his underwater national approval numbers,” he added.
A Quinnipiac University poll released May 15 suggests an uphill fight there for the president: former Vice President Joe Biden led him by 11 points. Fifty-three percent of those polled in the state preferred the Scranton native known colloquially as “Middle Class Joe,” while 42 percent wanted a second Trump term.
Notably, the Trump 2020 team announced the Montoursville rally after Biden’s camp announced his Saturday campaign kickoff rally in Philadelphia. The former vice president revealed last week that his campaign headquarters will also be in that city.
Dovetailing with other recent polls, the Quinnipiac survey also showed Trump trailing Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and running close with Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kamala Harris of California; South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg; and Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke.
“There are many states where the president is vulnerable and few opportunities to win any 2016 blue states. So, the trips to purple states … are justified,” said Brad Bannon, a Democratic strategist, highlighting a big reason Trump started his 2020 campaigning with stops in Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida and now Pennsylvania.
“The problem for the president is he is vulnerable to losing many of these Midwestern electoral votes and votes in a few other states,” Bannon said. “Based on midterm results and the growth in the number of Latino voters, Texas, Georgia and Arizona are shaky for Trump — and they have a total of 65 electoral votes.”Party pleas
Those polls and the effects of his trade policies on voters in Pennsylvania and other manufacturing- and farming-heavy states are why some Republican lawmakers, including the Keystone State’s junior senator, Patrick J. Toomey, have raised concerns and urged the president to alter course.
“A lot of those folks are making consumer goods. And the price of the consumer goods goes up if the price of the inputs goes up,” Toomey told Philadelphia public radio station WHYY. “So it may not be quite as obvious to the consumer why the dishwasher or the washing machine or some other product that uses a lot of steel, why that price is higher than they used to be.
“But it’s real,” added Toomey, who is pushing a bill to clamp down on Trump’s trade powers, including by giving Congress a final say on all trade actions taken from the Oval Office over the last four years.
“And it’s costing consumers money.”
http://www.rollcall.com/news/whitehouse/trump-heads-pennsylvania-china-trade-war-hitting-home
-
Round 2 on PV29 Reveals Even Deeper Flaws in EPA’s TSCA Risk Evaluation of the Chemical
May 20, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
On Friday, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) submitted a new set of extensive comments to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to its March release of additional information on Pigment Violet 29 (PV29), the first chemical to undergo a risk evaluation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) following the law’s amendment in 2016.
After EDF and others criticized both the dearth of health and environmental data on PV29, and EPA’s illegal withholding of those data, EPA released some additional information and opened a new comment period in mid-April. In releasing the new information, EPA was quick to judgment, asserting that “[t]he 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.”
EDF’s 100 pages of comments in Round 1 enumerated the myriad ways EPA has failed to demonstrate that PV29 does not present unreasonable risk. Unfortunately, if anything, Round 2 has only deepened our concerns over the inadequacy of EPA’s risk evaluation.
First, despite EPA’s release of some additional information from the 24 health and safety studies, EPA continues to illegally withhold from the public information to which it is entitled under TSCA. While EPA backed off its initial illegal assertion that such studies can be protected from disclosure as confidential business information (CBI) under TSCA and released some additional information from some of these studies, it concocted a new, illegal theory to justify continuing to deny the public access to the full study reports.
EPA has withheld virtually all of the data from a screening-level reproductive/developmental toxicity study on which its risk evaluation heavily relies, rendering it impossible for the public to independently assess the study. And of course, as we pointed out in Round 1, EPA’s own guidance makes clear that this screening study cannot be used to rule out such toxicity – precisely what EPA did.
For 10 of the remaining 23 studies, EPA released only brief (ca. one-page) summaries prepared by the chemical’s producer. In doing so, EPA falsely claimed that it has released the full study reports, raising the question of whether or not EPA actually possesses the full studies. If it does not, our new comments detail how EPA cannot possibly adequately assess the studies’ quality based on only the summaries.
Bottom line: Despite the new release, EPA still lacks sufficient information to support its sweeping conclusions that PV29 does not present any unreasonable risks.
In the course of preparing our new comments, EDF discovered that PV29’s manufacturers had selectively altered at least two of their study summaries to remove values EDF had cited in our initial comments that call into question the value for a key physical-chemical property of PV29 EPA had repeatedly relied on to dismiss risk concerns. This disturbing occurrence adds yet another to the long list of reasons why EPA and industry’s assertion that the public should make do with study summaries is unacceptable.
As part of its new release, EPA revised the data quality “scoring sheets” it had prepared in Round 1 using the TSCA systematic review method. That method deviates from best practices in systematic review and has yet to be subject to any peer review. The “good” news is that EPA’s new scores acknowledge that two studies EPA had ranked as being of medium quality are actually unacceptable – a fact that the company that did the studies had prominently flagged and EPA had initially ignored. Based in part on these studies, EPA originally concluded PV29 posed no hazard (and hence no risk) via all routes of exposure, including inhalation. EPA has now thrown out the only inhalation studies it reviewed to support that conclusion, and yet still maintains its original highly tenuous position that PV29 poses no risks, despite this additional serious gap in the hazard evidence.
The further bad news is that EPA’s new scoring sheets reveal further inconsistencies, inaccuracies and other deficiencies in its systematic review method and its application. This outcome both deepens concerns over data inadequacy for PV29 and bodes ill for the other nine draft risk evaluations we expect to see very soon, as they utilize the same flawed systematic review methodology.
Finally, as we blogged about recently, in contrast to EPA’s asserted clean bill of health for PV29, authorities under the European Union’s REACH Regulation have formally declared the chemical to be a suspected substance of very high concern (SVHC). In doing so, the authorities raised many of the same concerns over the overall inadequacy of available data on PV29 that EDF had raised in our earlier comments, as well as indications the chemical may be a very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) chemical.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/05/20/round-2-on-pv29-reveals-even-deeper-flaws-in-epas-tsca-risk-evaluation-of-the-chemical/
-
EPA Issues Proposed Rule on Chemical Identity CBI Claims Substantiation and Review
May 20, 2019 | Wiley Rein
The 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a plan to review all confidential business information (CBI) claims for specific chemical identities on the TSCA Inventory. On April 23, 2019, EPA issued a proposed rule to add provisions to 40 C.F.R. Part 710 to establish the plan, including the procedures and deadline for substantiating these claims. Comments on the proposal must be received on or before June 24, 2019.
As proposed, this is a reporting deadline that companies can’t afford to miss – and the stakes associated with a mistake are high. If a substantiation, or a notice of a prior CBI substantiation made in the past 5 years, is not filed within the proposed 90-day filing period or does not meet the substantiation requirements of the proposed rule, EPA “may make the information public without further notice.” In that case, the only remedy companies have under the proposed rule is to go to court within 30 days to seek to prevent disclosure.
As a result, this public comment period is a particularly important opportunity for companies to ask EPA for better safeguards in association with the agency's treatment of commercially sensitive information.Who Must Report to EPA?
There are at least three groups that are affected by this proposal whose members may include manufacturers, importers and processors. First, companies who filed a Notice of Activity (NOA) Form A during Inventory Reset with a CBI chemical identity claim, but without substantiation, will need to report. Second, any company that filed a substantiation for a CBI chemical identity claim in the last 5 years will need to notify the agency of the existence of these filings. Examples include substantiations for chemical identity that were submitted per the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule, or in association with premanufacture notifications (PMNs), microbial commercial activity notifications (MCANs), notices of commencement (NOCs), section 8(e) submissions, or in public comments. As noted above, EPA is proposing to give companies only 90 days to prepare these important submissions. Finally, even companies who already submitted their substantiations voluntarily during Inventory Reset should be alert to the consequences of this proposed rule if they think there is a possibility that their substantiation may not pass muster.
What Must They Report?
For companies that have made a substantiation submission to EPA less than five years before the substantiation deadline in the rule, EPA is proposing that they submit a notification that includes the date of the submission; the submission type and case number; a CDX or other transaction ID; or an equivalent identifier that uniquely identifies the previous substantiation submission. Because EPA’s recordkeeping system prior to 2016 was not set up to easily track these claims, it is probably in the best interest of companies to have the opportunity to remind EPA about these claims.
In addition, EPA is proposing to require companies who have not yet submitted a substantiation for chemical identity CBI to respond to the following seven questions to establish the validity of a confidentiality claim for chemical identity:a. Do you believe that the information is exempt from substantiation pursuant to TSCA section 14(c)(2)? If you answered yes, you must individually identify the specific information claimed as confidential and specify the applicable exemption(s).
b. Will disclosure of the information likely result in substantial harm to your business's competitive position? If you answered yes, describe with specificity the substantial harmful effects that would likely result to your competitive position if the information is made available to the public.
c. To the extent your business has disclosed the information to others (both internally and externally), what precautions has your business taken? Identify the measures or internal controls your business has taken to protect the information claimed as confidential: Non-disclosure agreement required prior to access; access is limited to individuals with a need-to-know; information is physically secured; other internal control measure(s). If yes, explain.
d. Does the information appear in any public documents, including (but not limited to) safety data sheets, advertising or promotional material, professional or trade publications, or any other media or publications available to the general public? If you answered yes, explain why the information should be treated as confidential.
e. Is the claim of confidentiality intended to last less than 10 years? If so, indicate the number of years (between 1-10 years) or the specific date/occurrence after which the claim is withdrawn.
f. Has EPA, another federal agency, or court made any confidentiality determination regarding information associated with this chemical substance? If you answered yes, explain the outcome of that determination and provide a copy of the previous confidentiality determination or any other information that will assist in identifying the prior determination.
g. Is the confidential chemical substance publicly known to have ever been offered for commercial distribution in the United States? If you answered yes, explain why the information should be treated as confidential.
84 Fed. Reg. 16829. These questions may sound familiar to many, but they bear closer examination. For example, does it make sense to ask question (a) on whether a company believes chemical identity is exempt from substantiation under section 14(c)(2) of TSCA, when it is already apparent from a plain reading of the statute that chemical identity is not a listed (c)(2) exemption. It might be more relevant to ask whether disclosure of chemical identity could inadvertently reveal other confidential information that is expressly listed as exempt from substantiation under section 14(c)(2). Questions (d) and (g) above seem so closely related that they should follow one from the other rather than be separated by two unrelated lines of inquiry. In addition, the substantiation questions under this proposal need to better align with the criteria EPA says it will use to review them in 40 C.F.R. §§ 2.208 and 2.306(g). So, for example, in addition to asking what steps a company has taken to protect its information in the past, question (c) should also ask companies to state whether they intend to continue to take such measures. In connection with question (f) above on whether a federal agency has made a confidentiality determination, companies also should be asked whether any statute specifically requires disclosure of the information, and to address state government determinations as well.
As proposed, reporting companies have to assert and certify under penalty of law (knowing and willful misrepresentation is subject to criminal penalty pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001) that there is a reasonable basis to believe that the information is not readily discoverable through reverse engineering. However, none of EPA’s proposed questions are designed to further probe for the potential for reverse engineering, an issue that EPA has been directed to re-assess in a recent decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, Case No. 17-1201, D.C. Cir., April 26, 2019).Who is Exempt from Reporting?
The only complete exemption from reporting under this rule applies to manufacturers, importers, and processors who have already provided substantiations for specific chemical identity CBI claims in NOA Forms A that were submitted during Inventory Reset. What happens if these companies have concerns about the quality of their past substantiations, given the proposed outcome of disclosure without further notice? It is not clear if they will be allowed to redo or supplement a past submission during the reporting period in this rule. As one specific example, the companies that voluntarily submitted substantiations per 40 C.F.R. § 710.37(a)(1) during Inventory Reset were not asked to provide a response to proposed question (g) above. Are the voluntarily submitted substantiations deficient if the questions those companies responded to turn out to be different than the questions finalized in this rule?
Can Competitors Defeat or Shorten Each Other’s CBI Claims?
Yes. EPA is proposing to continue to apply an earlier ruling that a decision by one company to abandon CBI protection of a chemical identity eliminates the ability of any other company to claim the chemical name CBI. Moreover, if one company filed a CBI claim for a chemical identity earlier in time, EPA is proposing to use that as the date that the 10 year protection period begins to apply for any company that asserts a CBI claim for the same chemical. This means that the period of CBI protection will be determined on a per chemical basis rather than per claimant. The tables have turned on CBI, with the effect of this being that companies have completely lost the ability to control their own chemical identity CBI claims or the length of time for which they can make them. Companies who currently claim chemical identities as CBI and relied on their upstream suppliers to file the NOA Form A should let these suppliers know that continued CBI protection is important.
When Must Substantiation Reports be Filed?
EPA is proposing to require that all substantiations be filed not later than 90 days after the effective date of the final rule. If the rule becomes effective the day the final rule appears in the Federal Register, companies will have only a very short time to craft substantiation support specific and detailed enough to pass review. If EPA decides that a substantiation is inadequate, the only recourse for a company is to challenge the decision in court within 30 days of being notified by EPA that the substantiation is deficient. The rule allows no opportunity for companies to rectify or supplement their substantiation claims. Moreover, EPA is proposing that the failure to substantiate at all will result in publication of the name on the public Inventory without further notice. Companies should comment and ask EPA for a 30 day period to cure deficient notices and require notification before information is made public.
When Must the Final Rule be Adopted and CBI Claims Reviewed?
Under section 8(b)(4)(E) of TSCA, since the updated TSCA Inventory was released on February 19, 2019, the deadline for issuing a final rule is February 19, 2020, and the 5 year deadline for EPA to complete all CBI claim reviews is February 19, 2024. If EPA decides in the future to invoke the 2-year extension allowed by TSCA, the deadline for completing CBI claim reviews would move to February 19, 2026. With approximately 7,000 chemicals on the TSCA Inventory, this means that the agency needs to review 1,000 or more substantiations per year.
Are There Record-Keeping Requirements?
Each company subject to the rule must retain records that document any information reported to EPA. Records must be retained for a period of 5 years beginning on the last day of the submission period.
Commenting on the Proposed Rule
EPA is seeking public comment on the filing requirements, the proposed exemptions, annual goal setting, duration of protection from disclosure, Agency reviews, economic burden, and the scope of the substantiation questions.
We think the proposed provision to allow EPA to release unsubstantiated chemical identities without giving prior notification to the associated manufacturer is particularly problematic and runs counter to the express wishes of Congress to exempt this group of companies from reporting by statute. EPA is particularly interested in comments concerning the automatic release of CBI where a claimant submitted a substantiation to EPA less than five years before the substantiation deadline that will be set in the final rule, but failed to report and identify that previously-submitted substantiation to EPA within the 90-day filing period. Companies should ask EPA to provide notice. These claims are already substantiated, and while it is probably in the best interest of these companies to assist in the process by reminding EPA that they submitted a substantiation within the last five years, it is a harsh outcome for their CBI claims to be completely defeated without any recourse if they do not. Disclosure of their CBI is contrary to the language in this section of statute, since TSCA does not require any additional reporting to be eligible for the exemption.
We think EPA should give companies additional time to report, and that 180 days is more appropriate. CBI substantiation requires more specific information and more attention than before in order to ensure claims are upheld. Finally, the whole matter of allowing companies to wield power over the CBI claims of their competitors deserves further public debate and better accountability, as well as evaluation for how consistent EPA’s policy is with other trade secret protection laws in the U.S.https://www.wileyrein.com/newsroom-articles-EPA-Issues-Proposed-Rule-on-Chemical-Identity-CBI-Claims-Substantiation-and-Review.html
-
Awwa’s Mehan Testifies on PFAs in Drinking Water
May 20, 2019 | Water Finance & Management
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) testified recently before the U.S. House Subcommittee on the Environment and Climate Change about approaches to addressing PFAS in drinking water.
Tracy Mehan, executive director of government affairs, spoke on behalf of AWWA, the non-profit organization whose 51,000 members represent water professionals throughout North America.
“EPA released its PFAS Action Plan earlier this year,” said Mehan, a former state and federal regulator. “While we saw some positive steps promised in that plan, we believe authorities exist for federal entities to do even more.”
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of man-made chemicals that includes PFOA, PFOS, GenX, and many other chemicals. PFAS have been manufactured and used in a variety of industries around the globe, including in the United States since the 1940s. PFOA and PFOS have been the most extensively produced and studied of these chemicals. Both chemicals are very persistent in the environment and in the human body – meaning they don’t break down and they can accumulate over time. There is evidence that exposure to PFAS can lead to adverse human health effects.
According to EPA, PFAS can be found in drinking water, typically localized and associated with a specific facility (e.g., manufacturer, landfill, wastewater treatment plant, firefighter training facility).
Mehan’s testimony emphasized that existing authorities could be better utilized to protect against PFAS contamination. The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA) gives EPA data-gathering authority regarding the testing and restriction of chemicals, which could be used to garner more information from the manufacturing sector about the development of PFAS, where the chemicals were produced and in what quantities.
In addition to TSCA, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) helps protect public drinking water by empowering EPA to manage naturally-occurring and man-made risks to drinking water. Utilizing these existing authorities, EPA should:Provide a report in one year describing the location of PFAS production, import, processing and use in the United States for individual PFAS compounds based on data collected through TSCA. This report should be updated every two years;Describe actions taken or planned under TSCA to restrict PFAS production, use and import and communicate the associated risks with the public;Describe actions taken by other federal agencies regarding PFAS, specifically the departments of Defense and Health and Human Services; andProvide Congress with an annual report on statutory and non-statutory barriers encountered in collecting and distributing PFAS information to inform risk management decisions by EPA, states and local risk managers.
Mehan’s testimony also included the importance of additional research before determining maximum contaminant levels for PFAS.
Currently the lack of health effects research stemming from PFAS has delayed regulatory determinations under SDWA, which stipulate that the substance, “is known to occur or there is a substantial likelihood that the contaminant will occur in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of public health concern; and in the sole judgment of the Administrator, regulation of such contaminants presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems.”
Mehan cited his three-year tenure with EPA (2001-2003) when he discussed the need for proper funding to conduct the necessary research in the following areas:Health effects data on which PFAS compounds pose a human health risk (and there are more than 3,000 PFAS compounds);Analytical methods to quantify levels of PFAS compounds in environmental samples (natural waters, wastewaters, soil, finished water); andTechnologies to cost-effectively remove problematic PFAS compounds from drinking water and wastewaters to levels that do not pose public health concerns.
Nearly 20 states have formal policy statements on PFAS management in drinking water and even more have policies aimed at controlling the release of PFAS from contaminated sites. New Jersey has a maximum contaminant level in place and other states have similar MCLs for PFAS in development. AWWA stresses the importance of allowing EPA to conduct the appropriate research outlined above using the powers afforded it in TSCA and SDWA to best inform the regulatory process.
“Our members are concerned about states setting a range of maximum contaminant levels for PFAS compounds using a range of different analytical techniques, sometimes without adequate cost-benefit analysis,” said Mehan.
https://waterfm.com/awwa-mehan-pfas-drinking-water/
-
MAGA: Making Asbestos Great Again? | Editorial
May 20, 2019 | NJ.com
Asbestos, which most people falsely assume has already been banned, still causes thousands of deaths a year. A study last year found nearly 40,000 Americans die annually from diseases related to its exposure – more than gun violence or traffic accidents.
Government regulators seemed poised to ban it for good. Then President Trump got elected. Our safety now rests in the delicate hands of a man who’s called routine vaccinations dangerous, and heavily restricted asbestos “100 percent safe.” Rest easy, kids.
In fact, asbestos is one of the leading causes of lung cancer in America. But don’t tell that to the federal agency whose mission it is to protect our health, which Trump has stocked with powerful industry insiders.
They are even considering a rule change that could allow new uses of asbestos – and in the meantime, are allowing it to be legally used in construction.
Asbestos is not just found in new building materials, like cement. If you go to an auto parts store, you could unknowingly buy brake pads made of asbestos. They’re imported, and there’s no restriction on importing asbestos. Scientists have even found it in tween makeup kits sold at the mall.
Now Congressman Frank Pallone of New Jersey is fighting to do what the Trump administration will not: Ban asbestos, period. More than 60 countries have done so, yet not the United States. Pallone’s bill would also have the Environmental Protection Agency do a full assessment of where the old asbestos still lurks in our buildings.
We know it’s there, because insulators who began work after asbestos installation was phased out in the U.S. are still showing a very high incidence of asbestos-related diseases, their union testified. One insulator who started his trade in 1993 died recently, at age of 45. Elevated levels of asbestos fibers were found in his lungs.
Guys like him are bringing asbestos home on their clothes – which is how Heather Von St. James learned she’d contracted a rare and deadly cancer caused by asbestos at age 36, right after her first and only child was born. Her father “handled asbestos and would come home each day covered in a greyish white dust,” she recalled.
Internal memos show scientists at the EPA wanted to ban asbestos outright, but were ignored. Instead, Trump’s EPA decided that when it assesses the risk, it will exclude any exposure to asbestos that’s already been installed. A huge omission.
A worker who handles new asbestos in cement could also suffer exposure from the old home he just demolished. Both affect the body. Without considering the cumulative risk, you don’t have a credible risk assessment.
This approach also violates the late U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg’s chemical safety law, which means that we can expect to find ourselves right back where we started in five years or so, after this gets kicked back by the court.
But Trump doesn’t think like a scientist or lawyer. He thinks like a super trustworthy real estate developer, who argues he shouldn’t have to pay to have asbestos removed, because it’s the best damn fire retardant out there – while fighting a policy that requires him to retrofit his high-rises with fire sprinklers, because it will cost him.
What matters is not public safety, or irony. It’s money. Now that he is president, Trump brings the same attitude to the EPA. And, as always, there is a Russia connection.
Vladimir Putin has campaigned to promote the use of asbestos. This even predates the Russian asbestos company that stamped Trump’s face on its products, because, “Trump is on our side.” He is making asbestos great again. You wonder if the MAGA-hats, some of whom work construction and live in old houses, really had that in mind.
https://www.nj.com/opinion/2019/05/maga-making-asbestos-great-again-editorial.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) INSIGHT: The Case for Regulating All PFAS Chemicals as a Class
May 20, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Andrews
In 1968, a scientist named Donald Taves discovered that samples of his own blood contained a distinct form of fluoride, which he later surmised was widespread in people because of the extensive use of organic fluoride-based compounds in consumer products. He was right: Today these fluorinated chemicals, or PFAS, are detected in nearly every person on Earth.
More than a hundred studies, many of them conducted in contaminated communities, have linked two members of this chemical family—PFOA, formerly used to make DuPont’s Teflon, and PFOS, formerly an ingredient in 3M’s Scotchgard and firefighting foam—to cancer and other serious health problems.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s PFOA advisory says: “Human epidemiology data report associations between PFOA exposure and high cholesterol, increased liver enzymes, decreased vaccination response, thyroid disorders, pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia, and cancer (testicular and kidney).” For PFOS, EPA says the human data was associated with “high cholesterol, thyroid disease, immune suppression, and some reproductive and developmental parameters, including reduced fertility and fecundity.”
And a 2010 research article on over 2,000 participants in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found: “This exploratory cross-sectional study is consistent with other epidemiologic studies in finding a positive association between PFOS and PFOA and cholesterol.”
On the immune system, a 2018 Environmental Health article stated: “Only in the last 10 years or so has environmental health research focused on the PFASs and revealed important human health risks, e.g., to the immune system.”
Study author Philippe Grandjean notes that the “first prospective study assessing children’s antibody responses to routine childhood immunizations reported in 2012 that a doubling in exposure to PFOS and PFOA was associated with an overall decrease by up to 50% in the specific vaccine antibody concentration.”
And David Melzer and colleagues at the University of Exeter found that in a study of over 3,900 Americans: “Higher concentrations of serum PFOA and PFOS are associated with current thyroid disease in the U.S. general adult population.”
PFAS chemicals contaminate the drinking water supply of an estimated 110 million Americans according to an Environmental Working Group (EWG) analysis of summary level testing data from over 1,000 public water systems. Their stability and resistance to breakdown in the environment has earned PFAS the nickname of “forever chemicals.”
Assess PFAS as a Class
PFOS and PFOA have been phased out in the U.S., but the problem of PFAS contamination has only worsened. The past two decades have seen an alarming increase in the number of new PFAS chemicals in use, and the latest research suggests that many of them may also harm human health. To protect public health and the environment, the multitude of PFAS chemicals should be assessed and regulated, not one by one, but as a class. Yet the federal government has dragged its feet on addressing the PFAS crisis and has failed to set a single drinking water regulation for these chemicals.
PFAS chemicals never occur alone; they are present in complex mixtures within products, the environment, and people. The PFAS family is so large—numbering in the thousands, with more than 600 in active commercial use—that our current regulatory framework is woefully inadequate to assess the safety of each compound satisfactorily, especially in the absence of comprehensive toxicity data. The class approach should be straightforward, because the precedent has already been set by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The chemical industry agreed to cooperate with the EPA and end the production and use of a group of PFAS substances. This group of chemicals is often referred to as long-chain PFAS.EPA has taken a range of regulatory actions with the goal of eliminating the use of hundreds of long-chain PFAS compounds. The question remains whether the short-chain compounds should be similarly grouped and we believe—based on similar chemical properties and the current evidence of health impacts—that they should be. Considering PFAS as a single group or class will bring faster public health protections because of the centuries it would otherwise take to tackle each short-chain PFAS through individual regulation.
For Americans, the idea that there could be PFAS chemicals in the nation’s drinking water should be alarming. If health risk limits set by Germany’s Environment Agency are compared to biomonitoring surveys of PFOA and PFAS in the U.S. population, the German criteria would suggest that more than one quarter of the American public may face health risks.The German Environment Agency used human data to publish a safe blood serum concentration of 2 nanograms/milliliter for PFOA and 5 ng/ml for PFOS, that would avoid concerns for fertility and pregnancy, newborn weight, lipid metabolism, immune system impacts, hormone development, thyroid metabolism, and the onset of menopause. The most recent testing completed by the Centers for Disease Control in 2015-2016 show that more than one quarter of the U.S. population had PFOA at levels over 2.5 ng/ml and PFOS at levels over 8.1 ng/ml.
Three decades ago, DuPont agreed to supply an alternative source of drinking water for residents living near a DuPont Teflon factory in Parkersburg, W.Va., only when PFOA levels in water exceeded 14 parts per billion. Now the EPA says the safe level is 70 parts per trillion, or ppt. Based on a review of human health studies, independent researchers at Harvard and the University of Massachusetts have recommended 1 ppt or less.
EPA said human data “qualitatively” confirms animal data on adverse health effects, but the agency used animal data to derive the 70 ppt guideline. In doing so, the agency declined to specifically use the Harvard/University of Massachusetts study—or any other studies of people—in setting its nonenforceable health guideline of 70 ppt.
A main reason EPA has given is that because the subjects—that is, about 99% of people on Earth—“have many PFASs and/or other contaminants in their blood … their presence constitutes a level of uncertainty that is usually absent in animal studies.” In other words, the EPA is claiming that because everyone is already polluted with different PFAS compounds, the agency does not know exactly which compounds are causing which health harms and thus cannot use the human evidence of harm to set numeric regulations for them individually.
The American Chemistry Council and the trade association representing the major PFAS manufacturers nearly a decade ago agreed to virtually eliminate the use and emission of so-called long-chain fluorochemicals. They are now touting short-chain alternatives as offering the same “high-performance benefits” but with “improved environmental and human health profiles.”
GenX is DuPont’s replacement for PFOA, and the company described it as “a new industry standard for sustainable replacement technology.” But in November, the EPA released a draft toxicity assessment for GenX, finding that, at an equivalent concentration in test animals, it was substantially more potent than even PFOA. An investigation by Sharon Lerner of The Intercept reported that, after reviewing the available toxicity testing, a retired senior risk assessor in the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Assessment said: “It’s the same constellation of effects you see with PFOA.”
And the EPA has failed to require significant toxicity studies of other PFAS compounds beyond PFOA, PFOS, and GenX. In a recently published draft toxicity assessment for the compound PFBS, the EPA noted an enormous gap in safety testing data. The types of review that EPA flagged as missing include epidemiological studies; testing of developmental and immunological toxicity; a chronic mouse study; and a full two-generation reproductive toxicity study. These are exactly the types of studies that would determine whether these chemicals are as hazardous as PFOA and PFOS.
Here are two examples of how mixtures of PFAS and the lack of safety data on all but a few make it necessary to assess and regulate these chemicals as a class:PFAS in Food Packaging
The widespread use of PFAS compounds with inadequate data extends to plastics that come into contact with food. The majority of PFAS-approved food-packaging plastics approved by the Food and Drug Administration are made using fluorotelomers, which are similar to PFOA but with a different chemical structure. These plastics are known to break down into a number of different PFAS in products and in the environment.
To argue safety, the chemical industry focused its testing on one of the expected breakdown products. A recent FDA paper indicates that in the body, the approved coating does not just become the tested chemical but also a totally different PFAS compound. This less studied PFAS compound accumulates to a greater extent in the body, increasing the potential for health harm. With a complex mixture of PFAS compounds forming in the body, approving coatings based on detailed studies of just one of those compounds is inadequate.
In 2016, a coalition of scientists from academia, regulatory agencies, and nonprofit groups detected and identified two dozen different PFAS compounds in tests of fast-food wrappers collected from restaurants. Most of the compounds have neither been thoroughly evaluated by the FDA nor adequately tested for safety by the manufacturers. These compounds were identified by matching testing results with a database of known PFAS chemicals. The known chemicals accounted for only a portion of the total fluorine in the product. What other unidentified PFAS compounds may be present in these products and what impacts they have on health is unknown.
The different PFAS chemicals found in food packaging may be due to leaching from the plastic or contamination from manufacturing and could change once in the body. The PFAS in our food could also come from contamination of the water and soil used to grow crops and animals.PFAS in Drinking Water
It is clear that no one on Earth can escape exposure to PFAS chemicals. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s periodic tests have consistently found PFAS compounds in nearly every American sampled. EWG estimates the drinking water supply of 110 million people is contaminated with one of six PFAS chemicals.
Slow development of analytical methods for detecting and differentiating among thousands of different PFAS is likely allowing other contamination to escape scrutiny. In recent tests of public water systems, a complex mixture of 10 or more PFAS was detected in nearly every system, at a combined average concentration of nearly 20 ppt.
In North Carolina’s Cape Fear River basin, GenX was detected in drinking water at around 500 ppt, but other PFAS chemicals were found at a staggering 250,000 ppt. A subsequent biomonitoring study did not detect GenX in any participants, but many other PFAS compounds were detected in every person. Current methods for detecting PFAS in water or people are limited to a few dozen compounds, and yet the range of PFAS chemicals in people and the environment is much larger.
EWG supports a scientifically grounded, risk-based approach to assessing and regulating PFAS chemicals. But to do this for each chemical, comprehensive data would be needed to differentiate individual PFAS substances from the class and consider them based on their relative potency. More significantly, for a chemical family as large as PFAS, at the current rate of EPA review, it would likely take centuries to complete these assessments. In an attempt to speed up the process, researchers at EPA have recently grouped PFAS into dozens of subsets or classes. For 75 different PFAS chemicals, toxicity testing in cells has started in collaboration with the National Toxicology Program. At some point, this line of testing may prove useful for differentiating the toxicity of subsets of PFAS, but the American people cannot wait that long.
The director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Linda Birnbaum, agrees, stating in congressional testimony that considering PFAS as a class is the “best approach” for assessing exposure and protecting public health. This approach of assessing chemicals together has precedent.
In September, Peter Grevatt, the former head of EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, pointed out that the agency regulates the byproducts of disinfecting public drinking water as a group. A direct precedent for considering PFAS as a class was set in the early 2000s, when EPA initiated the phaseout of PFOA, PFOS, and other long-chain PFAS chemicals. In the 2015 proposed regulation to bar new PFOA-type chemicals from the market, EPA both explicitly listed substances subject to the rule and said the rule also covered any other members of a “group of chemical substances containing PFOA and its higher homologues.” And in 2018, Washington state banned the use of all PFAS chemicals in food contact materials.
The manufacturers of PFAS chemicals have much to gain by pushing for a chemical-by-chemical regulatory approach that takes decades for each substance. The one-by-one approach ensures that the hundreds of commercially used PFAS chemicals are unlikely to ever be regulated, because attempting to regulate or restrict even a few will monopolize the agency’s resources and limit public involvement.
PFAS chemicals are big business, used in making common, everyday products like nonstick pans, stain-resistant fabrics, waterproof clothing, fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags and even cosmetics. With more than 600 PFAS chemicals already in use, the tap should be turned off, and no new PFAS allowed on the market. Currently the nation needs to tackle the enormous task of determining the extent of PFAS contamination and cleaning up the mess caused over the past decades. Allowing additional understudied PFAS on the market will just complicate efforts to safeguard health.
The bottom line: A single-chemical approach to assessing and regulating PFAS chemicals is just not possible. The naive assumption that PFOA and PFOS were safe, and the subsequent voluminous scientific evidence to the contrary, has tarnished the entire family of PFAS chemicals. In future decades, we may well find that some of the newer generation of PFAS chemicals are of lower concern for human health. But the burden of proving the safety of any PFAS chemical must lie with the chemical industry.
Without their consent, people have been made into test subjects for PFAS chemistry. This must end. Regulating PFAS chemicals as a class is the only way to protect public health.This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. or its owners.
David Andrews is a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, which has been studying PFAS chemicals since 2001. For the past decade David has been working to educate consumers, move markets toward safer chemistries, and protect public health. He holds a Ph.D. in chemistry from Northwestern University.To read arguments contending PFAS should not be regulated as a class, please see the Insights article by the American Chemistry Council.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/insight-the-case-for-regulating-all-pfas-chemicals-as-a-class
-
(ACC Mentioned) INSIGHT: With PFAS One-Size-Fits-All Isn’t the Answer
May 20, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jessica Bowman
The modern world is a marvel of innovation, ideas, and inventions that have transformed our daily lives and the course of history. When Thomas Edison said, “there’s a way to do it better—find it,” the world took note. Today, whether we are talking about technology, transportation, medicine, or science, our lives are better because of innovation. This is certainly true when it comes to chemistry, an essential building block for a healthier, safer, more sustainable, and more productive world.
Unfortunately, innovation in chemistry and the critical role it plays in our way of life are too often overshadowed by hyperbole in today’s public discourse, most notably when it comes to the safety and use of chemicals. While scary sound bites might make for good headlines, they don’t always make for good policy. And the impression these quips can leave with the public and policymakers is often misleading.
Take for instance the latest push to ban or regulate an entire family of chemicals, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
Durability
Fluorinated chemicals, or PFAS, are a diverse group of chemistries characterized by the strong bond between fluorine and carbon. Because of this strong bond, these chemicals provide resilience and durability. These properties are critical to the performance of many important products that industry and consumers rely on every day. If you are reading this on a tablet, have a loved one in a hospital, used your car to get your kids to school, or are getting ready to get on an airplane, chances are you are relying on these chemistries.
Today’s PFAS are also known as FluoroTechnology. From transportation to healthcare, electronics to textiles and many others, modern life is enabled by these fluorinated chemistries. For example, fluorinated chemistries in hospital equipment create a barrier that provides life-saving protection against infections and transmission of diseases in hospitals. Without PFAS, modern travel would not be possible.
Fuel components and electronics used by aerospace and automotive systems use fluorinated chemical properties such as durability, heat, vapor-barrier and chemical resistance. PFAS can help protect food quality and integrity, extend shelf life, and enable hygienic transportation and storage. Meanwhile, they also improve the insulation, weatherability, transparency and water resistance for many electronic products, such as cell phones and tablets, and enable longer-lasting renewable energy technologies such as solar panels.
Innovation, like the kind Thomas Edison encouraged, is a hallmark of PFAS, which have transformed over the years to meet market demand and changing product specifications. Today’s fluorinated chemistries have significantly enhanced environmental and human health profiles. They underwent strict regulatory review before they went to market, which included a requirement to provide significant data and testing related to various health and environmental factors. In addition, these substances are continuously reviewed and allowed for use by regulators around the globe.
Campaigns Target PFAS
While the value and benefit of fluorinated chemistries is clear, there is a campaign underway to ban, restrict, and regulate entire classes of chemicals, regardless of their differences. PFAS is one of the most active examples of a push for a one-size-fits-all approach to restrictions and regulations. Critics try to dispute the safety of all PFAS chemicals, discourage their use, and discredit those who seek to point out the facts about the chemistry’s health and safety profiles. This effort has led to widespread confusion and concern about PFAS chemicals.
While the use of PFAS in products is very common, the current public discussion focuses on the mere presence of these substances—even at extremely low levels—rather than their safety. The same “presence” arguments are also used against chemicals in general.
General misunderstanding and misconceptions about chemistry are common and may help add momentum to the critics’ blanket approach.
While for many Americans high school chemistry classes may have been intimidating, chemistry is a basic fact of life. Each and every day, we are naturally exposed to a broad range of chemicals through both the environment and our normal human functions.
To help paint a better picture of this concept, just take a look at some fruits and vegetables that are commonly found in households like apples, pears, potatoes, and zucchini. All of these items contain natural chemicals that could be toxic to humans at certain levels. While the names might sound complicated (amygdalin or solanine, for instance), the amount of chemicals contained within the food is so low, the dose is not harmful to the people who enjoy them and, as we know, fruit also provides important health and nutritional benefits. So rather than pointing to the mere presence of a chemical, it is critical to consider actual exposure when assessing its safety.
A “chemical exposure” can be defined as the measurement of both the amount of, and the frequency with which, a substance comes into contact with a person or the environment.
The fact is that any chemical—even water and oxygen—can be toxic if too much is ingested or absorbed into the body. The risk presented by a specific substance depends on a variety of factors, including how much of the substance a person is exposed to, how they are exposed, and for how long. Pointing out such distinctions is essential when it comes to the discussion about regulating chemicals, as safety is a key factor in such decisions.
No Reason to Group
The differences in PFAS offer a clear example of why it doesn’t make sense to paint chemicals with a broad regulatory stroke. Today’s PFAS products are the product of innovation and have differing characteristics, formulations, intended uses, and environmental and health profiles. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has the responsibility for regulating the safety of chemicals, as well as regulators around the globe, recognize these considerable differences in the family of chemistries.
The science on the health and safety of newer PFAS is extensive. A large body of datahas been developed by universities, government agencies, independent laboratories, and industry scientists and provided to regulators globally as part of their ongoing chemical review processes. The science supports the conclusion that today’s PFAS products do not present a significant risk to human health or the environment.
Newly-released, comprehensive data add to the growing body of evidence demonstrating the safety of these products. Recently, three new sets of independent studies published in the peer-reviewed journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology support the conclusion that perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), a key short-PFAS, is not a significant human health concern. This research offers the latest look at exposure, health effects, and hormone (endocrine) activity related to this PFAS. The studies find that PFHxA is not carcinogenic, is not a selective reproductive or developmental toxicant, and does not disrupt hormone (endocrine) activity.
Critics point to perceived gaps in oversight as the impetus for embracing sweeping bans or other regulatory restrictions. The truth is chemicals are one of the most regulated industries around the world. Chemical regulatory programs in the U.S. and elsewhere have rigorous requirements including significant data and testing related to various health and environmental factors before a new chemical can enter the marketplace.
The same is true of today’s PFAS, which were subject to rigorous scientific research requirements that included testing related to cancer, reproductive/developmental factors, systematic toxicity, bioretention, ecological endpoints, environmental fate and transport, and other factors before being they could be brought to market.
Adequately Regulated
In addition to chemical product regulation, there also are numerous laws that govern how chemicals are manufactured, used, transported, and managed. These include specific regulations for limiting emissions and helping ensure minimal exposures. In the U.S., more than a dozen federal laws and multiple federal agencies govern the safe manufacture and use of chemicals.
Grouping of PFAS and other chemicals by class would disregard this layered regulatory structure. By design, grouping these different substances together for the purposes of blanket, one-size-fits-all regulatory policies would not take into account how the chemical is used, in what amount, or whether and how long exposure occurs (if at all). This approach defies what scientists and other experts continue to determine: while chemicals can be somewhat similar, their properties can differ greatly in ways that could affect (or not) human health or the environment. An example is carbon in the crystalline form, including diamonds and graphite, which has different properties than those found in charcoal, coke, and carbon black. Again, exposure is also a key factor in differentiating similar substances. For instance, when talking about exposure to the same molecule of H2O, it might be safe for people in the liquid phase, but not as steam or ice.
Nomenclature can complicate the debate as well. The names of chemicals can cause confusion in the rush to regulate or restrict based on class. Even if a chemical has a similar-sounding name, it doesn’t mean it is the same. For instance, a sugar maple is not the same as maple sugar, a maple table or even maple syrup. While the names of a number of PFAS may be similar, the differences in their use, structure, and health and environmental profiles distinguish them.
Finally, history is on the side of data that demonstrates differences among a family of chemistry. One-size-fits-all regulation of PFAS or other chemicals as a class is an approach that has been rejected repeatedly by U.S. agencies and other international regulatory bodies over the years. Consequences can range from deterring innovation to discouraging alternative product design. It can also go as far as completely eliminating a chemistry necessary to an essential product or enabling technology.
While blanket or one-size-fits-all approaches to regulation and restriction are not scientifically appropriate, there is precedence for category approaches—where the category is appropriately described based on sound scientific evidence—as a useful way to screen chemicals for further review. Such an approach can also be deployed to consider testing or data collection requirements or for regulatory purposes.
Addressing information needs for a chemical category can be accomplished by applying one or more scientific procedures. The more sound data that is available and considered, the higher quality the result.
Individual ChemicalsThe category approach has been effective in supplementing information needs in the past. Generally speaking, however, regulation that constitutes restriction should be grounded in a chemical-specific determination based on particular uses, exposures, and risk presented by specific individual chemicals. The EPA, for example, has developed defined categories of chemistries in its New Chemicals program “for which sufficient assessment experience has been accumulated so that hazard concerns and testing recommendations vary little from chemical to chemical within the category.” But for restrictions placed on a specific chemical, EPA does not just look at the similarity of chemicals; it also considers whether there is exposure from a new chemical being reviewed such that there is an unreasonable risk.
When it comes to PFAS, the chemical industry has signaled support for examining possible alternatives to a one-size-fits-all class scheme, including a category approach. More specifically, industry has encouraged EPA to work to identify possible ways the agency could consider the broad range of chemical and toxicological properties of substances in the PFAS family in order to assist in prioritizing those substances, or groups of substances, which may require greater scrutiny. This more deliberate approach acknowledges the differences within the chemical family, but offers a pathway for prioritizing research and data.
World history has been marked by great genius and incredible progress for humankind. It has also been punctuated by well-meaning ideas that sound great in theory, but don’t make good sense in application. The evidence shows a one-size-fits-all approach to chemicals regulations does not make scientific or practical sense. To reiterate what Thomas Edison said, “there’s a way to do it better—find it.” The chemical industry stands ready to work with all parties to meet this complex challenge.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. or its owners.
Jessica Bowman is a senior director with the American Chemistry Council and is the executive director of the FluoroCouncil, a global organization comprised of the world’s leading FluoroTechnology companies.
To read arguments contending PFAS should be regulated as a class, please see the Insights article by the Environmental Working Group.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/insight-with-pfas-one-size-fits-all-isnt-the-answer
-
(ACC Mentioned) A Shocking Amount Of Plastic Is Burned Every Second: Report
May 20, 2019 | Huffington Post
By Kate Bratskeir
The world is facing an enormous trash problem. Even in countries like the United States, which has strong infrastructure for waste disposal and collection, the sheer scale of trash production presents a challenge. Poorer countries, where trash infrastructure is underdeveloped or nonexistent, cannot possibly keep up.
Plastic trash is a particularly thorny issue. Cheap to produce and tough to recycle, most consumer plastics ― like food packaging and shopping bags ― end up mixed in with other types of garbage. And, in many parts of the developing world, people have few choices but to dump their trash in waterways or burn it in open pits to get rid of it.
Plastic is burned at an alarming rate in low- and middle-income countries, according to a May 14 report by Tearfund, Fauna & Flora International, WasteAid and The Institute of Development Studies. Around the world, a double-decker busload of plastic is burned or dumped every second, the report found, equivalent to 70 million metric tons of burned or dumped plastic annually.
Burning plastic releases chemicals into the air that are highly toxic to humans and can increase the risk for heart disease, cause rashes, nausea and headaches, and cause damages to the nervous system, kidney and liver. Aggravated respiratory conditions like asthma and emphysema are also linked to burning plastics, according to the organization Women In Europe for a Common Future.
The Tearfund report focuses on open-pit burning, an unregulated disposal method that rarely curbs or reduces toxins. The authors explain that the air pollutants created through open burning “are often produced in close proximity to human habitation (often in backyards in informal settlements).”
Incineration facilities, by contrast, are used in developed areas to dispose of trash, but these are usually tightly controlled and highly regulated. While there are certainly health and air pollution risks associated with older incinerators, newer ones are supposedly safer. According to National Geographic, 12% percent of the plastic in the U.S. is sent to incinerators, while only 9% is recycled.
The U.S. ships the majority of its plastic refuse abroad. This waste can end up in unregulated or illegal disposal processes, which include burning. A significant amount of the world’s plastic refuse is exported to Southeast Asian nations, including Malaysia, Vietnam and Indonesia. A Greenpeace study focusing on areas in Southeast Asia that have been inundated with foreign plastic over the past year found that these areas could not manage the flow of waste from industrialized countries.
“Wealthy countries had grown accustomed to exporting their plastic problems, with little thought or effort to ensure that the plastic they were exporting got recycled and did not harm other countries,” the Greenpeace report authors wrote. “North Americans and Europeans exported not just their plastic waste, but the pollution that went with getting rid of it.”
The American Chemistry Council, a trade association for chemical companies, pushed back on some of the findings presented in the May 14 study, but condemned the burning and dumping of garbage.
“There is no question that dumping of waste in streams and rivers, on roadsides or open spaces, and open pit burning of waste is neither healthy nor sustainable,” Steve Russell, vice president of the group’s plastic division, said in a statement.
The authors of the report write that companies and governments should be held accountable by reducing the amount of plastic produced and by providing alternative packaging to consumers.
Activist groups hope reports like this one will force companies to step up their search for solutions.
“Plastics’ threats to our oceans and marine life should have been enough to concern the industry producing this material decades ago,” Jacqueline Savitz, chief policy officer of North America for Oceana, said in a statement emailed to HuffPost.
For its part, the corporate world is taking steps toward action. Earlier this year, for example, a group of more than two dozen companies announced the Alliance to End Plastic Waste. The group, which includes some of the top plastic producers ― including Dow Chemical, ExxonMobil, Formosa Plastics Corp. and Procter & Gamble ― has pledged $1.5 billion toward keeping plastics from polluting the environment.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/burning-plastic-report_n_5ce293fce4b00e035b9433d8?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAAZ-5uXvoPmtJemv8sYt_QigUDmX6gwU19zX1lvF-PRhaL0eW0AfUtAGjJTblAobf6zsdkYE3w4l8W18TcopbvaApOdJrCHyVB7Ml_7Wwscd0emHazXx-ROW3OjdE9g_ReUEWLM9VoLFXxzJlJAkPpy8fjr9H_0xim1SAB9B7uvF
-
(ACC Mentioned) R.I. Balks at Call for Stricter Drinking-Water Standards
May 20, 2019 | EcoRI News
The House Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources was recently awakened to the health concern known as PFASs. Pronounced pee-fahs, this class of chemical compounds called perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances can be found in nearly everything we eat, drink, and breathe.
PFASs were developed in the 1940s and introduced to consumer products in the ‘60s, because of their waterproof, nonstick, and stain-resistant attributes. Branded products include Teflon, Scotchgard, and Stainmaster. It turns out those synthetic coatings and thousands of other chemicals with similar abilities cause cancer and are linked to a long list of health and development problems.
PFASs are persistent and pervasive, and hard to regulate. Nearly every public water supply and bottle of water have traces of PFASs, and animals and humans are infected with PFASs the moment they are conceived.
“The problem is, once it gets into the environment, it bioaccumulates in everyone,” Terry Gray, assistant director for the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM), said during a May 16 House hearing.
Rainer Lohmann, associate professor at the University of Rhode Island's Graduate School of Oceanography, has been studying the health impacts of PFASs and other industrial compounds for years.
“So the moment babies are born they have PFASs in them,” he said.” So that’s the sad aspect of this.”
Two types of PFASs are being phased out by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but thousands of substitute compounds can be found in products such as to-go food containers, deli paper, and microwave popcorn bags.
After testing for high levels of PFASs, public water supplies in Burrillville, Cumberland, Westerly, and North Providence were switched to less contaminated water sources. The suspected cause of such contamination is most often firefighting foam. Other New England states have found drinking water wells at schools contaminated by floor waxes that contain PFASs.
President Trump’s rollback of federal environmental regulations has prompted some states to impose their own standards. Vermont and New Jersey have set safety limits for PFASs. Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania are developing them.
Rhode Island environmentalists, scientists, and health advocates say the EPA’s current 70 parts-per-trillion threshold is too high. In a House bill (H6064) they are asking for an interim state standard of 20 parts per trillion. In March, New Jersey set interim thresholds of 13 parts per trillion.
The bill is supported by Providence City Council member Rachel Miller, a trained chemist, who notes that the legislation will help protect public drinking water. The Conservation Law Foundation, Audubon Society of Rhode Island, and Clean Water Action Rhode Island also back the bill.
The PFASs crisis has been in the headlines since 2000, when chemical and adhesive giant 3M promised to stop marketing its Scotchgard products. In 2006, Johns Hopkins Hospital found PFASs in 99 percent of newborn umbilical chords.
But at the May 16 hearing, members of the House Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources seemed unaware of the scope of the problem, especially in Rhode Island. After hearing expert testimony, they began peppering the speakers with questions about PFASs in bottled water and municipal water supplies.
Gray explained that even through two types of PFASs are banned a vast amount of PFASs likely washed into the Providence River and the city’s wastewater treatment system after firefighting foam was used to control a tanker truck fuel spill on Allens Avenue last October.
Rhode Island Department of Health (DOH) associate director Seema Dixit said tests of water supplies have covered 90 percent of Rhode Islanders and that more testing will occur. DOH is working with the EPA to create new rules. Dixit said the state doesn’t need to legislate new thresholds.
“We believe we are doing everything we can about this set of chemicals,” she said. “We are ahead of the game with our testing around the state.”
Rep. Marcia Ranglin-Vassell, D-Providence, a member of the committee, said it was the first time she had heard of the PFAS problem. She called for a statewide education campaign in multiple languages to warn the public about the risks.
In a letter to the House committee, DEM director Janet Coit and DOH director Nicole Alexander-Scott argue against the legislation. They say research from the EPA and other states is a better guide for a new standard. Meanwhile, testing will continue of water supplies near fire stations, landfills, and places where floor waxes were dumped on the ground or into septic systems.
The wait-and-see sentiment and opposition to the legislation is shared by both the Pawtucket Water Supply Board and the Kingston Water District.
In submitted testimony, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) called the bill “deeply flawed and violates both basic scientific principals and standard administrative procedures.”
The ACC claimed that the science behind PFASs is unsettled and regulations shouldn’t be applied to a large class of chemicals. The chemical industry lobbying group called the legislation an unfunded mandate that would raise costs for municipalities and water customers.
The bill was held for further study.
https://www.ecori.org/government/2019/5/20/state-balks-at-call-for-tougher-standards-for-chemicals-found-in-drinking-water
-
Feature: US States Adopt Tough Line on Volatile Organic Compounds
May 20, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Jodi Frank
Colorado may join more than a dozen states who have approved strict VOC regulations beyond EPA requirements.
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are invisible, carbon-based chemicals that vaporise at room temperature. Deodorants, cosmetics, soap and cleaning products emit VOCs, so do architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings – wall paints and deck stains, for example.
US researchers have been studying VOC-related health and environmental problems for years, but concern shot up after a study in the journal Science in 2018 revealed that petroleum-based chemicals in consumer products can, if measured as a group, emit more pollution than automobiles.
"Pesticides, coatings, inks, adhesives, and personal care products such as perfumes produce more than double the emissions of cars," Science reports.
How does this occur? VOCs, such as toluene, ethanol, benzene and formaldehyde, combine with nitrogen oxides and heat from sunlight to create ground-level ozone, or smog. Unlike the naturally occurring ozone in the upper atmosphere that serves as a barrier against harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun, ground-level ozone can carry dangerous consequences for humans and the environment.
Despite the concerns, VOC regulation remains a patchwork of state and federal policy. More than a dozen states and the District of Columbia have established policies more strict than EPA regulations. Parts of Utah, Arizona and Virginia also have established stricter policies than the rest of their respective states. Colorado is in the midst of developing statewide regulations to reduce VOCs in AIM coatings and consumer products which are expected to be adopted in July.
Environmental and health concerns
Smog reduces vegetation’s ability to photosynthesise, stunting its growth and increasing the risk of disease in certain types of trees and other sensitive plants. This, in turn, can affect habitat quality as well as water and nutrient cycles.
Inhaling VOCs can lead to difficulty breathing and nausea. It can also damage the central nervous system and other organs. In extreme cases, some VOCs can cause cancer. "Not all VOCs have all these health effects, though many have several," the American Lung Association says.
California’s lead
The EPA sets acceptable levels of smog through the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (Naaqs) for ground-level ozone. Regions of the US that fail to meet this level are considered in ‘nonattainment’, and must develop state implementation plans (SIPs) outlining how they will come into compliance.
Smog has largely been attributed to VOC emissions from vehicles and power plants since the second half of the 20th century, although California began developing suggested control measures limiting VOC content from AIM coatings in 1977.
The state promulgated the first consumer products regulation in 1989. A leader in regulating VOC emissions, California has amended regulations for AIM coatings and consumer products numerous times for stricter policies.
The EPA created federal requirements for these commodities in 1998 through 40 CFR 59.Other states have adopted their own regulations for AIM coatings and consumer products, largely following California’s approach.Efforts to reduce VOCs
The EPA released its most recent nonattainment list in 2018, comprising of 51 areas in 22 states and the District of Columbia. States could simply follow federal regulations, and more than 30 states do. But some states have opted for more stringent policies.
Delaware and New Hampshire tightened existing state-level VOC regulation in consumer products in 2017, and Connecticut and Maryland did the same in 2018. Rhode Island’s updated consumer products rule took effect at the beginning of 2019. New York is proposing this year to further reduce the VOC limits for architectural coatings.
More than a dozen states and the District of Columbia have established statewide policies that are stricter than EPA regulations. Colorado is likely to be next.
"We have an ozone nonattainment area in our Denver metro, North Front Range area, so while we are looking to adopt these rules on a statewide basis for several reasons, the nonattainment area was one of the drivers," says Leah Martland, environmental protection specialist at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
Conforming to rules and standards
Many states base their VOC-reduction policies on the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) model rules. The OTC, composed of 12 states in the northeast and mid-Atlantic regions and the District of Columbia, was created under the Clean Air Act in 1991.
The OTC, which has no regulatory authority, sets "model rules" which individual states can use to create their own requirements. The regulations are based on policies set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the state’s lead clean-air agency.California engaged in the first efforts in the nation to address smog in the late 1940s, long before the EPA was established by the Clean Air Act of 1970, to develop national policies to reduce air pollution.
Still, California’s population, unique geography, weather and population growth leave the state with some of the worst air-quality regions in the US.
OTC model rules have been amended several times over the years, often following in the footsteps of California’s most recent policies. But they aren’t always perfectly aligned. The OTC passed new standards in November 2018 to lower VOC limits for certain aerosols, multipurpose lubricants and solvents, paint thinners, and sealant and caulking compounds. In March, CARB initiated a new proposal to further reduce VOC emissions in consumer products.Industry Involvement
With different rules across the US, industry can face a challenging task navigating the complex web of state- and local-level requirements.
For example, while products with higher VOC limits – such as certain oil-based deck stains and concrete sealants – can be sold legally in Nevada, they are illegal next door in California, or any other state that has adopted OTC-based regulations.
The American Coatings Association (ACA) and the Household and Commercial Products Association (HCPA) – which represent industries ranging from paint, sealant, caulking and adhesive manufacturers to the air care, pesticide, disinfectant, cleaning, floor care, automotive care and aerosol product industries – submit comments before a state or federal VOC-limit proposal becomes law.
"HCPA is active in every state rulemaking process to establish new, or revise existing, VOC emission limits for consumer products," says HCPA spokeswoman Beth Ludwick. "This includes in-depth analysis of the definitions to ensure consistency, which helps manufacturers confidently formulate and produce compliant products."
To help companies keep track of regulations, HCPA maintains a matrix of VOC limits in more than 100 product categories regulated at federal and state levels. It also provides training.
"One or more states are almost always looking at their regulations in one way, shape or form. That’s why we try to aim at consistency as much as possible to minimise the amount of disruption in the marketplace," says Steven Bennett, HCPA senior vice president of scientific affairs.
Meeting air-quality standards
CARB looks at consistency in a different way – that is, working to ensure that all of California’s 35 air-quality management districts (air districts) meet SIP requirements.
Under California law, the primary authority for controlling emissions from architectural coatings is vested in these air districts. To assist them, CARB often provides guidance, including model rules such as the Suggested Control Measure (SCM) for architectural coatings, says CARB spokeswoman Melanie Turner.
"One SCM objective is to increase the uniformity of the district rules. Generally, air districts will update their rules based on their need to reduce emissions in efforts to attain the ambient air quality standards," Ms Turner says.The newly proposed SCM would lower VOC limits for 10 of 45 architectural coating categories and reduce VOC emissions by 2.5 tons per day statewide (excluding the Los Angeles-area South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which has already adopted lower VOC limits). The proposed effective date for the changes is January 2022.
Colorado, meanwhile, plans to implement OTC standards prior to the OTC’s 2018 updates, adopting the Phase II Model Rule for AIM coatings and Phase IV Model Rule for consumer products. OTC’s latest changes incorporated a new model rule, Phase V, for consumer products.
"These model rules are available and industry and retailers are familiar with them," Leah Martland, at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, says. "A lot of effort went into the definitions of the model rules. So, while we’ll be aware of changes (proposed by CARB, OTC or other states), we are looking to these current rules for consistency."
David Foerter, OTC executive director, says he understands industry’s frustration with inconsistent rules. A national policy that most states could agree on would help alleviate the issue.
"We would love to see a national rule, and so would the stakeholders in this process, which would be much more consistent use of standards across the country," he told Chemical Watch. "But EPA hasn’t updated its national policy in many years throughout many administrations, and the current [Trump administration] isn’t the one that’s going to do that."https://chemicalwatch.com/77700/feature-us-states-adopt-tough-line-on-volatile-organic-compounds
-
Vermont Governor Signs Law Setting Strict PFAS Limits
May 20, 2019 | National Law Review
By Nessa Horewitch Coppinger and Daniel M. Krainin
Vermont Governor Phil Scott signed into law on May 16, 2019, one of the most stringent limits in the country on the presence of perfluorinated alkylated substances (PFAS) in drinking water. The law, which was passed by the Vermont House and Senate in late April as S. 49, requires public water systems to monitor their water supplies in an effort to ensure that they do not exceed a combined limit of 20 parts per trillion (ppt) for five PFAS compounds:Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS). Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA). Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA).
The law also directs the Secretary of Natural Resources to take additional steps to tighten controls over PFAS in Vermont water supplies.
Under the law, if any of the five regulated PFAS contaminants are present, individually or in combination, in a public waters system (PWS) in excess of 20 ppt, the PWS must: Implement treatment or other measures to reduce the regulated PFAS contaminants to levels below the advisory level (20 ppt). Issue a “do not drink” notice to all users of the public water system until the regulated PFAS contaminants are below the advisory level.
In addition, the law requires the Secretary of Natural Resources to: Issue a final proposed rule establishing a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for the five regulated PFAS compounds.Initiate a rulemaking process to solicit public comments regarding the potential regulation of a wider array of PFAS compounds as a class or sub-classes.Undertake a rulemaking process for the adoption of surface water quality standards for PFAS compounds. Publish a plan, subject to public review and comment, to complete a statewide investigation of potential sources of PFAS contamination.Submit a report regarding the management at landfills of leachate containing contaminants of emerging concern (CECs), including recommendations for treatment of CECs in leachate from landfills.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/vermont-governor-signs-law-setting-strict-pfas-limits
-
US EPA Struggles to Replace Animal Tests for Pesticide Toxicity
May 18, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
In early 2016, the US Environmental Protection Agency set an immediate goal to reduce the number of animals used to test the toxicity of pesticides. The agency claims that it is making significant progress toward meeting that goal, but manufacturers are still using tens of thousands of laboratory animals each year to demonstrate that new pesticides entering the US marketplace meet safety standards.
The primary way the EPA’s pesticide office has reduced the use of animals is by granting waivers for certain tests. The agency has been much slower to identify and validate nonanimal methods to replace in vivo animal studies.
One of the biggest hurdles to replace in vivo animal studies with in vitro human-relevant tests is a lack of correlation between the results of human and animal studies. Toxicologists know that animal studies are not always reproducible and useful for predicting adverse human health effects. Even so, animal studies are still the gold standard that scientists try to model and replicate with in vitro systems. A growing group of scientists is calling for that to change.
The EPA evaluates about 500 new pesticide formulations plus a small number of new active ingredients each year. The agency typically requires manufacturers to provide data on acute dermal, oral, and inhalation toxicity, as well as skin and eye irritation and skin sensitization. Completing all six acute mammalian toxicity tests, referred to as the six-pack, requires more than 50 laboratory animals for each formulation or active ingredient.
If the six-pack tests can be modernized, “applicants and registrants will be able to use in vitro and computational approaches that have the potential to reduce the number of animals needed for testing by over 20,000 per year,” an EPA spokesperson says. The EPA did not grant C&EN’s request to interview someone from its pesticide office. The agency instead provided written answers to questions submitted by C&EN, saying the information should be attributed to an unnamed spokesperson.
The EPA uses the six-pack studies to classify pesticides into four categories according to their toxicity. The most dangerous pesticides are category I. Products in this category have the most stringent personal protective equipment (PPE) labeling requirements to protect workers who apply the pesticides.
The six tests measure only acute effects, which occur within a short time after exposure to a chemical, as opposed to medium- or long-term effects—called subchronic and chronic, respectively—which happen after repeated exposures over several days or weeks. Evaluating subchronic and chronic effects requires additional animal tests.
To satisfy the six-pack testing requirements, manufacturers can, in some cases, use data from already-registered products that are similar in composition. Manufacturers can also request waivers for some of the tests if the pesticide meets certain criteria. The EPA grants waivers when a test is not relevant to a particular chemical, according to guidelines released by the agency in 2012. For example, the agency would consider waiving acute oral toxicity tests when a chemical exists as a vapor or gas.
In 2016, the EPA released additional guidelines, announcing that it would waive the acute dermal test for new pesticide formulations. The EPA justified its decision with an analysis comparing oral and dermal acute toxicity data previously submitted to the agency for a range of different pesticides.
If the EPA used just the oral studies, “PPE requirements on the labelling would have been equally protective or more protective” for 95% of the formulations analyzed, the EPA reported in 2016. The agency is still working on guidance for waiving the acute dermal test for active ingredients in pesticides.
Of the remaining five tests, the EPA has made the most progress toward nonanimal testing for skin sensitization—an inflammatory skin reaction caused by an allergic response after repeated skin contact with a chemical. In April 2018, the agency began accepting nonanimal approaches to test active ingredients for skin sensitization. The policy builds on methods already established by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Those methods use a combination of in vitro cellular assays, computational approaches, and biochemical tests, such as peptide-binding assays. None of the methods can be used alone as a replacement for the animal test. Each test targets a specific event along the pathway that leads to skin sensitization.
Such tests, however, have been validated only for active ingredients. “The assays need to be validated for formulations and mixtures, and that work is being done now,” the EPA spokesperson says.
The situation is similar for the skin and eye irritation tests. “There are OECD in vitro test methods that have been around for many years now, and they have been validated,” says Kristie Sullivan, vice president for research policy at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an advocacy group that promotes scientific research without the use of animals.“But all of the validation was done with either cosmetics or personal care products or industrial chemicals. Maybe some active ingredient pesticides. The real gap is, again, the pesticide formulations and mixtures.”
During the past few years, companies have voluntarily provided pesticide formulations to toxicology-testing laboratories, such as Integrated Laboratory Systems and the Institute for In Vitro Sciences (IIVS). The labs are working closely with industry, the EPA, and other stakeholders to determine how well the OECD in vitro tests work on the formulations. So far, for both eye and skin irritation, “we aren’t quite finding what we are looking for,” Sullivan says.
One of the challenges is the classification system that the EPA uses for pesticides. That system is different from the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) used in the European Union and by the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Nonanimal test methods for skin and eye irritation have been validated for GHS categorization. They are not easily transferable to the EPA’s categories because the GHS has three categories, whereas the EPA has four, says Hans Raabe, vice president and chief operating officer at IIVS.
It is quite straightforward to predict skin irritation using the currently available in vitro test methods, Raabe says. “This is due in large part to our mechanistic understanding of cellular responses in the skin after chemical exposure and the fact that these responses can be modeled with available in vitro test methods.”
Tests using “reconstructed human epidermal tissue constructs were successfully validated for identifying chemicals that fall within the GHS classification of corrosive and skin irritant categories,” Raabe says.
The catch is that in vitro tests are better at predicting the extremes—corrosive and nonirritant. It is the EPA’s middle categories—severe and moderate irritant—that are difficult to predict with the in vitro tests.
“The EPA and GHS skin irritation category systems are not particularly well aligned,” Raabe notes. “It certainly would be easier if all regulatory systems followed one approach—for example, the GHS categorization scheme—so that the test methods validated for GHS schemes would be directly applicable to the EPA.”
Regulators in the EU and many countries that follow the GHS categorization already accept nonanimal methods for skin irritation for many purposes.
One problem that all regulators around the world face is the reproducibility of the in vivo test itself, Sullivan says. Chemicals tested multiple times for eye and skin irritation using animal tests have discordant results, according to analyses of the literature. “How do you decide what the correct answer is?” Sullivan asks.
“I think the time has come for us to break our reliance on the animal test as the reference standard and begin to rely on the categorization of the in vitro test methods to move forward for classification and labeling purposes,” Raabe says. The newer in vitro methods include tissues, organ culture systems, and chemical exposures that are more relevant for humans than the animal studies. “We spend a lot of time pondering why we can’t get 100% correlations to the animal test results when we should be asking ourselves why we assume that the animal test is always correct,” Raabe says.
For the remaining two six-pack tests—acute oral and inhalation toxicity—the EPA is considering accepting calculations used under the GHS that add up the hazards of each chemical in a mixture as an alternative to animal tests. A pilot program is underway to collect data from in vivo oral and inhalation toxicity studies on pesticide formulations to evaluate the ability of the GHS mixtures equation to predict the acute toxicity categories derived from traditional animal studies.
The EPA acknowledges that nonanimal approaches can yield more information than animal studies and improve the agency’s ability to predict the hazards of chemicals. The agency is working closely with stakeholders to find and validate nonanimal methods, but “it is a highly time-consuming process,” the EPA spokesperson says. The EPA cannot predict how long it will take to replace the six pesticide tests, but the agency says that it will continue to waive tests and accept alternative approaches “as the science is ready for use.”
https://cen.acs.org/environment/pesticides/US-EPA-struggles-replace-animal/97/i20
-
DuPont, 3M Hit With Delaware Groundwater Pollution Class Claims
May 20, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
DuPont, 3M Co., and other companies should be held liable for the contamination of Delaware groundwater by a chemical used to manufacture non-stick products, a new class complaint alleges.
The case is the latest in a series of lawsuits against 3M, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., and other companies alleging physical injuries and property damage caused by perfluorooctanic acid.
The compounds—nicknamed “forever chemicals” because they strongly resist biograding—have contaminated drinking water across the U.S., and are the subject of numerous lawsuits.
In March, for example, New Mexico sued the federal government for its use of PFOA-containing firefighting foam at two Air Force bases that contaminated water supplies.
Here, Doris Banks claims in the May 17 complaint that she and four other named plaintiffs in Blades, Del., were sickened by PFOA in their well water.
Banks, who says she suffers from thyroid disease, says DuPont knew as early as 1961 that PFOA moves rapidly through groundwater and that its Teflon product posed water contamination risks.
Procino Plating Inc., an electroplating business in Blades also named as a defendant, was a likely source of PFOA well water contamination discovered in 2012, the complaint filed in Delaware Superior Court states.
The would-be class action seeks damages for residents of the town of 1,300 who have been “unknowingly exposed for many years” to PFOA.
Causes of Action: Negligence, strict liability, trespass, nuisance, conspiracy, medical monitoring.
Relief: Declaratory judgment, class certification, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, interest.
Response: DuPont and 3M didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment May 20.
Attorneys: Napoli Shkolnik LLC
The case is Banks v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Del. Super. Ct., No. S19C-05-024, 5/17/19.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/dupont-3m-hit-with-delaware-groundwater-pollution-class-claims
-
Proposed EU Ban on Halogenated Flame Retardants Set for July Adoption
May 20, 2019 | Chemical Watch
A proposed ban on halogenated flame retardants in electronic displays under the EU's Ecodesign Directive is slated for adoption in early July.
The scrutiny period ended on 8 May without the European Commission or the Council of Ministers exercising their vetoes.
There are 11 Ecodesign implementing measures in the pipeline. The Commission is waiting for other scrutiny periods to end so that they can adopt the whole package in one go, a source told Chemical Watch.
If adopted, the proposed ban would take effect on 1 April 2021.
It is not expected to be followed by other substance bans in electrical or electronic equipment (EEE) under the EU’s ecodesign Directive "at this point", a European Commission official told delegates at a Chemical Watch conference on electronics in Brussels in March.
The provisions of the proposed ban would apply to the enclosures and stands of electronic displays in appliances, such as televisions and computer monitors.
However, DG Environment’s Karolina Zazvorkova said at the conference that they "are not seen as a precedent" for introducing substance bans for EEE under the Directive.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77717/proposed-eu-ban-on-halogenated-flame-retardants-set-for-july-adoption
-
Washington State Crude-by-Rail Law Faces Possible Challenge by North Dakota
May 20, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
North Dakota officials are viewing as a constitutional duty to possibly file a lawsuit challenging a new law in Washington state that could restrict oil shipments from the Bakken Shale.
Director of the Department of Mineral Resources Lynn Helms noted Wednesday that Gov. Doug Brugum and other officials think North Dakota has to file a lawsuit as Washington’s state Senate Bill (SB) 5579 violates the Interstate Commerce Clause (ICC) of the U.S. Constitution.
"We truly believe this is a violation of the ICC and the federal preemption over railway regulations," Helms said during his regular monthly webinar. "It is also a violation of the science behind crude-by-rail and required vapor pressures."
SB 5579 covers oil rail terminal facilities loading/unloading crude and requires the terminals to report to the Washington Department of Ecology on the type and vapor pressure of each shipment received. At issue is a standard for allowable vapor pressure in rail tank cars that carry crude. SB 5579 includes all crude supplies transported by rail.
The legislation is scheduled to take effect July 28, but a two-year lag to allow facilities to reach compliance could delay its impact on North Dakota oil shipments, which now total 225,000-275,000 b/d.
"There are a number of parties likely to intervene on the side of North Dakota in this case," said Helms. In a recent North Dakota Industrial Commission meeting Burgum, the state attorney general and the agricultural commissioner discussed options for the state. "That's where we are headed with near-100% certainty."
Existing facilities may avoid Washington’s new pressure vapor requirements as long as they don't increase the amount of crude handled year/year by more than 10%. Given the effective delay, Helms said it is unlikely that North Dakota would seek a court injunction before the law takes effect.
"To get an injunction you need to show real and present harm, and because there is a delay in this case it is now likely," said Helms.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/118422-washington-state-crude-by-rail-law-faces-possible-challenge-by-north-dakota
-
E.P.A. Plans to Get Thousands of Deaths Off the Books by Changing Its Math
May 20, 2019 | New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
The Environmental Protection Agency plans to change the way it calculates the future health risks of air pollution, a shift that would predict thousands of fewer deaths and would help justify the planned rollback of a key climate change measure, according to five people with knowledge of the agency’s plans.
The proposed change would dramatically reduce the 1,400 additional premature deaths per year that the E.P.A. had initially forecast as a result of eliminating the old climate change regulation — the Clean Power Plan, which was President Barack Obama’s signature climate change measure. It would also make it easier for the administration to defend its replacement, known as the Affordable Clean Energy rule.
It has been a constant struggle for the E.P.A. to demonstrate, as it is normally expected to do, that society will see more benefits than costs from major regulatory changes. The new modeling method, which experts said has never been peer-reviewed and is not scientifically sound, would most likely be used by the Trump administration to defend further rollbacks of air pollution rules.
It is not uncommon for a presidential administration to use accounting changes to make its regulatory decisions look better than the rules of its predecessors. But the proposed new modeling method is unusual because it relies on unfounded medical assumptions and discards more than a decade of peer-reviewed E.P.A. methods for understanding the health hazards linked to the fine particulate matter produced by burning fossil fuels.
Fine particulate matter — the tiny, deadly particles that can penetrate deep into the lungs and enter the bloodstream — is linked heart attacks, strokes and respiratory disease.
The five people familiar with the plan, who are all current or former E.P.A. officials, said the new modeling method would be used in the agency’s analysis of the final version of the ACE rule, which is expected to be made public in June. William L. Wehrum, the E.P.A. air quality chief, acknowledged in an interview the new method would be included in the agency’s final analysis of the rule.
The new methodology would assume there is little or no health benefit to making the air any cleaner than what the law requires. On paper, that would translate into far fewer premature deaths from air pollution, even if it increased. The problem is, scientists say, in the real world there are no safe levels of fine particulate pollution in the air.
“Particulate matter is extremely harmful and it leads to a large number of premature deaths,” said Richard L. Revesz, an expert in environmental law at New York University. He called the expected change a “monumental departure” from the approach both Republican and Democratic E.P.A. leaders have used over the past several decades and predicted that it would lay the groundwork for weakening more environmental regulations.
“It could be an enormously significant impact,” Mr. Revesz said.
The Obama administration had sought to reduce planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Power Plan by pushing utilities to switch away from coal and instead use natural gas or renewable energy to generate electricity. The Obama plan would also have what’s known as a co-benefit: levels of fine particulate matter would fall.
The Trump administration has moved to repeal the Obama-era planand replace it with the ACE rule, which would slightly improve the efficiency of coal plants. It would also allow older coal plants to remain in operation longer and result in an increase of particulate matter.
Particulate matter comes in various sizes. The greatest health risk comes from what is known as PM 2.5, the range of fine particles that are less than 2.5 microns in diameter. That is about one-thirtieth the width of a human hair.
The E.P.A. has set the safety threshold for PM 2.5 at a yearly average of 12 micrograms per cubic meter. While individual days vary, with some higher, an annual average at or below that level, known as the particulate matter standard, is considered safe. However, the agency still weighs health hazards that occur in the safe range when it analyzes new regulations.
Industry has long questioned that system. After all, fossil fuel advocates ask, why should the E.P.A. search for health dangers, and, ultimately, impose costs on industry, in situations where air is officially considered safe?
Mr. Wehrum, who worked as a lawyer and lobbyist for chemical manufacturers and fossil fuel businesses before moving to the E.P.A., echoed that position in the interview. He noted that, in some regulations, the benefits of reduced particulate matter have been estimated to total in the range of $40 billion.
“How in the world can you get $30 or $40 billion of benefit to public health when most of that is attributable to reductions in areas that already meet a health-based standard,” he said. “That doesn’t make any sense.”
Mr. Wehrum confirmed that he had asked his staff to study the issue and that the final version of the ACE rule would include a variety of analyses, including one that does not take into consideration health effects below the particulate matter standard. He acknowledged that doing so would reduce the 1,400 premature deaths the agency had initially predicted as a result of the measure.
He called the attention given to that initial forecast “unfortunate” and said the agency had included the figure in its analysis to show the varied results that can be achieved based on different assumptions.
Mr. Wehrum said the analyses the agency is conducting “illuminate the issue” of particulate matter and the question of what level is acceptable for the purposes of policymaking. He said new approaches would allow for public debate to move ahead and that any new methods would be subject to peer review if they became the agency’s primary tool for measuring health risks.
“This isn’t just something I’m cooking up here in my fifth-floor office in Washington,” Mr. Wehrum said.
Roger O. McClellan, who has served on E.P.A. advisory boards and as president of the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology, an industry-financed research center, said the data for health risks below the particulate matter standard was weak and that he did not accept the argument that agencies must calculate risk “down to the first molecule of exposure.”
“These kinds of approaches — that every molecule, every ionization, carries with it an associated calculable health risk — are just misleading,” Mr. McClellan said.
To put the matter in perspective, most scientists say particulate matter standards are like speed limits. On many highways, a limit of 65 miles per hour is considered reasonable to protect public safety. But that doesn’t mean the risk of an accident disappears at 55 m.p.h., or even 25.
Jonathan M. Samet, a pulmonary disease specialist who is dean of the Colorado School of Public Health, said the most recent studies showed negative health effects well below the 12-microgram standard. “It’s not a hard stop where we can say ‘below that, air is safe.’ That would not be supported by the scientific evidence,” Dr. Samet said. “It would be very nice for public health if things worked that way, but they don’t seem to.”
Daniel S. Greenbaum, president of the Health Effects Institute, a nonprofit research organization that is funded by the E.P.A. and industry groups, acknowledged there was uncertainty around the effects of fine particulate matter exposure below the standard.
He said it was reasonable of the Trump administration to study the issue, but he questioned moving ahead with a new system before those studies are in. “To move away from the way this has been done without the benefit of this full scientific peer review is unfortunate,” he said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/climate/epa-air-pollution-deaths.html
-
Trump EPA Cuts off Funding for Kids' Health Research Centers
May 20, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar and Ariel Wittenber
Despite repeatedly expressing public support for children's health, EPA is ending funding for a network of research centers focused on environmental threats to kids, imperiling several long-running studies of pollutants' effects on child development.
The move, critics say, is part of a broader Trump administration effort to downplay science that could lead to stricter regulations on polluting industries.
At issue are 13 Children's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research Centers located at institutions across the country, from UCLA to Dartmouth College in New Hampshire.
Jointly funded by EPA and the Department of Health and Human Services' National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) for more than two decades, the children's centers study everything from childhood leukemia to the development of autism spectrum disorders. Grants to those centers have long been considered unique in the public health world for including funding for both research and public outreach.
Children's health advocates have been worried about the loss of EPA support for the centers since at least 2017. That December, the agency's Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee urged then-Administrator Scott Pruitt to continue financially supporting the centers.
They are "a successful and effective model of multidisciplinary, community-oriented investigations," committee Chairwoman Barbara Morrissey wrote in a letter. "The network of collaborating Children's Centers advances the field of children's environmental health more profoundly and significantly than what can be accomplished with individual studies."
Four months later, Pruitt sent a brief reply that made no mention of future funding.
"I acknowledge the strong recommendation to continue financial support of the centers," he wrote. "We will honor our existing funding commitments to the centers."
More recently, a federal lead action plan from EPA and a number of government agencies described the research centers as "important resources."
"In addition to conducting scientific studies on environmental health issues, each Children's Center collaborates with various community partners and organizations to inform, advance and disseminate information for public health protection," the plan said.
That existing funding, however, is set to run out for many of the centers at the end of the current fiscal year — leaving many programs scrambling to make up for the shortfall.Translational centers
Linda McCauley runs a center at Emory University dedicated to researching maternal health and preterm birthrates among African American women. Its funding expires in July.
Her center is going to do its best to "stretch out" funding for as long as possible and is also working to apply for other grants from the National Institutes of Health to continue research.
But grants for public outreach about the research are harder to find, she said.
"We have researchers doing very sophisticated and analytical research looking at what is happening with the health of women and children when they are pregnant, but we need to communicate that with the Atlanta community," she said. "That's what would go away, because it was a very unique contribution of the centers and how they were previously funded."
NIEHS has publicized plans to fund five grants for new "Children's Environmental Health Translational Centers," to help communicate scientific findings to the public. If NIEHS decides to move forward, that funding would start in 2020.
NIEHS didn't respond to questions about whether the translation centers were meant to replace or supplement the current research centers, or what role EPA would have — if any — in funding the centers.
In a statement, NIEHS Health Scientist Administrator Kimberly Gray said only that the concept "capitalizes on the strong base of Children's Environmental Health research and opportunities supported by NIEHS and creates a new center program to accelerate dissemination and implementation more broadly to individuals and communities, as well as a strong focus on public health or other impacts."'Like making a building'
When EPA's decision to end support for the children's health research was first reported last week by Nature, Gray warned that NIEHS cannot maintain the research centers without financial help from its longtime partner agency. At this point, she said, NIEHS is trying to maximize the impact of centers' completed research by funding outreach.
Although EPA didn't respond to several requests for comment from the scientific news publication, an agency spokesperson told E&E News on Friday that it "is currently working with NIEHS partners to plan the next solicitation for children's centers, but the agency is unable to make any financial commitments as any new centers would be funded with future appropriations."
But any money that EPA and Congress could provide at this point could be too late to matter for some research programs, according to Tracey Woodruff, the director of the University of California, San Francisco's Pregnancy Exposures to Environmental Chemicals Children's Center.
"Essentially if EPA is going to continue funding the program, they would have to have already put out the [request for applications] as the funding process can take up to two years with RFA, grant writing, review and funding decisions," she said in an email. "As it stands, there is no similar funding lined up for after our current Children's Center grant finishes at the end of the month."
For UC San Francisco, the likely funding gap means "we will not be able to continue some of our research that focuses on maternal and fetal exposures and how chemicals can influence placenta development — and some of these studies have been ongoing for more than five years, because this type of research takes time and resources," she said.
"It is like making a building," Woodruff added. "There is planning, foundation development and then building, and then ongoing maintenance. If you interrupt the process or don't maintain it — it falls apart."A devastating choice
Lawmakers, who have previously rejected EPA's attempts to cut science grants, are discussing how to best protect the at-risk research.
We are "examining ways we can specifically protect these children's research centers, and should have more information on that in the coming days," said a Capitol Hill Democratic aide.
The potential funding shortfall has caught some advocates off guard, according to Morrissey, the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee chairwoman.
EPA Chief Financial Officer Holly Greaves gave a presentation to the committee two weeks ago during its biannual meeting in Washington, D.C. But Greaves didn't mention any issues with funding to the research centers, Morrissey said.
"It made me wonder if they would have sent us their CFO if the lack of funding for the research centers was public," Morrissey said.
Greaves' presentation did include a list of things EPA is doing to help protect kids' health, including a new grant program for clean diesel school buses and the creation of a federal lead action plan this winter.
While those programs are beneficial, the centers "are fundamental to our ability to protect children," Morrissey said. "If we don't know how children are vulnerable, we cannot protect them."
Right now, NIEHS's planned grants for "translation centers" would fund fewer than half the existing centers.
That presents research centers with a devastating choice about which studies communities most need to hear about, said Emory's McCauley.
"I just can't imagine being an African American woman and not understanding why my baby is at risk and how to protect myself, so I'm hopeful we'll get funding. But all the centers are doing work that is just as critical," she said. "How do you say, 'These five things are more important'?"
Ending grants for children's centers is one of several moves the Trump EPA has taken to undercut research. In rejecting a proposed ban on the neurotoxic pesticide chlorpyrifos, for instance, EPA mirrored arguments made by the pesticide industry to raise concerns about peer-reviewed research it had funded by Columbia University's Center for Children's Environmental Health (Greenwire, Aug. 23, 2018).
Studies that link leukemia and other childhood ailments to pesticides "make this administration uncomfortable," said UC San Francisco's Woodruff, a former EPA senior scientist and policy adviser under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush.
EPA didn't respond to questions about how its allies in industry could benefit. But Administrator Andrew Wheeler, who lobbied for fossil fuel companies before joining the administration, said earlier this year that "protecting children's health is a top priority for EPA."
Wheeler was speaking about EPA's budget proposal. It would direct $50 million toward "healthy schools" grants that aim to reduce pests, asthma triggers and exposure to lead in schools, but also would slash nearly $220.6 million from four research programs that work on toxic chemicals in drinking water (E&E News PM, March 18).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/05/20/stories/1060367917
-
The Energy 202: What blue states are doing on the environment while Trump is in office
May 20, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
For the past two years, federal regulators under President Trump have spent much of their time relaxing environmental regulations the previous administration put in place. And when it has chosen to write new rules, it is often criticized for doing so too slowly.
But a cadre of blue states are going in the other direction, moving ahead with their anti-pollution own regulations and, occasionally, butting heads with federal officials while doing so. Here's a rundown from my colleagues, Brady Dennis and Juliet Eilperin. Colorado and New Mexico have adopted new policies attempting to capture more methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from oil and gas operations in the state. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has rolled back Obama-era rules targeting those emissions.Hawaii, New York and California, are banning the pesticide chlorpyrifos, linked to neurological problems in infants, as the Environmental Protection Agency allows the product to stay in the market as the chemical industry has resisted restrictions.Michigan and New Jersey, along with a handful of other states, are moving ahead to restrict a class of so-called “forever chemicals" that don't degrade in the environment and are linked to a number of health issues, including thyroid disease and certain cancers. At the same time, the EPA has promised to do the same with that class of compounds, called polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), though critics say the federal standards would not go far enough.Oregon is taking direct aim at the Trump administration's rollbacks. This week, Gov. Kate Brown (D) is expected to sign a bill codifying into state law federal clean air and clean water standards that were in place before Trump took office.California is mounting probably the biggest legal battle of all with federal regulators. The state, with some of the most smog-choked cities in the country, is trying to tighten auto emissions standards as the EPA and Transportation Department loosen tailpipe rules on new cars and smaller pickup trucks. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia will follow California's lead if the state diverges from federal standards.
The problem of that patchwork of regulations: “At the end of the day, I think regulated entities want to know what the expectations are,” Wendy Heiger-Bernays, an environmental health professor at Boston University, told Dennis and Eilperin. “They’d prefer not to have two different standards — one in one state and another in another state.”
— 2020 watch: Here's the latest on climate proposals coming out of the growing Democratic field.Biden: During a campaign rally in Philadelphia on Saturday, the former vice president touted priorities including tackling climate change and expanding health-care access, as the New York Times reports. He spoke about his climate plan, which some Democrats and presidential rivals have suggested doesn’t go far enough. “If you want to know what the first, most important plank in my climate proposal is, beat Trump,” he said. “Beat Trump, beat Trump.”Buttigieg: South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg released more than a dozen new policy proposals, including a climate change proposal that includes a tax on carbon emissions. In an interview, he outlined some of his priorities: “We no longer have the luxury of debating whether to prepare for climate change, it's on us … As president, I want to massively increase research and investment in renewable energy in solar, wind, and also technologies that can take carbon out of the atmosphere, because we're going to have to do both,” he said. “We also need to make sure we have carbon pricing."Inslee: Meanwhile, the climate plan released last week by Democratic candidate and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee was praised by Green New Deal sponsor Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who called it the “most serious comprehensive one” in the 2020 field thus far.
— Trump vs. California: The president took numerous jabs at the nation's most populous state during an address at the National Association of Realtors’ annual midyear legislative meetings on Friday, Politico reports. He repeated criticism he has expressed about the state’s high-speed rail project as well as what he has described as inadequate “forest management.” During his remarks, the president said such actions, rather than climate change, were to blame for the state's spate of deadly wildfires. “He blames it on global warming,” Trump said of California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D). “I say, ‘Look, try cleaning the floor of the forest a little bit. So you don’t have four feet of leaves and broken trees that have sat there for 25 years.’ "
— Deal reached on steel tariffs: The United States agreed on Friday to lift steel and aluminum tariffs from Mexico and Canada, “clearing a major obstacle to congressional passage of President Trump’s new North American trade deal, The Post’s David J. Lynch, Emily Rauhala and Damian Paletta report. “The bargain calls for Mexico and Canada to adopt tough new monitoring and enforcement measures to prevent subsidized Chinese steel from being shipped to the United States via their territory. In return, the United States will lift its tariffs in 48 hours,” they reported Friday. “Trump’s decision followed a Commerce Department report that concluded rising imports of foreign autos and auto parts threatened U.S. automotive research and development capabilities and thus impaired national security.”
— “This tech is no longer a viable strategy for dealing with climate change”: Gregory Jaczko, who served on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 2005 to 2009, now argues nuclear power is too risky to be a feasible option for tackling climate change, he writes in this op-ed in The Post. Although in 1999, when he began to work on issues related to nuclear power, he believed “the risks from human-caused global warming seemed to outweigh the dangers of nuclear power,” he said his views began to shift when he first started on the commission in 2005. Soon, he began to doubt his claims that nuclear energy was safe. “Despite working in the industry for more than a decade, I now believe that nuclear power’s benefits are no longer enough to risk the welfare of people living near these plants,” he continues. “The current and potential costs — in lives and dollars — are just too high.”
— Louisiana’s climate crisis: A report released by the state government outlined how as global warming worsens, flood-prone communities will have to shift inland. The state’s economy will have to shift, too, from one that focuses largely on fishing, oil and gas industries, which are vulnerable to changes that come with climate change, E&E News reports. “Louisiana is in the midst of an existential crisis,” the report says. “We must accept that some areas of Louisiana cannot be preserved as is and that some residents will have less land and more water, potentially impacting their livelihoods and communities.”
— How climate change is affecting the Panama Canal: The canal has experienced lower water levels because of a serious drought. Carlos Vargas, the Panama Canal Authority’s executive vice president for environment, water and energy, called the last five months “the driest dry season in the history of the canal,” the New York Times reports. The shift has resulted in some shippers having to reduce how much cargo they carry. Because the canal sees about 5 percent of maritime trade, "[a]ny hiccup in its operation can ripple through the global economy and affect the United States, the origin or destination for much of the canal’s traffic. And those problems may become more commonplace as the climate changes.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2019/05/20/the-energy-202-what-blue-states-are-doing-on-the-environment-while-trump-is-in-office/5ce1e027a7a0a435cff8c0d5/?utm_term=.4c3cabf61c83
-
EPA Science Advisers Interested in Examining 'Co-Benefits'
May 20, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
One of EPA's top advisory panels could soon tackle some contentious questions surrounding the agency's use of "co-benefits" to help justify new regulations, according to a newly released proposal.
Under the proposal, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) would seek to address some of the scientific issues underlying the use of co-benefits, which are often described as gains expected from adoption of individual regulations on top of what those rules are specifically intended to accomplish.
Those issues include how EPA should go about identifying potential co-benefits that stem from a specific rulemaking, as well as whether there are "any notable shortcomings and exemplary practices" in previous treatments of co-benefits.
"This exercise will not be trivial because the practice of counting 'co-benefits' of federal clean-air regulations has not been without controversy," the proposal says. It was posted on the board's website Friday in anticipation of a two-day meeting June 5 and 6 in Washington, D.C.
In an email today, SAB Chairman Michael Honeycutt, a senior manager at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, said a small work group developed the plan, which will be put to the full board for a vote next week. Should the board pursue the co-benefits inquiry, EPA would get a final report on the subject by March 2021, according to a tentative schedule.
Also up for a discussion and vote at the meeting will be whether the Trump administration's version of a Waters of the U.S. rule warrants a review, Honeycutt said.
The board advises EPA on a variety of scientific and technical issues. While that input may come at the request of the agency's administrator, this particular proposal is described as "self-initiated," meaning it arose from the board.
The tension regarding EPA's use of co-benefits is at the center of the Trump administration's bid to scrap the agency's justification for its landmark 2012 limits on emissions of mercury and other hazardous pollutants from coal- and oil-fired power plants.
In making the case for those regulations, formally known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, the Obama-era EPA relied heavily on the co-benefits expected from reduction in particulate matter, which dwarfed the dollar value of the health savings assigned to the estimated cuts in mercury emissions.
The Trump administration, which says it's responding to concerns raised by the Supreme Court, has cited that imbalance in now proposing to revoke the legally required determination that it was "appropriate and necessary" to regulate mercury releases; the issue of co-benefits could also come up at a hearing tomorrow on the proposed revocation by the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations (E&E Daily, May 20).
In a separate posting Friday, the Science Advisory Board expressed interest in doing its own review, saying it may offer advice "on deficiencies in the cost assessment methodology that contributed [to] the Supreme Court ruling."
"It would be of interest to know exactly how EPA determines what is a direct benefit and what is a co-benefit, and how it handles different types of human health outcomes {e.g., how to calculate the relative cost of missed work days, hospitalizations and deaths}," according to a roster of planned EPA actions that could merit board review of the underlying science.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/05/20/stories/1060367825
-
Tim Cook Says His Era Has Failed by Over-Debating Climate Change
May 20, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Hailey Waller
Tim Cook told graduates at Tulane University that his “generation has failed” them by fighting more than making change on issues including immigration, criminal justice and, pointedly, climate change.
“We’ve been too focused on the fight and not enough on the progress,” the Apple Inc. chief executive said Saturday at the Mercedes-Benz Superdome in New Orleans. “You don’t need to look far to find an example of that failure.”
Tim Cook address Tulane University graduates at Commencement 2019.Photographer: Josh Brasted/Getty ImagesHe was referring to the Superdome, which sheltered thousands from Hurricane Katrina in 2005. He then criticized, without naming, politicians who raise doubts about climate change or its cause, a group that includes President Donald Trump.
“I don’t think we can talk about who we are as a people and what we owe to one another without talking about climate change,” he said.
Cook, 58, said the solution to climate change won’t be found based on whose side wins or loses an election. “It’s about who has won life’s lottery and has the luxury of ignoring this issue and who stands to lose everything,” he said.
“I challenge you to look for those who have the most to lose and find the real, true empathy that comes from something shared,” Cook said. “When you do that, the political noise dies down.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/tim-cook-says-his-era-has-failed-by-over-debating-climate-change
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