Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 5/27/2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) What Do the Plastics and Climate Crises Have in Common? the Same Someone Profiting from the Status Quo
May 27, 2019 | Green Biz
By Carol J. Clouse
In a few important ways, tackling plastic pollution feels less complicated and somewhat removed from the climate crisis. -
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Specialty Chemical Market Volumes Dipped in April
May 24, 2019 | Powder Bulk Solids
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) reported that U.S. specialty chemicals market volumes fell 0.3% in April, reflecting soft manufacturing activity, following a 0.3% decline in March and 0.2% decline in February. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Wants to Triple Level of Rocket Fuel Chemical Allowed in Drinking Water
May 24, 2019 | Think Progress
By Kyla Mandel
The Trump Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants to raise the threshold for a chemical found in rocket fuel to triple the previous limit allowed in drinking water supplies. This is the first new drinking water rule introduced by the agency since the George W. Bush administration. -
(ACC Mentioned) Maryland Foam Packaging Ban, Energy Bills to Become Law
May 24, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard
Maryland will join Maine and Vermont in banning foam food containers. -
(ACC Mentioned) EWG News Roundup (5/24): EWG’s 2019 Guide to Sunscreens, EWG Board Member Michelle Pfeiffer Lobbies for Safe Cosmetics and More
May 24, 2019 | Environmental Working Group
By Robert Coleman
This week EWG released the 2019 installment of our Guide to Sunscreens, which rates the safety and efficiency of more than 1,300 SPF products. -
Green Groups Angered over EPA's Newest Regulations for Rocket Fuel Chemical
May 24, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Environmental groups are saying the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) isn’t going far enough with its new regulations for a chemical commonly used in rocket fuel. -
EPA Distorts the Scientific Evidence and Fails to Protect Kids’ Brains in Its Proposed Limit for Perchlorate in Drinking Water
May 24, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
Today, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 56 parts per billion (ppb) for perchlorate in drinking water – more than three times less protectivethan an interim health advisory level set in 2008. -
California to Further Restrict Chlorpyrifos Pesticide Exposure
May 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joyce E. Cutler
California continues to target chlorpyrifos, a pesticide linked to neurological delays in children, with strict new allowable exposure limits and even a possible ban on the pesticide. -
Illinois Officials Push Controls of Medical Equipment Sterilizer
May 24, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Joyce
Illinois state legislators and regulators are seeking stricter emission controls on ethylene oxide, a sterilizer used on medical equipment and a known health hazard. -
Consumer Trust Is Falling. Here’s How Companies Can Earn It Back.
May 27, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Alissa Sasso
Environmentally-conscious shoppers are expected to spend up to $150 billion on sustainable products by 2021, an increase of almost 15% since 2018. Skepticism about conventional products is, in part, fueling this market growth. -
Pipelines Welcome Advancement of Stalled Safety Rule to OMB Review
May 24, 2019 | Platts
By Maya Weber
A long-stalled rule on safety of natural gas transmission pipelines is showing signs of movement within the administration. -
Wheeler Floats Oil & Gas Sub-Sector Plan to Avoid Methane Limits
May 24, 2019 | Inside EPA
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler is floating a plan in which the agency would split the oil and gas industry into various sub-sectors in an effort to avoid imposing methane requirements on operators, arguing the emissions from any particular category would not be high enough to warrant regulation. -
America Must Build More Natural Gas Storage Capacity
May 27, 2019 | Forbes
By Jude Clemente
Natural gas of course is increasingly our go-to fuel to grow the economy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, backup wind and solar, and be our essential energy source to export to a mostly poor and energy-deprived world. -
(ACC Mentioned) RMP Delay May Suggest Rollback of Obama-Era Policy ‘Dead in the Water’
May 24, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmentalists say the Trump administration’s just-announced monthslong delay of its self-imposed deadline for finalizing a rollback of an Obama-era rule tightening facility safety Risk Management Plan (RMP) requirements may suggest the plan is “dead in the water”... -
3 Injured in Fire That Destroyed Nebraska Fertilizer Plant
May 24, 2019 | AP (In The Washington Post)
A lightning strike at a Nebraska fertilizer plant set off a large fire that injured three truck drivers sleeping in the parking lot and destroyed the unoccupied factory, officials said Friday. -
Minnesota Lawmaker Plans New Oil Train Safety Legislation
May 27, 2019 | Duluth News-Tribune
By Don Davis
A Minnesota Legislature transportation chairman plans a 2020 rail safety plan implementing more regulations, even as the Trump administration has backed away from requiring two people to work on freight trains. -
DOJ Makes Novel CWA Argument in Bid to Kill Cities’ Climate Lawsuits
May 24, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is expanding its legal attacks on municipalities’ climate nuisance suits against oil companies, going beyond two well-known Supreme Court climate rulings to now reference a Clean Water Act (CWA) case that DOJ says bolsters its arguments for dismissal... -
Biden Under Pressure from Environmentalists on Climate Plan
May 24, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Former Vice President Joe Biden is expected to unveil his climate change plan any day now, and he's under increasing pressure from environmentalists who want him to take a strong position against fossil fuels. -
Older People Are Contributing to Climate Change, and Suffering From It
May 27, 2019 | New York Times
By Paula Span
When it comes to discussing climate change, older people may have one advantage: They have watched it happen. -
E.P.A. Experts Objected to ‘Misleading’ Agency Smog Decision, Emails Show
May 25, 2019 | New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
Newly released emails show that Environmental Protection Agency scientists raised strong objections to a 2018 decision by Scott Pruitt, who was head of the agency at the time, to exempt most of southeastern Wisconsin from federal limits on smog.
Congressional Hearings - There are no hearings to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
May 27, 2019 | Green Biz
By Carol J. Clouse
In a few important ways, tackling plastic pollution feels less complicated and somewhat removed from the climate crisis.
Individual countries can take meaningful action — by investing in recycling infrastructure, offering incentives to companies working on advanced recycling technologies and alternative materials, and banning certain single-use items — without the time and effort it takes to build a global consensus. The visuals of plastic pollution have also galvanized the public in a way that decades of warnings about greenhouse gases couldn’t, and this public outcry has motivated the private sector. With their reputations at stake, multinational corporations that sell products packaged in disposable plastic have a tremendous incentive to find alternatives.
Still, plastics and climate are linked — perhaps to more of an extent than most people realize — and they share some of the same underlying challenges. In both cases, someone is profiting from the status quo. And whether it be the fossil fuel industry or the broader petrochemical industry, the corporations profiting from the problem have been reluctant to envision a future where they could profit, instead, from the solutions to the problem.
While governments, various private-sector actors and private citizens have joined forces in an effort to find alternatives to single-use, plastics manufacturers have been largely AWOL. In fact, they’re increasing production. It goes without saying that this makes ridding the world of plastic pollution all the more difficult.
“We have to get other players to the table,” Nina Goodrich, the director of the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, said during last week’s GreenBiz webcast, Circular Packaging: The State of Play. “The resin companies are not at the table yet, and it’s going to be difficult if the resin companies don’t help.”
Plastic resins — which come in a variety of chemical recipes — are the main base of all plastics. Cooking up resins is a complicated process, but basically, resins are comprised of polymers, and polymers are made up of hydrocarbons, and most hydrocarbons found on Earth naturally occur in crude oil. The top 10 plastics and resin manufacturers, according to the Polymer Property Database, include chemical giants such as Dow Chemical and INEOS, and oil and gas companies such as Lyondell Basell, ExxonMobil and Chevron Phillips.
Some of these companies have begun investing in chemical recycling, which turns plastic waste into feedstock for new material. However, these efforts are set against the backdrop of a gigantic, industry-wide expansion of petrochemical and plastic production.
The World Economic Forum projects that plastic production and use will grow 3.8 percent per year through 2030. WEF assumes this rate of growth will slow to 3.5 percent per year from 2030 through 2050, according to a new report from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and a coalition of environmental organizations.
The report goes on to point out that in September 2017, the American Chemistry Council reported a total of $164 billion of investment in 260 new or expanded production facilities for petrochemicals (calculating from a 2010 baseline). In September 2018, the Council reported an additional $36 million in planned investment in another 70 new or expanded facilities.
This huge uptick in plastic production has been spurred by the shale gas boom in the U.S., which drove down the cost of natural gas liquids, one of the raw materials used to produce plastic resin, the Council’s chief economist, Kevin Swift, told The Guardian in 2017.
In other words, we’re drowning in plastic not because of demand, but because of supply.
Trash into treasure
Much of the conversation during the circular packaging webcast centered on creating demand for recycled materials.
“We have to create the pull from the manufacturing side to allow more of this stuff to be collected, sorted and resold,” said Christopher Davidson, director of corporate sustainability at WestRock, an Atlanta-based paper and packaging company that makes such items as paper-based food containers and six-pack rings.
Deanna Bratter, the senior director of public benefit and sustainable development for Danone North America, agreed. The French food giant has set itself up as a leader in circular packaging and circular food systems.
“What it comes down to are the markets, the recyclers the MRFs (materials recovery facilities) are going to collect and sort the material that has a market value for them because that’s how they’re going to stay in business,” Bratter said. “If we don’t make really bold commitments to purchase the end materials so we can use it in our recycled content, we’re not actually creating the circular economy vision that we need.”
Commitments from big brands such as Danone, Coca Cola and Nestlé to use more recycled plastics in their packaging appears to have motivated the petrochemical industry to take a more serious look at chemical recycling, according to a recent story in the Houston Chronicle.
A recent report from the American Chemistry Council estimates that chemical recycling could create $9.9 billion in economic output in the U.S. economy annually, including $4.1 billion related to new products generated by chemical recycling facilities and $2.2 billion in annual payroll.
Many smaller chemical companies are already working in this area. And the German chemical giant BASF recently started using recycled chemicals to produce cheese packaging, refrigerator components and insulation panels. Several other large petrochemical companies, such as Houston-based LyondellBasell, Saudi Arabia’s SABIC, and the French energy company Total are investing in improving chemical recycling technologies.
However, the general industry line is that chemical recycling technologies need more research and development to reach commercial scale. Some industry leaders estimate it could take five to 10 years for these technologies to fully mature. Others say it could take another 10 years on top of that to build plants to support a major chemical recycling industry.
Which begs the question, if there’s demand for chemically recycled plastic, why not simply convert some of the hundreds of facilities planned for petrochemical production into chemical recycling plants?
“There is no way for us to do this alone,” Bratter said. “It’s absolutely going to take significant collaboration with partners in manufacturing, with consumers and retailers to make this come to life.”
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/what-do-plastics-and-climate-crises-have-common-same-someone-profiting-status-quo
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Specialty Chemical Market Volumes Dipped in April
May 24, 2019 | Powder Bulk Solids
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) reported that U.S. specialty chemicals market volumes fell 0.3% in April, reflecting soft manufacturing activity, following a 0.3% decline in March and 0.2% decline in February. All changes in the data are reported on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis. Of the 28 specialty chemical segments ACC monitors, only seven expanded in April, off from eight in March and 12 in February. Nineteen markets experienced decline in April and two were flat. During April, large market volume gains (1.0% and over) occurred only in construction chemicals and textile specialties.
During April, the overall specialty chemicals volume index was up 2.2% on a year-over-year (Y/Y) 3MMA basis. Year-earlier comparisons have been easing since 3rd quarter 2018. The index stood at 114.8% of its average 2012 levels in January. This is equivalent to 7.82 billion pounds (3.55 million metric tons). On a Y/Y basis, there were gains in 16 market and functional specialty chemical segments. Compared with last year, volumes were down in 12 segments.
Performance chemistry reflects trends in manufacturing. For the first quarter as a whole, specialty chemical market volumes were essentially flat, and the second quarter began on a soft note.
Specialty chemicals are materials manufactured on the basis of the unique performance or function and provide a wide variety of effects on which many other sectors and end-use products rely. They can be individual molecules or mixtures of molecules, known as formulations. The physical and chemical characteristics of the single molecule or mixtures along with the composition of the mixtures influence the performance end product. Individual market sectors that rely on such products include automobile, aerospace, agriculture, cosmetics and food, among others.
Specialty chemicals differ from commodity chemicals. They may only have one or two uses, while commodities may have multiple or different applications for each chemical. Commodity chemicals make up most of the production volume in the global marketplace, while specialty chemicals make up most of the diversity in commerce at any given time, and are relatively high value with greater market growth rates.
This data is the only timely source of market trends for twenty-eight market and functional specialty chemical segments. Chemistry directly touches over 96% of all manufactured goods, and trends in these specialty chemical segments provide a detailed view of trends in manufacturing. The data also sheds light on how various consumer end-use markets are performing compared to others in the marketplace.
https://www.powderbulksolids.com/news/US-Specialty-Chemical-Market-Volumes-Dipped-in-April-05-24-2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Wants to Triple Level of Rocket Fuel Chemical Allowed in Drinking Water
May 24, 2019 | Think Progress
By Kyla Mandel
The Trump Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants to raise the threshold for a chemical found in rocket fuel to triple the previous limit allowed in drinking water supplies. This is the first new drinking water rule introduced by the agency since the George W. Bush administration.
In the EPA’s latest move to weaken environmental and health protections, it released a notice on Thursday requesting public comment on its proposal to raise the maximum level allowed for the chemical perchlorate — which is linked to thyroid problems — to 56 micrograms per liter.
This is three times higher than what the EPA previously recommended as a safe level for drinking water (15 micrograms per liter). The previous recommendation was just an advisory to help guide states, as opposed to an enforceable limit, which is what the agency is now proposing.
In addition to this change, the EPA is seeking comment on three other alternate options: setting the level to 18 micrograms per liter, to 90 micrograms per liter, or simply abolishing the rule regulating perchlorate in drinking water.
The news comes after a decade-long delay following a lawsuit by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) demanding the EPA set an enforceable standard for the chemical.
“This is enough to make you sick—literally,” Erik Olson, senior director for health and food at NRDC, said in a statement on the new proposed limits. “As a result, millions of Americans will be at risk of exposure to dangerous levels of this toxic chemical in their drinking water.”
In addition to rocket fuel, perchlorate is found in fireworks, airbags, matches, signal flares, some food packaging, and munitions. Health risks from exposure include disruption to the thyroid’s ability to produce hormones needed for normal growth and development, along with potentially causing reproductive problems.
According to NRDC, scientists recommend a limit that is “10 to more than 50 times lower” than what the EPA is currently proposing. Two states currently have much stricter, enforceable standards than required by the EPA: California (at 6 micrograms per liter) and Massachusetts (at 2 micrograms per liter).
The EPA’s proposal comes as the agency has been dragging its feet on implementing a similar legally enforceable standard for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) — a group of man-made chemicals that are toxic to humans and can increase the risk of cancer — in drinking water. Currently there is no maximum level for PFAS chemicals under EPA rules. Numerous communities in 43 states are currently suffering from the toxic chemical polluting their water.
These delays or weakening of chemical standards come despite EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler recent arguments that water issues are the world’s leading environmental crisis.
“This is another Trump administration gift to polluters and water utilities that have lobbied to be off the hook for cleaning up the problem,” Olson said of the proposed change to perchlorate.
The Trump EPA features several top officials who once worked for the chemical industry. This includes a former Koch Industries staffer, David Dunlap, who worked on water and chemical policy and now serves as deputy EPA assistant administrator for research and development, and a former chemical industry attorney, Steven Cook, who oversees Superfund sites. Meanwhile, Nancy Beck, the Trump administration appointee who oversees the EPA’s toxic chemical unit, previously worked as an executive at the American Chemistry Council, one of the industry’s main lobbying groups.
What’s more, a 2009 House Committee report found that Beck, a former Bush administration official, was slowing progress in confirming the health threats from chemicals like perchlorate found in drinking water. The committee concluded she had been “inappropriately intervening in agency science.”
Ties to the chemical industry also extend to Wheeler. In a letter sent to the EPA administrator last month, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D- MD), accused Wheeler of failing to disclose his previous lobbying on behalf of Darling Ingredients, which is involved in making fuel and fertilizers regulated by the EPA.
https://thinkprogress.org/epa-rocket-fuel-chemical-drinking-water-e6ee56c9ee13/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Maryland Foam Packaging Ban, Energy Bills to Become Law
May 24, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard
Maryland will join Maine and Vermont in banning foam food containers.
The prohibition on certain styrofoam products will become law absent action by Gov. Larry Hogan (R). The governor told lawmakers May 24 that he would let a bill (H.B. 109) imposing the ban next year take effect without his signature.
A separate bill (S.B. 516) that would require the state to get half of its energy from renewable sources by 2030 also will become law without the governor’s action. Although he criticized S.B. 516 as being politically motivated in a May 22 letter, Hogan said he would let it become law while also calling for a state goal of total clean energy usage by 2040.
Together, the bills put Maryland among the vanguard of states dealing with environmental issues. On renewable energy, only the Washington, D.C., and nine states, including California, New Jersey, and Hawaii, have standards at 50 percent or higher.
‘Not The Answer’Some critics of the foam ban, including the American Chemistry Council and the Maryland Retailers Association, had urged Hogan to veto the measure as they say it would restrict a class of widely used products and impose additional costs on businesses. They said the foam products at issue were more environmentally friendly than alternatives.
“We are disappointed by the Governor’s decision as hundreds of Maryland companies asked for a veto,” Cailey Locklair Tolle, president of the Maryland Retailers Association, told Bloomberg Environment May 24.
“Not only can polystyrene be recycled and counties could have made money doing so, but it is safe and better for the environment than many other comparable products on the market,” she said.
The American Chemistry Council said in a statement it is “committed to helping end plastic waste in the environment, but a ban on polystyrene foam food service products is not the answer.”
The group also said that such containers are a “cost-effective and environmentally preferable choice” than other packaging and a prohibition could lead to increased solid waste, energy use, water use, and greenhouse gas emissions.
Maryland was poised to be the first state to impose such prohibitions, but Maine acted while H.B. 109 sat on Hogan’s desk. Vermont’s Gov. Phil Scott (R) said he will sign a similar bill cleared May 22.
Dozens of localities in the U.S., including New York, Los Angeles, and Washington, as well as some counties and cities in Maryland have banned or restricted foam food containers.
Waste IssuesEnvironmental groups and other supporters of the bans say polystyrene foam is a significant source of pollution because it crumbles and is difficult to clean up or recycle. A number of large companies, including Dunkin’ Brands Group Inc. and McDonald’s Corp. have already announced plans to phase out foam cups and containers.
Sponsors of Maryland’s legislation said that as much as 40 percent of the litter found in Maryland’s waterways are single-use foam products. They also have been found to absorb chemicals at a higher rate than other plastics and are often ingested by fish.
Such foam can’t be recycled or composted and makes up about a quarter of the solid waste that can’t be diverted from landfills, according to bill sponsor, Del. Brooke Lierman (D).
Maryland’s new law prohibits businesses and schools from using certain types of polystyrene foam packages, such as single-serving beverage cups and food containers. Certain food and beverage containers that have been produced outside the state, such as ramen noodle cups, egg cartons, or packaging used for raw or butchered meat are exempted.
The ban takes effect on July 1, 2020, and violations bring fines of up to $250.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/maryland-foam-packaging-ban-energy-bills-to-become-law
-
May 24, 2019 | Environmental Working Group
By Robert Coleman
This week EWG released the 2019 installment of our Guide to Sunscreens, which rates the safety and efficiency of more than 1,300 SPF products. EWG researchers once again found that two-thirds of sunscreen products still offer inferior sun protection or contain worrisome ingredients.
EWG’s senior vice president for government affairs Scott Faber appeared before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee this week to call on Congress to take real steps to combat toxic PFAS chemicals in the crisis that has spread nationwide.
“To address the growing PFAS contamination crisis, Congress should address ongoing sources of PFAS contamination, measure the scope of existing PFAS contamination, notify communities impacted by PFAS contamination, and dramatically accelerate efforts to clean up PFAS contamination,” Faber said in his testimony. “More broadly, Congress should reform our federal environmental and public health laws to better address the threats posed by contaminants like PFAS.”
Also happening on Capitol Hill, EWG board member Michelle Pfeiffer met with lawmakers on Thursday to urge them to support bipartisan legislation to reform the law governing the cosmetics industry for the first time in 80 years.
The Environmental Protection Agency announced this week that it would cut funding to a number of research centers that focus on assessing the risks children face from exposure to toxic chemicals and industrial pollution. These actions are the latest in a line of decisions by EPA head Andrew Wheeler and the Trump administration to downgrade the importance of children’s health.
Memorial Day marks the opening of many public pools throughout the nation – and new EWG research shows that with refreshing pool water comes a plethora of gross biological and chemical contaminants introduced by swimmers. Because of those contaminants, pool operators must overly chlorinate their pools to reduce bacteria, a process with its own adverse health effects. EWG laid out some tips for swimmers to ensure a cleaner pool experience this summer.
Over on our energy site, EWG’s Next Level Energy, we criticized the Trump EPA’s plan to use a bogus method for estimating premature deaths from air pollution in its effort to justify the president’s decision to roll back clean air regulations and prop up the coal industry.
We also urged North Carolina legislators to reject a Duke Energy–backed bill that would give the dirty energy giant the right to jack up rates on its customers in the Tar Heel state.
Here’s some news you can use going into the weekend.
2019 EWG Guide to Sunscreens
USA Today: Is your sunscreen 'safe'? What you need to know about protecting yourself from the sun this summer
In a review of more than 1,300 products with SPF in them, the Environmental Working Group found that about two-thirds did not meet its standard for protection or chemical safety. Reprinted by The Arizona Republic, Asbury Park Press, Cincinnati Enquirer, Detroit Free Press, Florida Today, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, TC Palm, MSN, Yahoo! News and 94 other media outlets.
USA Today: Pelosi's meeting with Dems, Trump team in court, suncreen safety: 5 things you need to know Wednesday
Sunscreens on the market today may be providing inferior sun protection or contain potentially harmful chemicals, an environmental advocacy organization says. In a new 2019 review of more than 1,300 products with SPF in them, the Environmental Working Group found that about two-thirds did not meet its standard for protection or chemical safety. Reprinted by Yahoo! News and USA Today affiliate papers.
TIME Magazine: Here Are the Safest and Most Effective Sunscreens
Summer means more time in the sun, which can be good for the bones—all that vitamin D—but bad for the skin. In its annual report on the sunscreens with the least toxic ingredients that are also effective, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found more than 250 products that measure up. Reprinted by MSN, Yahoo! News and Yahoo! Lifestyle.
Houston Chronicle: Is your sunscreen safe? Which kinds to use and which to avoid
That ghostly-white mineral-based lotion is the non-toxic formula considered safest to slather on the skin for broad-spectrum protection from UVA and UVB radiation, according to the Environmental Working Group. The group released its 13th annual Guide to Sunscreens on May 22.
National Geographic: What sunscreens are best for you—and the planet?
Check the list: Haereticus Environmental Lab publishes a list each year of what sunscreens are safe for the environment, and the Environmental Working Group rates products with SPF values—including some 650 sunscreens and 250 moisturizers—on their environmental impact.
Fashionista: 33 Top-Rated Sunscreens to Use if You're Concerned About SPF Safety
The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a consumer activist group which has pushed the FDA to do further safety studies on sunscreen, has done extensive investigating of its own into which sunscreen products are "safest," and it's a helpful resource, especially as we await the FDA's verdict on those 12 ingredients (which is expected to come at the end of the year). Reprinted by Yahoo! News, Yahoo! Lifestyle and Daily Magazine and
Live Science: Many Sunscreens Sold in US Offer Suboptimal Protection, According to New Report
For the report, scientists with the Environmental Working Group (EWG) reviewed 1,300 sunscreen products, including beach and sports sunscreens as well as daily moisturizers and lip balms, for the group's annual Guide to Sunscreens, released today (May 22).
MarketWatch: Watch out for sunscreens that contain these ingredients this Memorial Day Weekend
More than half of the sunscreens — 60% — that EWG reviewed either don’t adequately protect against sun exposure or have potentially harmful chemicals in them. But the organization says there are ways to check the ingredients to help make sure sunscreens are safe.
MarketWatch: This is one of the safest sunscreens you can buy right now — and it only costs $9
On Wednesday, nonprofit environmental research organization Environmental Working Group released its list of the safest sunscreens on the market, examining more than 1,300 products with SPF. Their conclusion: “About two-thirds still offer inferior sun protection or contain concerning ingredients.”
Men’s Health: Two-Thirds of Sunscreens Could Be Hurting You, Report Says
Summer’s hot, and the debate over how to protect yourself from the sun is even hotter. The Environmental Working Group released its 2019 Guide to Sunscreens today—the 13th annual report of its kind—and it finds that two-thirds of sunscreen products on the market “offer inferior protection or contain worrisome ingredients.” Reprinted by Yahoo! News, Yahoo! Lifestyle and Daily Magazine.
MindBodyGreen: Your Summer 2019 Sunscreen Guide: 4 Tips To Find A Safe Option From The EWG
We're about to enter a very exciting time in sunscreens—at least according to the Environmental Working Group, who just released their annual sunscreen guide. For so long the activist group has pushed for stricter regulations, or at the very least more research to be conducted around the active ingredients used in common SPFs. Well, that time might be coming soon.
Prevention: Is Oxybenzone In Sunscreen Dangerous? Here’s How It May Impact Your Health
In particular, people have repeatedly freaked out about oxybenzone, a “widely-used” chemical found in two-thirds of the products analyzed for The Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) 2019 sunscreen guide. Reprinted by Yahoo! News and Yahoo! Lifestyle.
People Magazine: Amazon’s Best-Selling Sunscreen Is Non-Toxic and Just Received a Perfect Safety Score
Fortunately for you, we’ve found a super safe, non-toxic sunscreen that’s one of the best you can buy, according to Amazon shoppers and the Environmental Working Group: the Thinkbaby Safe Sunscreen. Reprinted by Yahoo! News, Yahoo! Canada, Yahoo! Entertainment and Yahoo! Lifestyle.
POPSUGAR: 25 of the Top-Rated Sunscreens For Kids and Babies in 2019
Every year, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) puts out a sunscreen guide to help you buy the lotions and sticks that are top rated, safe, and protective. This year, there are quite a few new products on the list of best sunscreen for kids from previous years, including a lotion from Supergoop's new kids and babies line, Sunnyscreen. Reprinted by Yahoo! News, Yahoo! Lifestyle and News Live.
Romper: The EWG's 2019 Safe Sunscreen Guide Is Here To Keep You & Your Fam Safe All Summer Long
Ensuring that you and your loved ones are safe while having fun in the sun is priority number one. This means plenty of hydration, proper clothing, and of course, using a good sunscreen. The 2019 Safe Sunscreen Guide from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has released this year’s sunscreen guide, complete with everything parents need to know when choosing sunscreen for their family that is safe and effective.
Michelle Pfeiffer Lobby Day
The Washington Post: Michelle Pfeiffer lobbies Congress for cosmetics-safety laws
Pfeiffer, who moonlights as a board member for the Environmental Working Group, was urging the passage of legislation sponsored by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) to boost oversight of the cosmetics industry.
Fast Company: Michelle Pfeiffer is fighting to make your beauty products safer
The actress met with federal lawmakers today and urged them to support the bill, according to a release from the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit organization that campaigns for safer products and has a database that allows you to look up the ingredients in cosmetics.
Michelle Pfeiffer’s Henry Rose Launch
Connecticut Post (Bridgeport): Michelle Pfeiffer's Fragrance Brand Took 20 Years (And Plenty of Rejection) to Build
Pfeiffer eventually discovered an advocacy organization called the Environmental Working Group, which had a website, Skin Deep, that ranks cosmetics products based on the safety of their ingredients.
Entrepreneur: Michelle Pfeiffer's Fragrance Brand Took 20 Years (And Plenty of Rejection) to Build
Pfeiffer eventually discovered an advocacy organization called the Environmental Working Group, which had a website, Skin Deep, that ranks cosmetics products based on the safety of their ingredients. Reprinted byNew Haven Register (CT); Uncova; Connecticut Post (Bridgeport); The Hour (Norwalk CT)
Children’s Health Funding Rollbacks
Associated Press: Research on children's health risks in doubt over EPA funds
In a statement Tuesday, Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Group said "crippling research to protect children's health, while bowing to the agenda of the chemical industry, is the calling card of the EPA in the Trump administration."
Reprinted by The New York Times; NewsTimes (Danbury CT); WSB-TV Atlanta; The Province (Toronto ON); Stamford Advocate (CT); Boston 25 News (TV); Tribune (San Luis Obispo CA); WFMJ (Youngstown OH); WFTV 9 (Orlando FL); The Seattle Times; Washington Times (DC); Jacksonville Journal Courier (FL); New Haven Register (CT); The London Free Press (Ontario); WBTW News 13 (Myrtle Beach SC); Star Tribune (Minneapolis MN); 338 other media outlets
PFAS Legislation
Inside EPA: Senators Tout Bipartisanship On PFAS But Barrasso Seeks To Narrow Bills
She added she wanted to clear up misinformation about the TRI bill -- asking Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, to back her up against charges that the legislation is onerous, would short circuit the regulatory process, apply to mom and pop gas stations and fuel lawsuits.
Scott Faber PFAS Testimony
Politico: House-Senate divide clear on PFAS
Senators will hear from witnesses today spanning Kim White of the American Chemistry Council to Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group, an organization in favor of aggressive PFAS regulation by handling the thousands of chemicals as a class.
EPA Clean Power Rollback
EcoWatch: Trump’s EPA Is Changing Its Math to Make Clean Power Plan Rollback Seem Less Deadly
"Using fake math to hide the death toll from dirty air at the behest of the coal industry is sadly consistent with the Trump administration's complete disregard for public health," Environmental Working Group (EWG) Senior Science Advisor for Children's Environmental Health Dr. Olga Naidenko said in response to the plan. Reprinted by Nation of Change; Schwartz Report
Trump Administration
Wonkette: Trump To Give Farmers Another Twenty Or Fifty Bucks Each, NOW SHUT UP ABOUT IT
We're sure the new bailouts will be every bit as good for the average farmer as the first round was. The Environmental Working Group estimated the top ten percent of bailout recipients received 68 percent of all the money, leaving many farmers affected by the market disruption with little to show for their heroic duty in the Trade War.
Cumulative Risk Assessment Paper
Chicago Tribune: From the community: Concoction of Drinking Water Pollutants Poses Cancer Risk to Thousands
A new study, conducted by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), has found that the combined effects of an array of toxic contaminants found in California's drinking water poses an increased cancer risk to more than 15,000 residents.
Cosmetics Regulation
The Guardian: Pretty hurts: are chemicals in beauty products making us ill?
American women use an average of 12 products a day – nearly 200 chemicals – according to a 2004 study by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit environment and health advocacy group.
Skin Deep® Cosmetics Database
The Guardian: Why smelling good could come with a cost to health
The Environmental Working Group keeps databases on safe cleaning products and personal care products, including fragrances.
EWG’s Healthy Living App
The Guardian: Is modern life poisoning me? I took the tests to find out
I collect what I understand to be my riskiest products throughout my home, according to a database and app maintained by the Environmental Working Group, a health advocacy group.
Food Additives
Forbes: How Natural Are “Natural” Ingredients In Food And Beverages?
An Environmental Working Group study of 80,000 food products revealed that “natural flavors” is the fourth most common listed ingredient after only salt, water, and sugar.
Mercola: Why Calcium Propionate Is Strongly Linked to Diabetes and Autism
In late 2018,47 the FDA announced a list of seven synthetic compounds no longer allowed to be used as food additives in response to a petition brought by Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Working Group (EWG).
Maumee River Basin and Harmful Algal Blooms
Great Lakes Now: Animal Culprit: Study Points to Animal Farms as Growing Contributors to Lake Erie Algae
The work, conducted by The Environmental Working Group (EWG) in Washington D.C. and the Environmental Law & Policy Center (ELPC) in Chicago, is based on information retrieved through aerial photos, satellite imagery and state permit data collected from agriculture and environmental officials in Ohio, Michigan and Indiana.
Meat Eater’s Guide to Climate Change + Health
Market Watch: Are you ready to move beyond pork, chicken and beef? Try ‘tasty’ locust ice cream and maggot sausages
Meat is the worst food product for producing greenhouse gases due to its production, packaging, transportation and consumption, data from the Environmental Working Group concluded…Reprinted by MorningStar
Monsanto’s Glyphosate
Chemicals News: Major U.S. brands demand EPA take action to stop pre-harvest spraying of toxic glyphosate on food crops
“We joined EWG and the other companies in petitioning the EPA in order to reduce the permissible levels of glyphosate in oats,” reads a statement issued by Ben & Jerry’s
Food Dive: Big Food turning to regenerative agriculture to meet sustainability goals
"Food industry pledges are not unlike a toy surprise. There is one in every box, but they always disappoint," Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, told Food Dive.
PFAS Military Contamination
The Washington Post: On Japan’s Okinawa, U.S. military blamed for contaminating environment with hazardous chemical
PFOS and PFOA have been replaced in recent years with other PFAS with slightly different chemical compositions. But the Environmental Working Group, a U.S.-based nonprofit, says the effects of the replacement chemicals has never been properly tested.
Reprinted by SF Gate (San Francisco); Laredo Morning Times (TX); The Telegraph (Alton IL)
The Guardian: A trail of toxicity: the US military bases making people sick
A 2007 study estimated that PFAS are in the blood of 98% of Americans, while last year an analysis by the not-for-profit Environmental Working Group found that more than 1,500 drinking water systems nationwide could be contaminated by PFAS, affecting as many as 110 million people. Reprinted by 10z US Politics; MSN; Coyote Gulch
PFAS Standards
Inside EPA: NAS Backs Subclass Review For Flame Retardants, Highlighting PFAS Method
The Environmental Working Group's David Andrews urges the adoption of two classes for PFAS: one including the older, long-chain PFAS which were included in the 2010 phaseout agreement and a second class containing their short-chain replacement chemicals.
Engineering News-Record: Environmental Groups Push for Tighter PFAS Standards
The Environmental Working Group on May 6 proposed a cleanup standard of 1 part per trillion for PFAS after a study discovered that contamination in the U.S. was triple what it was thought to be a year ago.
2019 Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™
The Guardian: Explained: the toxic threat in everyday products, from toys to plastic
Residues are in up to 70% of produce sold in the US, according to the latest annual analysis of US Department of Agriculture (USDA) data by the health advocacy group Environmental Working Group.
Reader’s Digest: 14 Organic Foods Nutritionists Don’t Waste Their Money On
But the nutrition varies greatly between foods and while it’s worth it to buy organic for foods on the Environmental Working Group’s “Dirty Dozen” list, there are plenty of foods where conventional is just as good as organic, Kostro Miller says.
Miami Herald: Ditch the doughnuts. When you’re being treated for cancer, eating healthy is critical
Check out the Environmental Working Group’s lists of “Dirty Dozen” and “Clean 15” foods (not organic) with the highest and lowest levels of pesticides to better pick priorities.
PFAS in Drinking Water
Bloomberg Environment: INSIGHT: The Case for Regulating All PFAS Chemicals as a Class
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.
The Guardian: Why you need to know about PFAS, the chemicals in pizza boxes and rainwear
The Environmental Working Group health advocates have created a US map of detections of PFAS in water.
Providence Journal (RI): A lurking danger for R.I.’s drinking water
The Environmental Working Group, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, has estimated that up to 110 million Americans have been exposed to the compounds in their drinking water.
WTAP (Parkersburg WV): UPDATE: Environmentalists hope: zero PFAS water contamination
A member of the Environmental Working Group Thursday commented on a measure introduced Wednesday by two U.S. senators, including West Virginia Republican Shelley Moore Capito.
Water Filters
Epicurious: What’s the Best Way to Filter Your Water?
Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) toxicologist Dr. Alexis Temkin, Ph.D. She thinks there is no reason to get the most serious water filter if you don’t actually need it.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2019/05/ewg-news-roundup-524-ewg-s-2019-guide-sunscreens-ewg-board-member-michelle
-
Green Groups Angered over EPA's Newest Regulations for Rocket Fuel Chemical
May 24, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Environmental groups are saying the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) isn’t going far enough with its new regulations for a chemical commonly used in rocket fuel.
Scientists in various organizations are saying that proposed limits for perchlorate in drinking water were significantly higher than experts recommended.
“This is enough to make you sick — literally,” Erik Olson, senior director for health and food at Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), said in a statement. The NRDC sued the EPA in early 2016 to force it to take action on perchlorate.
EPA’s proposed standard for perchlorate released Friday suggests placing the maximum contaminant level at 56 parts per billion (ppb). In addition, EPA proposed requirements for water systems to conduct monitoring and reporting for perchlorate.
Yet environmentalists said the standard is 10 to 50 times higher than what scientists recommend for the chemical compound that is widely used by the military. It’s commonly found in solid rocket propellants, fireworks, matches and signal flares.
EPA under the Obama administration proposed a safe level of 15 ppb for the compound.
Some states have developed their own standard for the chemical in public drinking water. In Massachusetts the standard is 2 ppb, and in California it is 6 ppb.
“The science on perchlorate is very clear: It harms infants and the developing fetus,” said Olga Naidenko, senior science adviser for children’s environmental health at the Environmental Working Group.
“Perchlorate can cause irreparable damage to both cognitive and physical development. Instead of taking action to lower the levels of this rocket fuel chemical in drinking water, the administration’s plan will endanger the health of future generations of kids.”
The public has 60 days to comment on the proposal.
https://thehill.com/regulation/energy-environment/445469-green-groups-angered-over-epas-newest-regulations-for-rocket
-
May 24, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
Today, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 56 parts per billion (ppb) for perchlorate in drinking water – more than three times less protectivethan an interim health advisory level set in 2008. To justify this increase, EPA turned its back on scientific evidence showing that this potent neurotoxin undermines childrens’ motor development and control and can increase their anxiety and depression. The agency’s reasoning is inconsistent with its own analysis published in a draft report in late 2017 and the findings of a peer review panel it convened last year to review that report.
If the agency had used the most protective scientific study and the most sensitive endpoint evaluated in the proposed rule, the MCL would likely be 4 ppb – more than three times more protective than the current health advisory. As a result, the agency fails to adequately protect children from a lifetime of harm. With this MCL, EPA is allowing pregnant women to be exposed to perchlorate in the first trimester of pregnancy at levels that pose much greater risk of impaired neurodevelopment in their children.
The proposed MCL – and how the agency reached it – was both a disappointment and a surprise to us. In late 2017, we applauded the agency’s scientists for developing an innovative model connecting a mother’s perchlorate exposure in the first trimester to fetal harm. We were not alone – in early 2018, EPA’s peer review panel congratulated the agency’s scientists on their analysis. We also complimented EPA’s population-based approach to developing an MCL by estimating the percent of pregnant women, and their children, with borderline thyroid dysfunction due to low iodine intake.
So how did EPA abruptly change course and estimate an MCL less protective than the current health advisory? By altering its analysis in three subtle but significant ways:
Rejecting five epidemiology studies showing harm at even lower exposure levels in favor of one IQ study by Korevaar et al. in 2016.
Choosing an MCL that allows an IQ loss of 2 points even though the study showed a 1 point loss was statistically significant.
Dismissing an alternative, population-based method that EPA proposed in 2017 that reinforces the need for a more protective standard.
As a result of these distortions, EPA’s proposed MCL of 56 ppb falls far short of the mandate in the Safe Drinking Water Act that EPA propose a limit that is “at the level at which no known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons occur and which allows an adequate margin of safety.”[1] The only good news is that the agency has a chance to redeem itself since this is only a proposed rule and it has 18 months to review the public comments before issuing a final rule.
To help understand how flawed EPA’s analysis is, we describe the subtle but significant ways in which EPA distorted the science below.
Rejecting five epidemiology studies showing harm at even lower exposure levels in favor of one IQ study by Korevaar et al. in 2016.
In the 2017 draft report, EPA’s scientists identified a set of five robust epidemiology studies that showed a statistically significant quantifiable relationship between a pregnant woman’s levels of a key thyroid hormone and several endpoints relevant to neurodevelopment. Two of those studies identified IQ loss as the endpoint. Three others showed loss in measures of motor development and control. The peer review panel agreed with EPA concluding that, “[t]hese studies provide data from human subjects in a form suitable for determining quantitative relationships between maternal fT4 [free thyroid hormone T4] and the extent of neurodevelopmental impairment.”
In its proposed rule, EPA dropped all but one study – the IQ study by Korevaar et al. in 2016 and reanalyzed that study’s data. This revised study had the least sensitive endpoint, essentially enabling the agency to propose the highest MCL.
Even though EPA favored IQ because “intelligence quotient (IQ) – is more straightforward to interpret because there is more national and cross-national data available”, the agency completely ignores one of the IQ studies, a 2004 study by Vermiglio et al.. It is not even mentioned in the preamble to the proposed rule despite its being included in the set of robust studies in the 2017 draft report. This study showed IQ loss associated with reduced fT4 at levels three times lower than the IQ study EPA picked to develop the MCL.
In addition, EPA dismisses the three studies showing statistically significant evidence of harm to motor development and control (Pop et al. 1999, Pop et al. 2003, and Finken et al. 2013). Two of these studies would have resulted in an MCL about 2.5 times more protective than the modified Korevaar et al. 2016 study that EPA picked to develop the MCL. The agency justified its decision because they have fewer individuals and were less straight forward to interpret than IQ points. While these considerations are not unreasonable, they are hardly sufficient to reject these robust studies showing adverse effects at lower levels than the re-analyzed Korevaar study.
In its proposed rule, EPA scientists identified a new study by Endendijk et al. published in 2017 that they considered sufficient to determine a quantitative relationship between maternal fT4 levels and children exhibiting greater anxiety or depression at levels six times lower than the IQ study EPA used to develop the proposed MCL. As with the motor control studies, it dismissed this study using a similar – and inadequate – rationale.
Choosing an MCL that allows an IQ loss of 2 points even though the study showed a 1 point loss was statistically significant.
The Korevaar et al. 2016 study found a statistically significant correlation between a drop in maternal fT4 during the first trimester and a loss of one IQ point in the child. In its 2017 report, the agency listed a one IQ point loss as sufficient to calculate an MCL. This approach is consistent with past agency practice and its guidance.
However in the proposed rule, EPA uses a loss of two IQ points instead, while misleadingly claiming that it is sufficient to assure “no known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of the most sensitive population and allows for an adequate margin of safety.” This is the safety standard for an MCL in by the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Dismissing an alternative, population-based method that EPA proposed in 2017 that reinforces the need for a more protective standard.
Despite positive feedback by the peer review panel on its proposed population-based method in the 2017 draft report, the agency chose not to use it to develop an MCL. It dropped the approach, in part, because of the potential “difficulties communicating the population at risk for developing this precursor effect as a result of perchlorate exposure.” In other words, EPA had the opportunity to use the mother’s decreased fT4 level (the so-called precursor effect) as an early marker of exposure to perchlorate to protect a larger number of children. However, because it found it difficult to define these women, it chose the more straight-forward, easier to define IQ point loss, thus increasing the risk of impaired brain development to potentially thousands of children.
Summary
To protect children from anticipated harm to their brain development from perchlorate exposure during the first trimester, we calculated that the MCL should be around 4 ppb. Instead, the agency proposed 56 ppb, 14 times less protective than it should be and more than 3 times what it has had in place since 2008 as a health advisory. The agency only got to 56 ppb by distorting the science and essentially throwing out much of the important and innovative work it had done that showed the need for a more protective standard. Plain and simple, this decision puts children’s brain development at risk.
[1] 42 U.S.C §300g-1(b)(4)(A).
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/05/24/epa-distorts-evidence-fails-kids-perchlorate/
-
California to Further Restrict Chlorpyrifos Pesticide Exposure
May 27, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joyce E. Cutler
California continues to target chlorpyrifos, a pesticide linked to neurological delays in children, with strict new allowable exposure limits and even a possible ban on the pesticide.
The widely used pesticide on fruit, vegetable, and nut crops is the focus of two California regulatory actions, a pending state bill, and a federal appeals court orderfor the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to decide whether to ban chlorpyrifos.
In addition, Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) has sponsored federal legislation to ban it nationally.
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is proposing for the first time to adopt maximum allowable dose levels (MADLs) of 0.58 micrograms per day for oral and inhalation exposures to chlorpyrifos, and 7.2 micrograms per day for skin exposures.
The proposal was announced May 24, two weeks after the office’s parent agency—the California Environmental Protection Agency—said it was going to ban the neurotoxin in a process that may take longer than finalizing the new MADLs.
“There are more than 900 chemicals on the Prop. 65 list, probably less than half of them have safe harbor levels,” OEHHA Spokesman Sam Delson said. “We’re proposing an official safe harbor level that companies can use.”
The public has until July 8 to submit comments. The process to finalize the MADLs can take up to a year but probably will be less, he said.
“By providing these MADLs, this regulatory proposal may encourage businesses to change their practices in ways that reduce bystander, worker, and environmental exposures to chlorpyrifos,” according to OEHHA.
Cheaper for Business?State officials also say the proposals may save businesses money.
“Some businesses may not be able to afford the expenses of establishing MADLs and therefore may face litigation for a failure to warn or for a prohibited discharge of the listed chemical. Adopting this regulation will save these businesses those expenses and may reduce litigation costs,” OEHHA said.
The chemical, produced primarily by DowDupont Inc.'s agriculture spinoff, Corteva Agriscience, is one of the most common pesticides on the market.
It is used in the state on around 800,000 acres and more than 60 crops including tree nuts, vegetables, grapes, citrus, cotton, and alfalfa, according to the Western Growers Association.
Collectively, these crops account for $23 billion in production value for California.
WGA declined to comment on the OEHHA exposure limits. A Corteva representative couldn’t be reached for comment May 24.
The state OEHHA proposed action follows an April 19 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit order that gives the U.S. EPA 90 days to decide whether to ban the organophosphate pesticide in food.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/california-to-further-restrict-chlorpyrifos-pesticide-exposure
-
Illinois Officials Push Controls of Medical Equipment Sterilizer
May 24, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Joyce
Illinois state legislators and regulators are seeking stricter emission controls on ethylene oxide, a sterilizer used on medical equipment and a known health hazard.
State Sen. Melinda Bush (D) said regulations and legislation are needed to deal with ethylene oxide emissions in Illinois. Bush added she is confident a bill approved by the state House May 24 focused on companies using ethylene oxide to sterilize medical equipment will be approved by the state Senate and ultimataely signed into law by Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D).
The legislation is a response to concerns that emissions of the chemical are harming public health in Illinois communities where the facilities are located.
State regulators are scrutinizing permits and facilities for the adequacy of their emissions controls in light of state emissions tracking data and new toxicity information that the Environmental Protection Agency put forward.
More than 100 individuals, including U.S. Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.), packed a May 23 Illinois EPA meeting to discuss permitting at a Medline Industries Inc. facility, and many will likely attend a scheduled May 29 U.S. EPA meeting to discuss the federal agency’s risk assessment of a Sterigenics U.S. LLC plant.
Ethylene oxide is a highly flammable, colorless gas the U.S. EPA concluded increases the risk of some types of cancers. It is used to sterilize medical equipment—particularly pliable parts—and in the production of ingredients for personal care, food, and consumer products.
Regulatory Action
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency is currently deciding whether to approve a draft permit application for the Waukegan, Ill.-based Medline facility.
The agency also is increasing scrutiny at a Gurnee, Ill.-based Vantage Specialty Chemicals Inc. facility.
Litigation with Sterigenics over the agency’s Feb. 15 action to shut down the company’s Willowbrook, Ill. medical sterilization facility continues.
Jennifer Walling, executive director of the Illinois Environmental Council, said concerns about ethylene oxide are “huge” in the state right now.
Bills in Motion
State Sen. John Curran (R) has been pressing for action to enhance ethylene oxide health protections since 2018, when the federal EPA announced ethylene oxide was more potent than the agency originally thought.
He sponsored SB 1852, a bill amending the state’s Environmental Protection Act by requiring companies to notify all property owners within 2,500 feet of a facility in the event of an ethylene oxide leak. That legislation was approved by the House May 24 and needs only concurrence from the Senate, which is expected, before it’s forwarded to the governor for his signature.
Less likely to be approved this session are two other ethylene oxide bills. The first, SB 1853, requires the Illinois EPA to re-evaluate the operating permit of every facility emitting ethylene oxide in the state and immediately shut down any plant exceeding federal or state air standards. In the event of an exceedance, every permit would be subject to a 90-day public hearing process.
The second measure, SB 1854, requires facilities to use “negative pressure systems” that prevent the escape of fugitive emissions. The systems are designed to pull in air when, for instance, a door is opened.
Bush said if they don’t pass this legislative session, which ends May 31, she will introduce similar legislation during the next legislative session.
Permits Down to Detection Limits?
Brad Frost, Illinois EPA community relations coordinator, tried on several occasions at the May 23 public meeting to allay health concerns potentially caused by the Medline facility’s ethylene oxide use.
He stated that the facility’s new permit, which his agency is likely to approve, will require Medline to reduce fugitive emissions and that its exhaust system will better diffuse emissions.
Frost said permit requirements will likely reduce emissions to concentrations that may not even be detectable. “We are taking the facility to a place you just don’t see anywhere else in the country,” he said.
The company will also install outdoor air monitoring equipment, which will send emissions data to the Illinois EPA.
The facility’s design was discussed with the Illinois EPA before it was made final, William Berger, Medline spokesman, said in an email. The cost will be in the millions of dollars, he said.
The Illinois EPA in February used a court order to effectively shut down the Sterigenics facility. In response, the company sued to stay open and the case is still pending in Illinois circuit court.
(Updates with new detail throughout. )
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/illinois-officials-push-controls-of-medical-equipment-sterilizer
-
Consumer Trust Is Falling. Here’s How Companies Can Earn It Back.
May 27, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Alissa Sasso
Environmentally-conscious shoppers are expected to spend up to $150 billion on sustainable products by 2021, an increase of almost 15% since 2018. Skepticism about conventional products is, in part, fueling this market growth.
The key to engaging eco-conscious shoppers is to make cleaner, more sustainable products easier to find in stores and online. For example, this spring Target launched a “Clean” icon to identify products free from dozens of “unwanted chemicals.” Target’s entire suite of “Wellness Icons”, which include labels like “paraben free” and “dye free”, now span eight product categories. Meanwhile Sephora allows shoppers to easily filter for “Clean at Sephora” products online, find them in store, and to understand what the label means.
Certifications are another route to help customers easily identify safer products. Several retailers such as Walmart, Rite-Aid, and Amazon, are making commitments to increase offerings of products with trusted certifications like EPA’s Safer Choice label.
And the “clean” or “natural” product trend isn’t slowing down. For example, the market for clean beauty is projected to grow 8-10% per year, reaching global sales of $25 billion by 2025. Major product manufacturers see the value in brands that consumers trust to offer safer products and be transparent. Unilever’s acquisition of Seventh Generation and P&G’s purchase of Native Deodorant are just a few examples.
Why are consumers increasingly turning to “clean” products?
Consumers are increasingly concerned about the health impacts of chemicals in their products. And they don’t necessarily trust companies to be transparent or to put consumer health and safety before the bottom line. Though the terms “clean” and “natural” are unregulated and lack standard definitions, it’s clear that consumers turn to these products to find safer options and to avoid ingredients they believe to be hazardous.
We often hear companies lament that the reason this niche of products is growing is not because conventional products aren’t safe, but because of consumers’ “chemophobia,” or the fear of chemicals. Sure, some consumers may be unnecessarily suspicious of a long chemical name on a product ingredient list. And some believe a “chemical free” product is possible or that a “natural” product automatically means “safer”.
But attributing consumers’ concern to a lack of education is misleading and won’t improve public perception of product safety. Consumers are concerned about the chemicals in products because history has provided plenty of examples of harmful ingredients.
For example, FDA’s recent move to ban lead acetate in hair dyes is on hold as one company fights to prove the use of skin-soluble lead in a personal care product is safe. Chemicals commonly used in nail polish have been linked to reproductive disorders and other health issues in nail salon workers. There’s also the consistent problem of heavy metals being detected at worryingly high levels in children’s jewelry.
If companies want to rebuild consumer trust, they have a choice to make: make light of consumers’ concerns and invest in purportedly educational initiatives or demonstrate to consumers their commitment to products one can trust.
Three ways that companies can lead on consumer trust and gain a competitive advantage
Environmental Defense Fund developed the Pillars of Leadership to help companies provide the safest possible products to consumers and communicate progress. Three key tips stand out to distinguish leaders from the rest:
1.
Invest in safer product design. The best way to rebuild trust is through a clear, transparent commitment to safer product design, accompanied by a commitment to report progress. Retailers are increasingly calling on their suppliers to eliminate and reduce chemicals of concern in their products. Walmart released their original sustainable chemistry commitment in 2013, calling for certain chemicals of concern to be removed from over 100,000 cleaning and personal care products. Since then, several other retailers have followed suit. Beyond formulated products, companies are realizing the benefits of safer product design: Levi Strauss & Co has revamped their jeans finishing process to eliminate thousands of chemicals from their supply chain.2. Champion meaningful transparency. It is difficult for consumers to understand why certain ingredients are in products and to find products that they know are safer. Some companies understand that instead of railing against consumers’ fears, being more transparent about the ingredients they use (or avoid) and how they assess product safety can help assuage these fears. In 2018, SC Johnson revealed their Greenlist™ Program methodology, which they’ve used since 2001 to “better protect human health and the environment”. Before 2018, they had increasingly unveiled the ingredients, including fragrance chemicals, in each of their products. Beautycounter has baked full transparency into their brand from the beginning, providing information on their selection process and why they use certain ingredients.
3. Avoid greenwashing. Consumers seeking out “green” or “clean” products present a market opportunity for companies. But cashing in on this trend without credibility behind product claims will result in green-washing and ultimately means even less trust from your customers. If a product contains a “free-of” label or makes an environmental claim, its manufacturer should verify that the product complies with the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides, which are meant to prevent green-washing. Better yet, these claims should be substantiated by an independent third party; even chemicals that are not intentionally added can show up as trace ingredients in a product, nullifying a “free-of” claim (e.g., raw materials can be pre-preservedbut the preservative doesn’t end up on the ingredient list on the product packaging).
Bringing the safest possible products to market. Arming consumers with meaningful information and no gimmicks. These are the solutions to rebuilding consumer trust.
For more information, see EDF’s Five Pillars of Leadership.
http://business.edf.org/blog/2019/05/24/consumer-trust-is-falling-heres-how-companies-can-earn-it-back
-
Pipelines Welcome Advancement of Stalled Safety Rule to OMB Review
May 24, 2019 | Platts
By Maya Weber
A long-stalled rule on safety of natural gas transmission pipelines is showing signs of movement within the administration. The rule, proposed by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, has moved to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review.
With Pipeline Safety Act reauthorization once again pending in Congress, PHMSA has come under criticism from lawmakers for falling behind on previously congressional mandated regulations on hazardous liquids, gas transmission and valve rupture detection.
A May 22 notice stating that the gas transmission rule is now undergoing OMB review was welcomed by the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, which had participated in a stakeholders' forum to develop the rule and has pushed for action from the agency.
"When finalized, this rule will constitute the most significant enhancement to PHMSA natural gas transmission pipeline safety regulations since the federal code was promulgated in 1970," INGAA President Don Santa said in an emailed statement.
"Our industry is committed to transporting natural gas in a safe, reliable and environmentally responsible manner, and we are proud to have worked for several years with a broad array of stakeholders, including safety and environmental advocates, to achieve consensus on this important rule," he said.
INGAA said the rule is now in the final stages and the office of the secretary of transportation has completed its review.
INGAA and other oil and gas groups joined with pipeline safety advocates to write to Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao in February, encouraging her to advance the regulation. The rule will help promote the use of modern pipeline inspection technologies and set requirements for operators to test certain existing pipelines to ensure they meet current standards, they said.
https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/natural-gas/052419-pipelines-welcome-advancement-of-stalled-safety-rule-to-omb-review
-
Wheeler Floats Oil & Gas Sub-Sector Plan to Avoid Methane Limits
May 24, 2019 | Inside EPA
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler is floating a plan in which the agency would split the oil and gas industry into various sub-sectors in an effort to avoid imposing methane requirements on operators, arguing the emissions from any particular category would not be high enough to warrant regulation.
“With the sources split, it's not clear whether the level of greenhouse gas emissions will be high enough to trigger the significant attribution criteria, which are required to set emission standards under the Clean Air Act,” Wheeler told a May 23 U.S. Energy Association event, according to E&E News.
The plan would essentially split upstream producers that extract oil and gas from midstream companies that transport the fuel via pipeline to end users. Wheeler said the effort could be justified because there are “significant differences” between upstream and midstream companies.
He also referenced long-standing expectations that EPA in the coming weeks will propose to drop direct methane requirements for the sector altogether, by relying on a prior Obama administration rule that targeted smog-forming pollutants and achieved methane cuts indirectly.
Such a proposal could be released “in the next few months,” Wheeler told the event, according to E&E.
EPA’s just-revised Unified Agenda says the proposal -- which is separate from a pending measure to soften the agency’s oil and gas methane requirements -- could be issued this month and finalized in December. Those deadlines appear questionable given both Wheeler’s remarks and the fact that a draft plan has not yet been submitted to the White House for inter-agency review, a required step before being publicly released.
Either approach could have important legal consequences, given that the agency’s current methane new source performance standards create an eventual obligation for EPA to regulate existing oil and gas sources under the Clean Air Act.
While smaller producers have long urged EPA to drop direct methane rules, larger companies such as ExxonMobil and Shell have recently said they are comfortable with some level of regulation for both new and existing sources.
And in an April report, Shell says that the large trade association American Petroleum Institute (API) has “evolved” in its position on the issue. “Today, API and Shell both support reforming, not repealing,” EPA’s methane standards, the oil major wrote.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/wheeler-floats-oil-gas-sub-sector-plan-avoid-methane-limits
-
America Must Build More Natural Gas Storage Capacity
May 27, 2019 | Forbes
By Jude Clemente
Lack Of New Natural Gas Storage Capacity
Natural gas of course is increasingly our go-to fuel to grow the economy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, backup wind and solar, and be our essential energy source to export to a mostly poor and energy-deprived world.
This ongoing U.S. "Dash to Gas" ensures a known necessity for us: we need more geological sites to store natural gas to meet the ebb and flow of demand.
Since the shale revolution took flight in 2008, U.S. natural gas prices have remained low and stable (see Figure below).
While this is great for American families and businesses, it's made building new gas storage capacity less of a priority.
Literally, this reduced incentive for gas storage has been the only negative of the U.S. shale boom
But, not building new storage capacity has been a logical decision.
Storage facilities are a primary tool to mitigate price risks and used by pipelines to maintain operational flexibility and system balance.
The spikes in pricing, particularly in the cold winter months when demand spikes, have greatly subsided.
A flatter price trend makes it harder for storage operations to make money, a business that is about "buying low and selling high when prices go up."
Meanwhile, U.S. natural gas production and use continue to surge to record heights every year (see Figure below).
The constant reality for the U.S. gas market and prices is record production colliding with record consumption.
Our domestic usage comes from more power and industrial demand mostly.
In the Shale-Era since 2008, U.S. gas production has increased 60%, demand is up nearly 35%: yet, gas storage capacity has grown just 14%.
Over the past decade, U.S. natural gas production and demand have surged but our capacity to store gas hasn't. DATA SOURCE: EIA; JTC
Wind And Solar Are Intermittent
Perhaps our most fundamental energy fact is that natural gas will continue to play a central role in the U.S. electric power system.
That's because as we continue to seek ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the harsh reality for some is that wind and solar are intermittent sources of power, unavailable most of the time (capacity factors only around 30% even on good days).
It's something that cannot simply be wished away: the intermittency of renewable generation will require flexible, fast-ramping generation.
As such, the obvious requirement to backup these renewables was, is, and will continue to be very flexible, economical natural gas peaking plants.
"Natural Gas Is The Flexibility Needed For More Wind And Solar."
Gas will be what provides electric grid reliability, namely via load and generation profile following, frequency regulation, backup power, and spinning reserves.
Obviously, battery storage is growing in importance, but these systems don't fully support the full range of flexibility needed, including for seasonal and daily variations.
Thus, batteries cannot displace gas-fired generation, which is uniquely suited to mitigate the intermittency of renewables.
It's no wonder then that EIA says gas will easily supply the most amount of incremental capacity in the coming decades, at 235,000 megawatts.
For perspective, this is a whopping 10 times more than what onshore wind will give us.
This all means that we are actually in the early stages of unprecedented growth in natural gas being produced and used in the U.S (see Figure below).
So, our power system itself could easily face severe supply constraints if no incremental infrastructure is specifically built for the electricity sector.
This clearly centers on building more sites to store natural gas.
For reference, depleted fields account for over 80% of working gas storage capacity.
U.S. natural gas production and demand are expected to continue to surge. DATA SOURCE: EIA; JTC
Rising Gas Exports
Besides the shale revolution itself, our LNG export boom to the world is probably the most transformative change for the U.S. gas market in its history.
This is a new dynamic that really kicked off back in February 2016, and we will become the third largest seller this year and lead the market by 2024.
It will be U.S. suppliers along the Gulf Coast that will be called upon to support potential global supply disruptions.
This will surely extend utilization of the region’s storage facilities.
As our LNG suppliers are forced to react to international events (e.g., freezing cold winters in Asia that need gas for heating), the boom in exports will add a variability to the market that more U.S. gas storage will need to buffer.
In other words, there will be even greater portions of U.S. demand (and remember that exports are a baseload demand market) that cannot be regularly predicted.
This will make it harder on producers to plan ahead of time, making gas storage even more crucial to our market.
Without new gas storage capacity, our market could drastically (and needlessly) tighten
Moreover, exports will be seasonal, making new capacity that much more vital.
In total, LNG exports are the driving force behind what could be a ~25 Bcf/d increase in U.S. gas demand over the next six to eight years.
And we should be encouraging all of this: gas exports offer us massive economic, environmental, and security benefits for us.
U.S. natural gas exports are a moral imperative, helping an overwhelmingly poor world get access to modern energy while also reducing greenhouse emissions.
"COP21 Means More Natural Gas and the U.S. Must Help."
In particular, as a newer major player in our gas market, Appalachia (WV. OH, PA), now producing nearly 40% of our gas, must see major new investments to not just build more pipelines but also to build the gas storage sites to meet the growing needs of Appalachia itself and the other states and even countries that are increasingly relying on it.
The good news?
The U.S. government is wisely prioritizing the gas storage issue: "Secretary Perry Announces Appalachian Ethane Storage Hub Report."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2019/05/26/america-must-build-more-natural-gas-storage-capacity/#72b5ad652596
-
(ACC Mentioned) RMP Delay May Suggest Rollback of Obama-Era Policy ‘Dead in the Water’
May 24, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmentalists say the Trump administration’s just-announced monthslong delay of its self-imposed deadline for finalizing a rollback of an Obama-era rule tightening facility safety Risk Management Plan (RMP) requirements may suggest the plan is “dead in the water” as it signals ongoing legal doubts about undoing the changes.
“EPA's inability to finalize the rule on schedule may signal the agency's awareness that, as drafted, its proposed rule was blatantly unlawful and had no legal basis,” an environmentalist attorney says in an email to Inside EPA following details of the delay in the agency’s spring Unified Agenda of pending rules released May 22.
“The rollback is dead in the water,” the source adds. “Since the chemical disaster rule remains in effect, industry should already be investing in compliance requirements and taking required steps to prevent future disasters.”
In the recent update to the regulatory agenda, EPA delays until August its deadline for issuing the final version of a rule rolling back the Obama administration’s January 2017 final rule strengthening the agency’s RMP facility accident prevention program.
EPA had already missed its nonbinding self-imposed deadline of January for finalizing a May 17, 2018, proposed rollback rule, and the regulatory update signals the target date has now slipped significantly. In addition, if EPA were to finalize the rule it would face an all-but-certain lawsuit from supporters of the stricter RMP requirements.
The Trump administration previously issued a rule to delay by more than a year the effective date of the Obama-era rule. Environmentalists sued over the delay in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which sided with them and vacated the delay, saying it “made a mockery” of the Clean Air Act.
That decision left in place looming requirements under the stricter RMP program, though a chemical sector attorney downplays concerns that the Trump administration is backing off from undoing those changes.
The source says environmentalists’ assertion that EPA will struggle to finalize the proposed revisions that largely scrap the Obama-era rule is “ridiculous,” even with the Unified Agenda deadline delay.
The source notes that industry provided extensive comments justifying the proposed rollback rule, which merely sought to return to the status quo under the existing rule.
Groups including the American Chemistry Council have argued that the Obama-era revisions are unnecessary and that the prior version of RMP was reducing facility accidents.
Nonetheless, the delay appears a setback for some industry groups who have been urging EPA to quickly finalize the rollback. They fear that environmentalists’ legal challenge to a final rollback could extend beyond compliance deadlines for the Obama-era rule’s most onerous provisions that take effect between 2020 and 2022.
RMP Update
The Obama administration's 2017 RMP rule sought to strengthen a host of provisions in the existing program in the wake of an explosion at a West, TX, fertilizer facility that killed 15 people, including first responders who lacked data on the facility.
In the Unified Agenda, EPA says that it received three petitions from industry and GOP-led states calling for revisions to the Obama-era rule. EPA sought comment through Aug. 23 on the May 17, 2018, proposed rollback that would largely scrap the January 2017 rule’s new auditing, hazard analysis, and disclosure requirements, while retaining some aspects of the rule’s requirements for increased coordination with first responders.
Environmentalists and some Democratic-led states have pledged to sue if EPA finalizes the revisions, arguing that the Obama-era update is needed to protect workers and fence-line communities from chemical releases, and that federal judges striking down the delay shows the core foundations of the proposed rollback are “unlawful and arbitrary.”
A senior EPA waste official told an Oct. 23 Process Safety Summit in Washington, D.C., that EPA was planning a significant rollback of the Obama-era RMP update rule, while arguing against significant disclosure of facility data and backing the Labor Department's lead in process safety.
But an industry official told the conference that EPA may need until the third quarter of this year to finalize the revisions given the difficult task of responding to “novel legal arguments” in environmentalists’ comments.
The industry attorney also appeared to back, at least partially, environmentalists' claims that a recent ruling by a panel of the D.C. Circuit vacating EPA's nearly 20-month delay of the Obama-era RMP update rule could complicate the agency's revision process.
But the industry official downplayed any effect saying a ruling striking down the delay addressed “different issues,” though the precedent is out there.
More recently, a pair of industry attorneys, in a paper filed with EPA, argued that the proposed rollback fails to go far enough, possibly raising an additional hurdle for the rollback effort.
In an April paper, industry attorneys warn that the agency faces constitutional challenges over its plan to retain provisions that require companies to hold a public meeting to disclose data on an incident, saying the mandate helps potential plaintiffs and seeks to regulate by “shaming.”
“Such a meeting will increase an owner/operator’s risk of tort claims, citizen suits, and civil and criminal enforcement actions brought by federal and state EPA, federal and state OSHA, other federal and state enforcement agencies, and even state district attorneys,” they charge.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/rmp-delay-may-suggest-rollback-obama-era-policy-%E2%80%98dead-water%E2%80%99
-
3 Injured in Fire That Destroyed Nebraska Fertilizer Plant
May 24, 2019 | AP (In The Washington Post)
A lightning strike at a Nebraska fertilizer plant set off a large fire that injured three truck drivers sleeping in the parking lot and destroyed the unoccupied factory, officials said Friday.
The fire was reported about 11:30 p.m. Thursday at the Cooperative Producers Inc. dry fertilizer plant in Hastings, about 160 miles (257 kilometers) west of Omaha. Crews worked most of the night and contained the fire just before 4 a.m. Friday.
The blaze forced authorities to close U.S. Highway 6 for several hours. A release from the Adams County Emergency Management office says railroad tracks just north of the plant also were closed for a time before being reopened.
The Nebraska Fire Marshal’s office said in a news release late Friday afternoon that an investigation showed the fire was sparked by a lightning strike.
Fire Chief Bob Hansen said no one was in the building when the fire happened. The injured semitrailer drivers were treated and released from a hospital, the Hastings Tribune reported. No firefighters were injured.
Hansen said the plant was already fully engulfed in flames when firefighters arrived. Three other departments from nearby towns were called in to help fight the huge blaze.
“We were utilizing every hydrant we could,” Hansen said.
Firefighters considered evacuating nearby mobile homes, but a shift in the wind blew heavy smoke away from them and made evacuation unnecessary. Hastings residents with health conditions that could be exasperated by smoke were urged to keep their windows closed and air conditioners off Friday.
“We’re waiting for the smoke to clear to use a drone to fly over and see pictures of the inside,” Hansen said.
The CPI plant opened last year with plans for storage capacity of 42,000 tons of product. The preliminary damage estimate for the building is $14 million. The damage to products inside the building is estimated at another $5 million, according to the fire marshal’s office.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/3-injured-in-fire-that-destroyed-nebraska-fertilizer-plant/2019/05/24/966f002e-7e5d-11e9-b1f3-b233fe5811ef_story.html?utm_term=.ad40cc4fd7c0
-
Minnesota Lawmaker Plans New Oil Train Safety Legislation
May 27, 2019 | Duluth News-Tribune
By Don Davis
A Minnesota Legislature transportation chairman plans a 2020 rail safety plan implementing more regulations, even as the Trump administration has backed away from requiring two people to work on freight trains.
Rep. Frank Hornstein, D-Minneapolis, said his proposal to require two-person train crews that failed this year will be back next year as part of a major rail safety package.
Hornstein’s comments come as the Federal Railroad Association dumped a plan to require two-person crews, saying a study of 2013 crude oil trains accidents in North Dakota and Canada failed to produce proof that would improve rail safety
“That’s OK by me,” former Minnesota House Transportation Chairman Paul Torkelson, R-Hanska, said of the federal action. “The railroads’ safety record has been outstanding.”
Torkelson said technology has made freight trains safer and railroads will use as many crew members as needed for safety.
Hornstein, however, said he plans to incorporate a two-crew rule in a package of rail safety bills he will introduce for the 2020 legislative session.
The 2013 accidents and others that followed drew calls for rail safety across the country, but nowhere more so than in Minnesota, where officials estimated that 326,000 people live within a half mile of where oil trains frequently travel. That is an area called the “blast zone” if oil cars catch fire and blow up.
Nationally, it is estimated that 25 million people live near oil train routes.
Minnesota officials, led by then-Gov. Mark Dayton and Hornstein, launched into rail safety efforts soon after the Casselton accident.
The state added rail inspectors and increased help for local governments to build safer rail crossings. They also took action to encourage better emergency response to rail disasters.
Most North Dakota oil goes through Minnesota, with many trains following tracks from Moorhead to St. Paul, through downtown Minneapolis, and south along the Mississippi River.
https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/government-and-politics/4618005-minnesota-lawmaker-plans-new-oil-train-safety-legislation
-
DOJ Makes Novel CWA Argument in Bid to Kill Cities’ Climate Lawsuits
May 24, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is expanding its legal attacks on municipalities’ climate nuisance suits against oil companies, going beyond two well-known Supreme Court climate rulings to now reference a Clean Water Act (CWA) case that DOJ says bolsters its arguments for dismissal, as well as claims that such nuisance cases can only be brought by states.
DOJ is raising these arguments in amicus briefs backing oil majors in their efforts to persuade appeals courts to dismiss the suits, rather than send them back to state courts, where the municipal governments originally filed them.
The federal government most recently articulated its claims in a May 17 amicus brief in City of Oakland, et al. v. BP plc, et al., where Oakland and San Francisco are urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to overturn a district court decision dismissing their suit, which seeks damages from the companies to pay for adaptation measures the cities made to lessen climate impacts.
The cities seek to differentiate their suit from the high court’s 2011 ruling in American Electric Power (AEP) v. Connecticut, in which the justices held that EPA’s Clean Air Act (CAA) authority over greenhouse gases displaces common law claims over utilities’ emissions.
The court in the landmark 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA first held that the agency can regulate GHGs under the air law.
The cities have said their suit should not be barred by AEP because they are targeting the oil companies’ sales of high-carbon products that they know will cause climate change, as opposed to their GHG emissions regulated by the air act.
DOJ and industry opponents say the two issues are fundamentally the same.
Now, DOJ is citing a 1986 high court ruling involving the water law, International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, where the high court found that the water law provided a comprehensive program for addressing claims and allowing any other suits would ‘undermine’ the comprehensive ‘regulatory structure’ Congress created in the water law,” DOJ’s filing says.
In Ouellette, property owners on the Vermont side of Lake Champlain sued a paper company discharging effluent into the lake from New York, alleging violations of Vermont nuisance law. In its ruling, the high court said the water law “creates a ‘comprehensive’ and ‘all-encompassing program of water pollution regulation’ that leaves available ‘only state[-law] suits . . . specifically preserved by the Act.’ .
The ruling “applies here because the Cities’ nuisance claims would regulate conduct taking place almost entirely outside of the State of California.” The ruling “provides the roadmap” for this case, the government says.
It adds that the state law nuisance claims are also preempted by the CAA “for the same reasons that the state-law nuisance claims in Ouellette were preempted by the” water law. Both contain “a comprehensive program of emissions regulation that preempts all state-law suits involving emissions regulation except those preserved by the Act.”
DOJ notes that lower courts have applied this reasoning to air emissions cases three times, most recently in a 2016 ruling by the 6th Circuit, Merrick v. Diageo Americas Supply, Inc.
“Looking next to the goals and policies of the CAA, it is clear that under the CAA (as under the CWA), allowing a state to apply its law to out-of-state emissions would interfere with the ‘full purposes and objectives of Congress,’” the brief says.
‘Not Available’ To Cities
The federal government is also raising a new argument that “nuisance claims under federal common law are not available to municipalities (as opposed to States), and the judgment can be affirmed on that basis alone.”
DOJ claims that “political subdivisions of States should not be afforded federal common law nuisance claims.” While states have a “central role in the Constitution’s framework,” it argues, cities and counties do not. “[T]here is no basis in the text of the Constitution or in any statute for federal courts to create a federal common law of nuisance claim in favor of non-state parties.”
DOJ then cites AEP to note that the high court “has never authorized any party other than a state . . . to bring such a claim.” It quotes the ruling as saying, “We have not yet decided whether private citizens . . . or political subdivisions . . . of a State may invoke the federal common law of nuisance to abate out-of-state pollution.”
In this filing, DOJ again seeking to limit the reach of Massachusetts, which held that states had “special solicitude” to bring climate claims. In a related argument, EPA argued to a California district court that states were barred from suing over the agency’s failure to implement Obama-era landfill methane rules, because the methane at issue was too small of a contribution to the global problem. The court May 6 rejected that argument, raising the importance of the high court’s 2007 holding.
The only case where the Supreme Court did address private claims for interstate environmental harms, Ouellette, the court “treated those claims as properly arising under state law, subject to preemptive limitations of the cooperative federalism scheme of the federal environmental statute,” DOJ argues. “In comparison, many environmental statutes do authorize private claims.”
Further, DOJ says the air law structure “makes plain that only suits under the law of the source State survive. The Act establishes a comprehensive system of federal regulation . . . while preserving States’ role in controlling air pollution within their borders. . . . Allowing an affected State to hold sources outside its borders accountable to its own pollution laws would disrupt and undermine the source States’ authority under the Act.”
DOJ first prominently addressed Ouellette and its argument that common law nuisance does not extend to cities in a March 7 amicus brief in support of the oil industry’s position in a similar nuisance claim brought by New York City. There, the city is pursuing an appeal in the 2nd Circuit of an adverse ruling similar to the lower court’s decision in Oakland.
The federal government also raised Ouellette in a May 2018 amicus brief seeking dismissal of Oakland when it was at the district court, though it did not argue the importance as prominently as it is in the appellate briefs.
There it said, “As further evidence that no such claim exists, the Cities argued that no such claim could be squared with the Supreme Court’s decision in International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, which required interstate emissions to be prosecuted under the law of the source state.”
It added, “Moreover, the Cities’ claim under California law claim flies directly into the headwinds of Ouellette. . . . The problems identified in Ouellette are magnified here, where the source of emissions alleged to have contributed to climate change span the globe. . . . Although this is not a focus of the Court’s invitation to the United States, we mention this point because when the Court does address the Cities’ claims under California law, they must fail as well.”
There is one more related climate case in the 9th Circuit, County of San Mateo, et al. v. Chevron, et al. where a different district court judge in California held the case could proceed in state court and did not rule on the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. Briefing is complete in industry’s appeal, and DOJ did not submit a brief in the case.
None of the three appeals courts have scheduled oral arguments in these cases.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/doj-makes-novel-cwa-argument-bid-kill-cities%E2%80%99-climate-lawsuits
-
Biden Under Pressure from Environmentalists on Climate Plan
May 24, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Former Vice President Joe Biden is expected to unveil his climate change plan any day now, and he's under increasing pressure from environmentalists who want him to take a strong position against fossil fuels.
The former Delaware senator has touted his decades-long environmental record in Congress and the Obama White House, but progressives argue that his approach to climate change is outdated and his record is anything but spotless.
Biden’s position on climate could open him up to further attacks from the left wing of the party and create an obstacle to winning the party’s nomination, especially since the environment is the main concern for liberal voters.
“Joe Biden or any presidential candidate who wants to win over voters living though climate disasters today has to give us more than something he did 30 years ago,” said Charlie Jiang, climate campaigner for Greenpeace.
"Voters are going to be looking for candidates to make bold commitments and a fossil fuel phaseout,” he added. “If all Joe Biden has is to point to his record, that’s not good enough.”
According to media reports, his plan’s main goals will consist of keeping the U.S. in the 2015 Paris climate agreement and reversing the Trump administration’s rollback of Obama-era environmental rules.
Progressives and climate activists have criticized any approach that involves moderate or steady steps.
"This is a dealbreaker. There is no 'middle ground' w/ climate denial & delay," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY.) tweeted following reports that Biden’s plan would take a middle-of-the-road approach.
Biden has denied the characterization.
“You never heard me say middle of the road. I’ve never been middle of the road on the environment,” Biden told reporters in response to the criticism. "Tell her to check the statement that I made and look at my record."
The record Biden has frequently pointed to since announcing his third White House bid includes a bill he authored in 1986 that’s considered by some to be the Senate's first climate bill. The measure successfully pushed the Reagan administration to establish a climate task force.
“I’m proud to have been one of the first to introduce climate change legislation,’’ Biden tweeted in early May. “What I fought for in 1986 is more important than ever — climate change is an existential threat. Now. Today.”
But for environmentalists and the increasing number of liberal voters who see climate change as one of the biggest threats to public health, Biden’s record doesn’t prove he’s willing to do what it takes to stop global warming.
“It shows we knew back in 1986 that action needed to be taken, but for the rest of his time in the Senate and as vice president, the action was never really followed with the immediacy needed to combat climate change,” said Mitch Jones, climate and energy program director at Food and Water Watch. “It really shows his approach hasn’t changed over that time, but the problem has continued to get worse, and what needs to be done has only become more ambitious.”
Findings from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report released last year warned that the world has about 10 years to stop the current rate of carbon emissions; otherwise, irreversible damage may follow. That study, combined with a handful of others released in the past year that back up the dire need for swift action, has most environmentalists looking for ambitious climate fixes instead of pragmatic, politically sound approaches.
“Biden is a person who in 2008 was backing things like clean coal. ... And what he’s saying about what is forthcoming is largely pretty tepid,” said Varshini Prakash, co-founder of the Sunrise Movement, a youth-led climate group that backs the progressive Green New Deal proposal on climate change.
“Biden’s middle-of-the-road approach is completely out of touch with the reality young people are seeing — we’re seeing massive super storms and hurricanes,” she said. “Our generation is clearly wondering whether we are going to have a future to graduate and grow up in.”
Some of Biden’s supporters in the Senate say he has evolved on climate from his decades on Capitol Hill.
“I think it’s important to note he left the Senate in January of 2009, a decade ago. And a lot has happened since ... a lot more legislative vehicles to consider the challenge of climate change,” said Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.). “So I think he’ll be able to speak to what’s happened in the intervening 10 years.”
Casey also pointed to Biden’s work under former President Obama, including the Clean Power Plan, a capstone regulation to limit carbon emissions from coal fire plants.
“He was supporting all those policies. So I don’t think it ended with his Senate record,” Casey said.
But critics take issue with Biden’s role in shaping Obama’s climate policies. Many argue that Obama’s “all of the above” energy strategy, which pushed the use of “clean” natural gas over coal, was in some cases more harmful than helpful.
“The fact of the matter is it was the Obama administration that really pushed for fracked natural gas to become as big as it is in the U.S,” Jones said. “The Obama administration was what signed the lifting of the crude oil export ban, pushed for exporting natural gas.”
“This is not a legacy of the Obama administration that Biden should be embracing. It’s a legacy he should be distancing himself from,” Jones added.
Others raised concerns with who Biden has chosen as his campaign climate advisers. The list includes former Energy Secretary Ernest Monizand former top White House adviser on energy and climate change Heather Zichal — both from the Obama administration.
“His falling back with Obama advisers suggests that’s part of the problem. But it’s also a bit of who Joe Biden is when it comes to the policy and how he wants to position himself,” said Jones. “If you’re out there talking about middle ground, then you just really don’t understand the issue. Because with climate change, there isn’t a middle ground. It’s a ‘Which side are you on?’ moment.”
If anything, critics argue, Biden’s experience should make it clear to him that he can’t win progressive voters unless he offers a bold plan on climate.
“For someone running for president in 2019 — we really need to step up ambitions. In 2008 we didn’t think that plan was sufficient either, but the clock is ticking more so than ever before,” said Thanu Yakupitiyage, associate director of communications for the global climate campaign 350.org, founded by Bill McKibben. “For a candidate who has been engaged with this issue since the '80s, Joe Biden should know better.”
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/445470-biden-under-pressure-from-environmentalists-on-climate-plan
-
Older People Are Contributing to Climate Change, and Suffering From It
May 27, 2019 | New York Times
By Paula Span
When it comes to discussing climate change, older people may have one advantage: They have watched it happen.
In the nine Northeastern states, for instance, where average winter temperatures climbed 3.8 degrees Fahrenheit between 1970 and 2000, they have seen fewer snow-covered days, and more shrubs flowering ever earlier.
And they have experienced hotter summers. In New York City, daily summer temperatures at La Guardia Airport have risen 0.7 degrees per decade since 1970, according to the city’s Panel on Climate Change.
Older Americans also are significant contributors to climate change. A just-published study has found that residential energy consumption rises as a resident’s age increases.
Buildings, and residential buildings in particular, are the world’s largest energy consumers. Two researchers recently analyzed federal data on household energy usage that was gathered from 1987 to 2009, and involved nearly 30,000 owner-occupied units. Distinct patterns emerged by age.
Usage was lowest among young adults, who typically occupy smaller households, said Hossein Estiri, a computational demographer at Harvard Medical School and an author on the paper.
Consumption rose rapidly among the 30- to 54-year-old cohort — “the peak of having kids and larger houses,” he noted — then stabilized when people reached their 60s. But “after 70, it goes up and it keeps going up,” Dr. Estiri said.
The trend persisted when the researchers controlled for income and housing types, but it varied by geography. When the researchers looked at climate zones, they found that “energy consumption in warmer regions becomes really elevated for the older group.”
Why do older people use more juice? The study could not provide explanations, but “there might be more need for air-conditioning,” Dr. Estiri speculated. “Or older people may not be able to maintain their homes as well” to conserve energy. “Maybe their appliances are old and less efficient. All of these could contribute.”
The climate change story has plenty of villains; seniors are hardly wrecking the environment on their own. Still, the demographic trends do not bode well.
“There will be more warm days in most areas because of climate change,” Dr. Estiri said. “There will be more energy use by the older group. And because of the population aging, there will be more people in that age group. These trends will amplify each other.”
But in a world that is both warming and graying, older adults suffer disproportionately from climate change.
Consider extreme heat. “It puts a stress on anybody’s body, but if you’re old and frail, it’s harder,” said Patrick Kinney, who studies the effects of climate on health at the Boston University School of Public Health. In addition, he said, “certain medications older people take, for blood pressure or cholesterol, reduce the body’s ability to thermo-regulate.”
The risk of heat stroke, which is potentially fatal, increases because older adults may be less mobile, and thus less able to reach cooler locations in a heat wave. They also may be socially isolated and less able to seek help.
With impaired cognitive function, “you might be less able to judge what to do,” Dr. Kinney said. The air pollution often associated with heat waves intensifies the problems. The Chicago heat wave of July 1995, for instance, caused 514 heat-related deaths; people older than 65 accounted for 72 percent of the fatalities.
Humans can adapt to these extremes, of course. Dr. Kinney and his colleagues found that the risk of dying from heat in New York City declined 65 percent from the early 1970s to 2006 as the proportion of households with air-conditioning surged. But air-conditioners also contribute to climate change.
Any particular episode of extreme weather may be linked only loosely to climate change. But the overall relationship is clear: Aside from heat waves, climate change will bring other kinds of extreme weather and disasters. Elderly people will be disproportionately affected.
“The mortality is always higher among older people,” said Lisa Brown, director of the Risk and Resilience Research Lab at Palo Alto University. “They can’t get out of harm’s way fast enough.”
Nearly half of the individuals who died during Hurricane Katrina in 2005 were 75 or older. When Hurricane Sandy hit New York in 2012, almost half of those who died were over age 65.
Blackouts have proved particularly dangerous. Older people may become unable to use power scooters and wheelchairs, refrigerate medications or summon help. After Sandy, many were trapped in high-rise apartments without functioning elevators.
An unhealthy 75-year-old in a care facility may fare better than a healthy 75-year-old living on her own, Dr. Brown pointed out. The facility likely has a generator and stockpiles of food and water; few individuals do.
But in California, Pacific Gas and Electric recently announced that it will consider turning off transmission lines when deemed necessary to prevent wildfires.
“If the power goes off for three or four days, people here are not prepared,” Dr. Brown said. She thinks older people — indeed, all people — always should have enough food and water to last five to seven days, and a plan to evacuate or seek help in emergencies.
Perhaps older Americans, as disproportionate contributors to and victims of climate change, could play an additional role, as active participants in the global campaign to mitigate the damage.
A decade ago, Dr. Karl Pillemer, a gerontologist at Cornell University, began exploring environmental volunteerism among older adults. He found that most environmental organizations had not recruited older members or adapted to support their participation, leaving a major resource untapped. He established a program called Rise, for Retirees in Service to the Environment, to prepare older volunteers for leadership roles in environmental stewardship.
There’s a common notion that older adults care less about climate change than young adults. But that holds true only for Republicans, a Pew Research Center survey found last year, and may be less a product of age than political affiliation.
Millennial and Gen X Republicans were more likely than boomers to say they saw the effects of climate change and that the federal government was doing too little to reduce it. But among Democrats, who were far more concerned about climate change and energy policy than Republicans were, the pollsters found only modest differences by age.
Older volunteers would benefit by working to halt climate change, Dr. Pillemer said: “Participants gain fulfillment from activities that have results they will not be here to enjoy.”
Later-in-life, or “generative,” volunteerism has been shown to increase health and psychological well-being.
“If the boomers could be motivated to take this on as their defining generational legacy, they could have incredible impact,” Dr. Pillemer said. “With their huge numbers, they could potentially do something about it.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/24/health/climate-change-elderly.html
-
E.P.A. Experts Objected to ‘Misleading’ Agency Smog Decision, Emails Show
May 25, 2019 | New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
Newly released emails show that Environmental Protection Agency scientists raised strong objections to a 2018 decision by Scott Pruitt, who was head of the agency at the time, to exempt most of southeastern Wisconsin from federal limits on smog.
The decision by Mr. Pruitt was notable because it came as Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, was campaigning for a third term and trying to bring a Foxconn factory, and thousands of new manufacturing jobs, to a part of the state where pollution levels already exceeded federal limits.
Mr. Walker ultimately lost his re-election bid to Tony Evers, a Democrat. And Foxconn, the Taiwanese consumer electronics giant, announced in January that it was reconsidering its plan to build a $10 billion plant in Wisconsin, though the company later said it would build a smaller factory in the state.
But, in spring 2018, as the governor’s race was heating up, Mr. Walker championed the Foxconn deal and the 13,000 jobs it promised to create. The factory, however, also threatened to create a new source of pollution in the region.
Mr. Pruitt subsequently decided to significantly reduce the size of areas in Wisconsin required to crack down on the emissions of pollutants that cause smog. That ruling, which reversed the findings of an agency decision under the Obama administration, would have saved Foxconn from having to install expensive and more stringent pollution controls.
Hundreds of emails and internal documents released Friday to two environmental groups, the Sierra Club and Clean Wisconsin, as part of a federal public records request show senior E.P.A. scientists complaining that conclusions in support of the decision, which could not be supported by data, were being demanded by top Trump administration officials.
“I do not see a sound technical basis for the areas we are being directed to finalize in Wisconsin,” Jennifer Liljegren, an E.P.A. physical scientist involved in the decision-making, wrote to colleagues in an email dated April 11, 2018. “I will need the wordsmithing of the legal and policy experts if we are really going to do this — I am still in disbelief.”
One of those colleagues, Lars Perlmutt, an E.P.A. health scientist, replied, “I have a background in air pollution health effects and more specifically on acute exposures, so for me personally, this is hard to digest and support.”
A few days later, the emails show, the same staff members expressedconcern about “intentional omissions” in the new analyses, which had the effect of reducing the number of Wisconsin counties in violation of federal smog standards.
“Taking snippets of information out of context and not telling the whole story is inappropriate, misleading to the public and dilutes the clarity of the technical information,” Ms. Liljegren wrote.
Michael Abboud, a spokesman for the E.P.A., said in a statement, “We refer you to our recently filed brief in Clean Wisconsin v. E.P.A.” In that brief, part of a lawsuit against the government over the smog designations, the agency said its actions were proper. “In each holistic analysis, E.P.A. considered the relevant factors,” it asserted.
Janet McCabe, who served as the E.P.A. air quality chief under former President Barack Obama, accused the Trump administration of putting politics above public health.
“These are supposed to be science-based decisions under the Clean Air Act, and yet you see career staff struggling to explain unexplainable decisions,” Ms. McCabe said.
Spokesmen for Foxconn and for Governor Evers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/24/climate/epa-pruitt-wisconsin-foxconn.html
Congressional Hearings - There are no hearings to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested