Company Safety Data Sheets on New Chemicals Frequently Lack the Worker Protections EPA Claims They Include
23 May 2019
Insights + Opinion
Pxhere
By Richard Denison
Readers of this blog know how concerned EDF is over the Trump EPA's approval of many dozens of new chemicals based on its mere "expectation" that workers across supply chains will always employ personal protective equipment (PPE) just because it is recommended in the manufacturer's non-binding safety data sheet (SDS).
<p>The typical course has been for EPA to identify risks to workers from a new chemical it is reviewing under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), but then — instead of issuing an order imposing binding conditions on the chemical's entry onto the market, as TSCA requires — to find that the chemical is "not likely to present an unreasonable risk" and impose no conditions whatsoever on its manufacturer. This sleight of hand is pulled off by EPA stating that it:</p><blockquote>expects employers will require and workers will use appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) … <em>consistent with the Safety Data Sheet</em> prepared by the new chemical submitter, in a manner adequate to protect them.</blockquote><p>We have detailed earlier the <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/tag/myth-busting/" target="_blank">myriad ways</a> in which this approach strays from the law, is bad policy and won't protect workers. But here's yet another gaping problem: When we are able to look at the actual SDSs — that is, when EPA has made them available and when they are not totally redacted — we are frequently finding that <em>the specific PPE that EPA claims to be specified in the SDSs — and that EPA asserts is sufficient to protect all workers handling the chemical — is not in the SDSs.</em></p>
<p>EDF recently examined the SDSs for each of five new chemicals where EPA has declared them "not likely to present an unreasonable risk" and included the language I cited above. EPA has also included the five in a proposed Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) that would require companies to notify EPA if they intend to use a chemical in a particular manner that EPA has defined as a "significant new use." On Monday, <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/files/2019/05/EDF-comments-on-4-19-19-proposed-SNURs-FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">EDF filed extensive critical comments</a> on those proposed SNURs.</p><p>The reason we are focusing here on these chemicals is because, by law, EPA had to establish a rulemaking docket for the SNUR and place in that docket certain supporting documents pertaining to each new chemical. Among those documents is (supposed to be) the chemical's corresponding SDS.</p><p>Unfortunately, for two of the five chemicals (identified as P-18-0073 and P-19-0010, because the companies claimed their actual identities to be confidential), EPA failed to provide a copy of the SDS in its docket even though it is part of the documentation the company was required to submit to EPA. For another of the five (P-17-0239), the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0772-0003&attachmentNumber=2&contentType=pdf" target="_blank">copy of the SDS</a> EPA included in the docket is <em>totally redacted</em> — even though much if not all of its content comprises health and safety information not eligible for confidential business information (CBI) protection under TSCA and, for the remainder, there is no evidence EPA has reviewed and approved any CBI claims the company asserted for the SDS.</p><p>That leaves us with the SDSs for the remaining two cases (<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0772-0005&attachmentNumber=3&contentType=pdf" target="_blank">P-18-0048</a>and <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0772-0006&attachmentNumber=4&contentType=pdf" target="_blank">P-18-0122</a>), which are unredacted. Now we can compare what they specify by way of PPE to the specific PPE that EPA relied on in determining these chemicals are "not likely to present an unreasonable risk."</p>
<p><strong></strong><strong>P-18-0048:</strong> Here is what the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-183" target="_blank">"not likely" determination document for P-18-0048</a> states:</p><p><strong><em>Risks to workers</em>: </strong>Reproductive toxicity via dermal exposure; corrosion to all tissues via dermal and inhalation exposures.</p><p><strong><em>PPE EPA relies on</em>:</strong> EPA identifies as "appropriate PPE" the use of "impervious gloves and a respirator." EPA goes on to state:</p><blockquote>EPA expects that employers will require and workers will use appropriate personal protective equipment, including dermal and <em>respiratory protection with an Assigned Protection Factor </em>[APF]<em> of 50, consistent with the Safety Data Sheet submitted with the PMN </em>[premanufacture notice], in a manner adequate to protect them. (p. 6, emphasis added)</blockquote><p>The <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0772-0005&attachmentNumber=3&contentType=pdf" target="_blank">associated SDS</a> does recommend wearing "protective gloves," "suitable protective equipment," and "appropriate chemical resistant gloves." Its only reference to respiratory protection, however, is this:</p><blockquote>[I]n the case of insufficient ventilation, wear suitable respiratory equipment.</blockquote><p>Nowhere does the SDS specify use of a respirator with an APF of 50. The SDS is clearly not consistent with EPA's own description of it.</p>
<p><strong>P-18-0122:</strong><strong> </strong>Here is what the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-190" target="_blank">"not likely" determination document for P-18-0122</a> states:</p><p><strong><em>Risks to workers</em>:</strong> Lung toxicity via inhalation; irritation to skin, eyes, lung and GI tract.</p><p><strong><em>PPE EPA relies on</em>:</strong></p><blockquote>Risks will be mitigated if exposures are controlled by the use of appropriate PPE, <em>including respiratory protection with an APF of 10</em>. Risks could not be quantified for irritation hazards, but appropriate PPE, including impervious gloves and protective eye wear, would mitigate concerns. EPA expects that employers will require and workers will use appropriate personal protective equipment (i.e., impervious gloves, protective eye wear, and a respirator), <em>consistent with the Safety Data Sheet prepared by the PMN submitter</em>, in a manner adequate to protect them. (pp. 5-6, emphases added)</blockquote><p>While the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0772-0006&attachmentNumber=4&contentType=pdf" target="_blank">corresponding SDS</a> does recommend certain types of gloves and safety glasses, it specifically states:</p><blockquote>Other protective equipment is not generally required under normal working conditions.</blockquote><p>The only mention of use of a respirator anywhere in the SDS is where an OSHA regulatory workplace standard is exceeded – which is clearly not the case here, as no such standards exist for the new chemical. Nowhere does the SDS specify use of a respirator with an APF of 10. Here again, the SDS is clearly not consistent with EPA's own description of it.</p>
<p><strong>Other Recent Cases Found</strong></p><p>This finding spurred us to look further at other "not likely" determinations and the corresponding SDSs. This is slower-going, because there is no electronically accessible docket. That's not only because EPA has not proposed a SNUR for other new chemicals to which it recently gave the green light; it's also because EPA has failed to comply with its own regulations requiring it to provide electronic access to all new chemical submissions it receives.</p><p>As we <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/tag/cbi-pmn-series/" target="_blank">have described elsewhere</a>, EDF has had no choice but to request the "public files" for these chemicals through EPA's Docket Center, which can take several weeks (they come by snail mail on a CD-ROM).</p><p>I looked at a number of recent new chemicals EPA has green-lighted for which we have received public files. In one case no SDS was provided in the public file, while in two others the SDS was there but again totally redacted. In some of the remaining cases the SDS recommended PPE that matched that EPA described in its "not likely" document, or at least came close.</p><p>But in other cases, there was not a match. Here are two examples:</p><p><u><strong>P-19-0021/22:</strong></u> Here is what the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-160" target="_blank">"not likely" determination document for P-19-0021 and P-19-0022</a> states:</p><p><strong><em>Risks to workers</em>: </strong>Lung overload via inhalation.</p><p><strong><em>PPE EPA relies on</em>:</strong></p><blockquote>Risks will be mitigated if exposures are controlled by the use of appropriate PPE, <em>including a respirator with APF of 50</em>. EPA expects that workers will use appropriate PPE <em>consistent with the SDS prepared by the PMN submitter</em>, in a manner adequate to protect them. (p. 5, emphases added)</blockquote><p>The <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/files/2019/05/SDS-CNTOP-Pigment-ink-Yellow.pdf" target="_blank">associated SDS</a> makes only this reference to respiratory protection:</p><blockquote>Respiratory protection: Mist respirator, include single use respirator</blockquote><p>Nowhere does the SDS specify use of a respirator with an APF of 50. The SDS is clearly not consistent with EPA's own description of it.</p><p><u><strong>P-18-0212: </strong></u>Here is what the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/tsca-section-5a3c-determination-134" target="_blank">"not likely" determination document for P-18-0212</a> states:</p><p><strong><em>Risks to workers</em>: </strong>Systemic effects via inhalation exposure; portal of entry/contact effects to the eyes, lungs and skin following ocular, inhalation, and dermal exposures</p><p><strong><em>PPE EPA relies on</em>:</strong></p><blockquote>The risks and hazards identified will be mitigated if exposures are controlled by the use of appropriate PPE, including impervious gloves, <em>respirators with an APF of at least 10</em>, and eye protection. EPA expects that workers will use appropriate personal protective equipment (i.e., impervious gloves, <em>respirator with an APF of at least 10</em>, and eye protection), <em>consistent with the Safety Data Sheet submitted with the PMN</em>, in a manner adequate to protect them. (p. 5, emphases added)</blockquote><p>The <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/files/2019/05/RESYDROL-AY-6838-US-SDSRevised.pdf" target="_blank">associated SDS</a> makes this reference to respiratory protection:</p><blockquote>Respiratory Protection: For operations where inhalation exposure can occur use an approved respirator. Recommendations are listed below. Other protective respiratory equipment may be used based on user's own risk assessment. Recommended respirators include those certified by NIOSH.</blockquote><blockquote>Recommended: Full Face Mask with a combination particulate/organic vapor cartridge.</blockquote><p>Nowhere does the SDS specify use of a respirator with an APF of 10. The SDS is clearly not consistent with EPA's own description of it.</p>
<p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p><p>In each of these cases, EPA identified a particular type of respirator as necessary for its finding that the chemical is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, and in each case, EPA asserted that the corresponding SDS specified that type of equipment. But in fact, in each case, the SDS does <em>not</em> specify that type of respirator. EPA's decisions run counter to the actual evidence before the agency, and EPA has actually mischaracterized that evidence. That amounts to arbitrary decision-making. Practically speaking, this mismatch means that workers could follow the SDS to a T and be using a respirator that is not sufficient to protect them against the chemical's identified risks.</p><p><a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/02/21/the-trump-epa-is-throwing-workers-facing-risks-from-new-tsca-chemicals-under-the-bus/" target="_blank">As we have noted before</a>, EPA's reliance on SDS-recommended PPE flouts the law and falls vastly short of what TSCA requires EPA to do to protect workers. Amended TSCA requires EPA to issue binding orders to mitigate identified risks posed to workers by new chemicals, which it has identified in each of the cases we cite above. EPA's mere "expectation" that PPE will universally be available, used and effective is wholly insufficient to address the identified risks. The recommendations in an SDS are not binding on employers, neither on manufacturers nor on other companies downstream in supply chains. Failure to always use PPE or for it always to be effective is clearly reasonably foreseeable, and EPA is required to mitigate risks from "reasonably foreseen conditions of use" of a new chemical. PPE is the option of last resort under the longstanding Industrial Hygiene Hierarchy of Controls adopted by OSHA and embraced by the industrial hygiene community. Reliance on expected use of PPE shifts the burden of protection off of EPA and employers and onto the backs of workers.</p><p>Now, we find that even the PPE EPA identifies as necessary to be in an SDS in order to determine that a new chemical is not likely to present an unreasonable risk is frequently absent from the SDS. Even under its own flawed theories, EPA is utterly failing to protect workers from the risks of these chemicals.</p><p>How much farther under the bus will the Trump EPA throw American workers?</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">5 Ways Chemical Safety Is Eroding Under Trump <a href="https://t.co/PBnt5mblfs">https://t.co/PBnt5mblfs</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/CleanAirMoms?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@CleanAirMoms</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/GMWatch?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@GMWatch</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/EnvDefenseFund?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@EnvDefenseFund</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/ewg?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ewg</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/weareoversight?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@weareoversight</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/greenchildmag?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@greenchildmag</a></p>— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch) <a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/status/991742678265155584?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 2, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p><em>Richard Denison is a lead senior scientist with Environmental Defense Fund.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- EPA Announces 20 Toxic Chemicals It Won't Protect Us From ... ›
- Trump EPA Refuses to Limit Toxic Chemicals Contaminating ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
A sea turtle swims above a fragile coral reef in Wailea, Maui, Hawaii. M Swiet Productions / Moment / Getty Images
By Ilissa Ocko
The world's oceans are heating up. Scientists have found that 2018 was the hottest year ever recorded for our oceans, and that they are warming even faster than previously thought.
When documenting global warming trends, we often focus on air temperature. But the oceans actually absorb more than 90 percent of the excess heat trapped by human emissions of greenhouse gases. So if we really want to know how much our planet is warming up, we look to the oceans.
<p>And what the oceans are telling us is alarming.</p><p>Using multiple measurement devices, scientists from across the globe found that the amount of heat in the upper part of the world's oceans in 2018 was the <a href="https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00376-019-8276-x.pdf" target="_blank">highest ever recorded</a> since observations began in the 1950s. In fact, the past five years are the warmest years on record and the increase in ocean heat has been accelerating since the 1990s.</p><p>Scientists also found that the oceans are warming faster than data previously published in a 2013 landmark report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.</p><p>Studies now show that in recent decades, the rate of warming in the upper ocean—the top 2,000 meter or 6,500 feet layer of the ocean—was about <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oceans-are-warming-faster-than-predicted/" target="_blank">40 percent higher</a> than the earlier IPCC estimates showed. The new data, made possible by vast improvements to ocean heat records in recent years, is also consistent with model projections of ocean warming.</p><p>So how worried should we be?</p><h3>Why Warmer Oceans Matter</h3><p>Rising ocean temperatures are a major concern for societies and ecosystems across the globe. Hotter oceans lead to:</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li><a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/sea-level-rise">rising sea levels</a> when water molecules expand from increasing temperatures, and<strong> </strong>then erode coasts, threaten infrastructure and contaminate freshwater with intruding saltwater.</li><li>heavier downpours and widespread <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/flooding">flooding</a> because more ocean water evaporates as temperatures increase, supplying the atmosphere with more moisture.</li><li>more destructive <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/hurricanes">hurricanes</a> because of the increased moisture in the air and higher sea levels that worsen storm surges.</li><li>dying <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coral-reefs">coral reefs</a> as the corals' colorful algae, their main food source, leave the corals due to heat stress. This bleaches corals of their vivid colors, causing them to starve, while affecting the survival of thousands of species that live in the reefs.</li><li>fish moving poleward because their current habitats are becoming too warm, disrupting fisheries. </li></ul><h3>There Is Still Time</h3><p>Recent scientific <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/" target="_blank">reports</a> have concluded that our greenhouse gas emissions so far have not yet committed us to future warming levels that can cause catastrophic climate impacts. That is great news.</p><p>There are, in fact, countless reasons to feel hopeful. Numerous countries are reducing greenhouse gas emissions while growing their economies. <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/">Renewable energy</a> sources are increasingly more affordable. And new technologies, such as <a href="https://www.edf.org/blog/2019/02/12/carbon-removal-technologies-hekp-tackle-climate-change-heres-what-itll-take" target="_blank">carbon dioxide removal</a>, are emerging.</p><p>Oceans are warning us, and we need to act now. As disconcerting as this oceans news has been, there's still time.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="00df6" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="OFL2DR1576663257"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1085658023350005760" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">2018 Was the Hottest Year Ever Recorded for Our Oceans https://t.co/dlJfct7UGA #ClimateChange @oceana @ClimateReality</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1085658023350005760">1547676017.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p><em>Ilissa Ocko is a climate scientist at <a href="https://www.edf.org" target="_blank">Environmental Defense Fund</a>.</em><br></p>
From Your Site Articles
- World's Oceans Warming 40% Faster Than Previously Thought ... ›
- Ocean Warming Dooms Most Fish, Study Says - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Brazil’s New President Could Spell Catastrophe for the Amazon, Indigenous Rights and Global Climate
29 October 2018
Politics
Jair Bolsonaro during a speech on Feb. 2, 2017. Marcelo Camargo / Agência Brasil Fotografias / CC BY 2.0
Far-right congressman Jair Bolsonaro, whose hostile campaign rhetoric has earned him comparisons to U.S. President Donald Trump, won Brazil's presidential election Sunday, a development that has raised concerns about the future of human rights and environmental action in the world's sixth-largest greenhouse gas emitter, CNN reported.
Like Trump, Bolsonaro has made homophobic, sexist and racist statements and emboldened right wing groups who share his views.
<p>Also like Trump, he has talked tough about prioritizing his nation's economy over environmental regulations, at one point even threatening to withdraw Brazil from the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/paris-agreement" target="_self">Paris agreement</a>, as the <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brazil-election-jair-bolsonaro-climate-change_us_5bc62b71e4b055bc947ae270" target="_blank">Huffington Post</a> reported, though he has since walked that back. </p><p>Here's how a Bolsonaro presidency might impact Brazil's environment, and the world's.</p><p><strong>The Amazon</strong></p><p><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/deforestation" target="_self">Deforestation</a> in the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/amazon" target="_self">Amazon</a> <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/amazon-deforestation-in-brazil-2603739509.html" target="_self">decreased</a> by an impressive 70 percent from around 2005 to 2011 as a growing popular movement to protect the rainforest led to increased government regulations. From 2011 to 2017, as the country entered a more chaotic political period, the decrease in deforestation stopped, but it didn't reverse.</p><p>Bolsonaro's leadership could change that. He has promised to open more of the Amazon to development and to merge the country's environment ministry with its <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/agriculture" target="_blank">agriculture</a> ministry, which is controlled by <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/agribusiness" target="_self">agribusiness</a> interests, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/29/bolsonaro-government-brazil-policies-economy-environment-indigenous" target="_blank">The Guardian reported</a>. He also wants to reconsider <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/dams" target="_self">dams</a> in the Amazon that were stopped because they posed too much of a risk to the forest. </p><p>"His reckless plans to industrialize the Amazon in concert with Brazilian and international agribusiness and mining sectors will bring untold destruction to the planet's largest rainforest and the communities who call it home, and spell disaster for the global climate," <a href="https://amazonwatch.org/about" target="_blank">Amazon Watch</a> Program Director Christian Poirier told CNN in a statement.</p><p><strong>Indigenous Rights</strong></p><p>Part of Bolsonaro's plans to open more Amazon regions to industry also trample on the rights of the indigenous communities that call them home. </p><p>"[Not one centimeter of land will be demarcated for indigenous reserves," Bolsonaro said during his campaign, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-election-landrights-deforestat/indigenous-land-culture-at-stake-in-brazil-election-experts-idUSKCN1N0241" target="_blank">Reuters reported</a>. He also vowed to open existing reserves to mining and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/farming" target="_self">farming</a>. </p><p>This rhetoric could be deadly. Last year, 110 indigenous people were murdered in Brazil, largely for defending their land. </p><p>"Brazil is a 'champion' of killings in the countryside. This can be aggravated by these statements ... because people's acts follow such signals," Paulo Barreto of <a href="https://imazon.org.br/en/" target="_blank">Imazon</a> told Reuters.</p><p><strong>Climate Change</strong></p><p>Towards the end of his campaign, Bolsonaro said he would keep Brazil in the Paris agreement as long as the country did not have to hand sovereignty of the Amazon, Andes and Atlantic Ocean over to indigenous or international groups. </p><p>But staying in the agreement might not matter much if deforestation in the Amazon is allowed to increase. The <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change-ipcc-report-2610866229.html" target="_self">new report</a> from the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/" target="_blank">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</a> (IPCC) on limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels said that planting more trees, and keeping existing trees in the ground, were both essential to meeting that goal. </p><p>Brazil was on the right track. Its deforestation efforts made it the world leader in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is one of the world's largest producers of sustainable biofuels and it pledged to plant more than 70 million trees in 2017. Bolsonaro's election puts that progress in jeopardy. </p><p>"The kinds of policies Bolsonaro has talked about could be catastrophic," <a href="https://www.edf.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Defense Fund</a> (EDF) senior director of tropical forest policy Steve Schwartzman told the Huffington Post. "Brazil is still the world leader in reducing greenhouse gas pollution. If that changes, it's exactly what Brazil doesn't need, and exactly what the world doesn't need."</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="d8f7e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="EG2NXH1576661889"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="980935476415737857" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Controversial Amazon Gold Mine Close to Getting Permit, Say Activists Raising Alarm https://t.co/NDvPKlStJ9 @WildForests @SkyRainforest</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/980935476415737857">1522708217.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Support Ecowatch
Astrakan Images / Cultura / Getty Images
Under pressure from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and other environmental and public health groups, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has banned seven substances used in artificial flavors that have been linked to cancer in animals.
<p>
"Chemicals that could cause cancer should never have been allowed in our food in the first place, especially not hiding behind the confusing label of 'artificial flavors,'" said Melanie Benesh, EWG's legislative attorney. "The FDA finally did the right thing by taking this important step to better protect consumers."
</p><p>
These food additives are most commonly used to enhance the flavor of baked goods, ice cream, candy, chewing gum and beverages. The newly banned flavors are benzophenone, ethyl acrylate, eugenyl methyl ether, myrcene, pulegone, pyridine and styrene.
</p><p>
"Consumers will never know which foods were made with these chemicals, since manufacturers have been allowed to hide these ingredients behind the vague term 'flavor,'" said Dawn Undurraga, EWG's nutritionist. "This is a positive step forward, but the FDA should empower consumers to make their own fully informed decisions by requiring full ingredient disclosure."
</p><p>
The ban on styrene was also supported by a petition from the food industry. But the FDA acted on the other six after public interest groups filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit petitioning the FDA to make a final decision whether to prohibit the seven cancer-causing artificial chemicals from use in food.
</p><p>
Earthjustice represented the petitioners, including Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, the Center for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Environmental Defense Fund, the Environmental Working Group, Natural Resources Defense Council, and WE ACT for Environmental Justice.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="75714" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8A0ZCQ1576662851"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1050008173053177857" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">"We think this is a win for consumers. Our petition laid out the science linking these flavoring chemicals to cance… https://t.co/ijya5LiJPi</div> — NRDC 🌎 (@NRDC 🌎)<a href="https://twitter.com/NRDC/statuses/1050008173053177857">1539176431.0</a></blockquote></div>
Manufacturers that use these food additives will have two years to comply with the new rules.<br>
<p></p><p>
To learn more about the chemicals used in processed foods, please visit EWG's <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/ewg-s-dirty-dozen-guide-food-additives" target="_blank">Dirty Dozen Guide to Food Additives</a>. Consumers looking for healthier options can also visit EWG's <a href="https://www.ewg.org/foodscores#.W7zC-i2ZNTY" target="_blank">Food Scores</a> database or download EWG's <a href="https://www.ewg.org/apps/" target="_blank">Healthy Living App,</a> which provides ratings for more than 120,000 food and personal care products.
</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
As news outlets around the country reflect on Senator John McCain's life and legacy following his death at 81 on Saturday, one strand that emerges is his attempts as a Senator to push bipartisan action on climate change.
In early 2003, McCain joined with then-Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman to introduce the Climate Stewardship Act, which The New York Times editorial about his death called "the first serious bipartisan bill to limit greenhouse gas emissions by putting a price on carbon."
<p>While the 2003 bill failed, and McCain stepped back from climate leadership during and after his 2008 bid for president, his earlier efforts still stand as a model for future legislative attempts to combat climate change.</p><p>"Lieberman and McCain were really good examples of a Democrat and Republican intentionally, consciously and thoughtfully trying to work across the aisle to build a 60-vote coalition in the Senate on climate," <a href="https://www.nrdcactionfund.org/" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund</a> Executive Director Kevin Curtis, who was an environmental lobbyist on Capitol Hill during the 2000s, told <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/26082018/john-mccain-climate-change-leadership-senate-cap-trade-bipartisan-lieberman-republican-campaign" target="_blank">InsideClimateNews</a>. "The point of looking at McCain's legacy, I think, is not to just look back to the 'good old days,' but to look at what we need to get back to."</p><p>McCain first became interested in climate change during his 2000 primary bid for president, when student activists asked his campaign about its climate action plans. </p><p>In May 2000, he held the first of three Senate hearings on climate change he would convene that year, inviting scientists to testify about issues like melting ice-shelves in <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/antarctica" target="_self">Antarctica</a> and the death of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coral-reefs" target="_self">coral reefs</a>.</p><p>"It was an excellent hearing and I gained a lot of respect for John McCain at that time," hearing witness and senior <a href="https://ncar.ucar.edu/" target="_blank">National Center for Atmospheric Research</a> scientist Kevin Trenberth told InsideClimateNews. "He appeared to have an open mind on what the answers were and what to do about it."</p><p>McCain was also willing to stand up to his party's leadership in order to force a vote on his 2003 bill. Both he and Lieberman refused to support an energy bill Senate Majority Leader Republican Bill Frist and Senate Minority Leader Democrat Tom Daschle were trying to get passed until the Senate would allow a floor vote on their Climate Stewardship Act, which would have passed an economy-wide cap-and-trade program for carbon similar to the program in place for acid rain. </p><p>Their bill ultimately failed, but the vote was important for signaling to activists where senators actually stood on climate action. </p><p>"Obviously, it hasn't yet resulted in getting a comprehensive climate bill through Congress, but it's a big issue, kind of like the civil right issue," <a href="https://www.edf.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Defense Fund</a> President Fred Krupp told InsideClimateNews. "When we do get there, [McCain] will go down in history as someone who started that progress in a forceful way."</p><p>In 2004, Lieberman and McCain introduced a reworked version of the bill, but it failed again in 2005 after increased lobbying by the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuel</a> industry. </p><p>While McCain never rejected climate science, he stepped away from leadership on the issue during his 2008 campaign, in which he came out in support of increasing <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/offshore-oil-drilling" target="_self">offshore oil drilling</a>, and afterwards, when he faced a primary challenger for his Senate seat who criticized his former climate leadership and was funded by the group Citizens United, which had successfully sued to overturn important parts of his groundbreaking campaign finance reform legislation. </p><p>"There's no sugar-coating the fact that he shelved his leadership role on climate for a while," Curtis told InsideClimateNews. "But instead of blaming John McCain for walking away from an issue and not showing up, we should be saying 'holy crap, something profound has happened with the Republican Party,'" </p><p>McCain did get one more chance to stand up for the environment in a big way during the Trump administration, as <a href="https://www.bna.com/oncestalwart-backer-climate-n73014482016/" target="_blank">Environment & Energy Report pointed out</a>. </p><p>In May 2017, he cast a surprise vote that secured the only defeat of an attempt by Republicans in the current session of Congress to repeal an Obama-era regulation </p><p>The bill in question would have used the Congressional Review Act to repeal an Obama-era regulation targeting <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/methane" target="_self">methane</a> emissions, and McCain objected in part because the repeal would have stopped federal agencies from passing any similar rules in the future.</p><p>"Improving the control of methane emissions is an important public health and air quality issue," McCain said in a statement at the time, according to Environment & Energy Report.</p>Beyond climate change, McCain has also been praised by the <a href="https://www.nps.gov/index.htm" target="_blank">National Park Service </a>and the <a href="https://www.grandcanyon.org/" target="_blank">Grand Canyon Association</a> for his work preserving the iconic Arizona landmark and by <a href="https://www.citizensfor.com/" target="_blank">Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions</a> for his work to fund fish hatchery repairs near Hoover Dam and water conservation at Colorado River reservoirs, Environment & Energy report wrote.<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-youtube">
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c008bc082a8b6f6a7659a28ad333dc46"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/p_LwMJqjeBo?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
</p>
Read More
Show Less
Coal-fired power plant near Becker, Minnesota. Tony Webster / Flickr / CC BY-SA 2.0
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unveiled on Tuesday its long-anticipated replacement of the Obama-era Clean Power Plan. The new coal pollution rules will increase planet-warming carbon pollution and could cost more than a thousand American lives each year, according to the EPA's own estimates.
EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler released the "Affordable Clean Energy Rule" today under President Trump's directive. The new plan encourages efficiency improvements at existing coal plants to ensure they operate longer and allows states to weaken, or even eliminate, coal emissions standards. That's a clear difference from former President Obama's plan, which was aimed at phasing out coal and transitioning to cleaner power sources to avoid dangerous climate change.
<p>
"We're ending intrusive EPA regulations that kill jobs," Trump said in a White House
<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-wants-reliable-affordable-energy-fuel-historic-economic-growth/" target="_blank">statement</a>.
</p><p>
Wheeler said in a
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-proposes-affordable-clean-energy-ace-rule" target="_blank">press release</a>, "Today's proposal provides the states and regulated community the certainty they need to continue environmental progress while fulfilling President Trump's goal of energy dominance."
</p><p>
<span></span>But in a damning report from <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/climate/epa-coal-pollution-deaths.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>, the proposal's own fine print states, "implementing the proposed rule is expected to increase emissions of carbon dioxide and the level of emissions of certain pollutants in the atmosphere that adversely affect human health."
</p><p>
The proposal even has a section called "foregone" climate and human health benefits, according to the Times, and projects 470 and 1,400 premature deaths annually by 2030 due to increased rates of PM 2.5, which are microscopic toxins from power plants, automobiles and other sources that can cause lung and heart disease.
</p><p>
In contrast, as the Times pointed out, the Clean Power Plan was squarely designed at protecting the climate and human health. In 2015, the Obama EPA
<a href="https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/fact-sheet-clean-power-plan-numbers_.html" target="_blank">estimated</a> that their plan could avoid between 1,500 to 3,600 premature deaths annually by 2030.
</p><p>
"This proposal would eliminate almost all the life-saving climate and health benefits that the Clean Power Plan provides. The Trump-Wheeler plan will mean millions of tons more air pollution endangering our kids' health, lives and future," said
<a href="https://www.edf.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Defense Fund</a> president Fred Krupp in a statement.
</p><p>
<span></span>Environmentalists also said the Affordable Clean Energy Rule will not survive in court.
</p><p>
"Trump is doubling down on our dirtiest power sources and it's going to send polar bears, ice seals and other wildlife over the edge of extinction. But like most of his environmental rollbacks, this proposal mangles the facts, the law and the science, and won't survive in court," said Vera Pardee, senior counsel at the
<a href="https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/" target="_blank">Center for Biological Diversity</a> in a statement.
</p><p>
Similarly, Rhea Suh, president of the
<a href="https://www.nrdc.org/" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council</a>, dubbed the proposal as the "Dirty Power Plan" and said the organization will fight the proposal "with every tool available."
</p><p>
"What America needs instead is an even stronger Clean Power Plan, one that will further accelerate the nation's shift to clean energy—that's how to truly protect public health, our children and future generations," she added.
</p><p>
The new measure, which President Trump will likely tout today at his rally in West Virginia, will be subject to a 60-day comment period.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="27f4d" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="22R6ZK1576662712"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="978978020500361216" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Environmental Groups Sue #EPA Over Rule Change That Could Quadruple Toxic Emissions https://t.co/fmaIFXbVlI… https://t.co/ZXL7DcTROR</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/978978020500361216">1522241523.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Walmart Joins Ranks of Retailers Pulling Toxic Paint Strippers From Shelves – When Will EPA Follow Suit?
20 August 2018
Health + Wellness
SOPA Images / Getty Images
By Sarah Vogel
Monday, Walmart announced that it will stop selling paint strippers containing methylene chloride or N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) in stores by February 2019—making it the first general merchandise retailer to take such action. Walmart's announcement follows the strong leadership demonstrated by Lowes, Home Depot and Sherwin Williams, all of which have committed not to sell methylene chloride- and NMP-based paint stripping products by the end of the year. Importantly, Walmart's action goes beyond its U.S. stores, including those in Mexico, Canada and Central America, as well as their online store.
<p>The announcement signals an important step by Walmart to better protect consumers from dangerous paint strippers. Methylene chloride is highly neurotoxic and acutely lethal. The chemical is responsible for more than 50 reported deaths from acute exposure over the last 35 years—though many more likely have gone unreported. NMP is linked to fetal development problems, including low birth weight and birth defects.</p><p>The Environmental Defense Fund has <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2015/03/31/epa-identifies-another-risky-chemical-can-it-succeed-in-using-tsca-to-restrict-it/" target="_blank">advocated</a> for several years for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban both methylene chloride- and NMP-based paint strippers, using its enhanced authority under the reformed Toxic Substance Control Act. In January 2017, EPA proposed to ban methylene chloride and restrict NMP in paint strippers, but <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/epa-toxic-chemicals.html" target="_blank">action has stalled under the Trump administration</a>. For over a year, the agency made no effort to finalize these actions—<a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/12/20/systematic-slowdown-epa-indefinitely-delays-virtually-all-proposed-actions-to-restrict-chemicals-under-tsca/" target="_blank">even taking steps to delay any progress</a>.</p><p>This past May, families whose sons died from using paint strippers containing methylene chloride <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-follow-through-and-ban-this-chemical-20180621-story.html" target="_blank">met with former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt</a> to personally ask him to finalize the ban on these products. Just two days after the meeting, <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-action-methylene-chloride" target="_blank">EPA announced</a> its intention to finalize the proposed ban on methylene chloride-based paint strippers.</p><p>Three months later, EPA has yet to make good on its promise. But retailers across the nation are stepping up. We applaud the leadership demonstrated by these retailers and strongly urge EPA to follow suit and ban methylene chloride- and NMP-based paint strippers. It is the <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/05/15/methylene-chloride-in-paint-strippers-a-ban-is-the-only-health-protective-path-forward/" target="_blank">only health-protective path forward</a>.</p>
From Your Site Articles
Read More
Show Less
Fracking fluid and other drilling wastes are dumped into an unlined pit located right up against the Petroleum Highway in Kern County, California. Sarah Craig / Faces of Fracking
By Sharon Kelly
Between 2011 and 2016, fracked oil and gas wells in the U.S. pumped out record-breaking amounts of wastewater, which is laced with toxic and radioactive materials, a new Duke University study concludes. The amount of wastewater from fracking rose 1,440 percent during that period.
<p>Over the same time, the total amount of water used for fracking rose roughly half as much, 770 percent, according to the paper published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances.</p><p>"Previous studies suggested hydraulic fracturing does not use significantly more water than other energy sources, but those findings were based only on aggregated data from the early years of fracking," Avner Vengosh, professor of geochemistry and water quality at Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment, said in a statement. "After more than a decade of fracking operation, we now have more years of data to draw upon from multiple verifiable sources."</p><p>The researchers predict that spike in water use will continue to climb.</p><p>And over the next dozen years, they say the amount of water used could grow up to 50 times higher when fracking for shale gas and 20 times higher when fracking for oil—should prices rise. The paper, titled "The Intensification of the Water Footprint of Hydraulic Fracturing," was based on a study conducted with funding from the National Science Foundation.</p><p>"Even if prices and drilling rates remain at current levels, our models still predict a large increase by 2030 in both water use and wastewater production," said Andrew J. Kondash, a PhD student in Vengosh's lab who was lead author of the paper.</p><h3>More Water Than Oil</h3><p>The shale industry has been heavily focused on amping up the amount of fossil fuels it can pump per well by drilling longer horizontal well bores and using more sand, water and chemicals when fracking (which raises the costs per well and, <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/08/10/fracking-industry-cannibalizing-own-production-increasing-spill-risks" target="_blank">as DeSmog recently reported</a>, raises risks of water pollution).</p><p>But the water use and wastewater production per well have been growing even faster than the per-well fossil fuel production, the researchers found, labeling the water demand and wastewater growth "much higher" than the oil or gas increases.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODMxMTk2Ni9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MzI2NDEzMH0.yo2W8Q6Frb6fP0EhRcBjU9OUmipMT0z3grYgzX13qsY/img.jpg?width=980" id="208f5" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="168e08f0a476ba3a30cd5142d886ecdc" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Shale drilling and fracking often occurs in areas already suffering from water stress.</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">Duke University</small></p>
<p>The researchers studied data from more than 12,000 oil and gas wells representing each of the major shale-producing regions in the <span style="background-color: initial;">U.S.</span><br></p><p>Their findings are particularly troubling news for arid areas like the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico, where underground water supplies are already taxed by residential and agricultural demand, and where fights over water use are brewing.</p><p>On average, a Permian Basin well used 10.3 million gallons of water in 2016, according to a <a href="https://www.expressnews.com/business/eagle-ford-energy/article/Bigger-wells-but-more-water-12512262.php" target="_blank">San Antonio Express-News investigation</a> earlier this year—more than double the average per-well demand just a few years ago.</p><h3>A Waterfall of Waste</h3><p>The wastewater problem has attracted the eye of industry analysts, particularly in the Permian.</p><p>"One of the biggest risks facing operators today is the issue of produced water," <a href="https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/5ac4b8ca6484cf1bd33e91bb/5b4de9428ebe67c7d3f847ff_Oilfield%20Tech%20Article.pdf" target="_blank">wrote</a><a href="http://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/5ac4b8ca6484cf1bd33e91bb/5b4de9428ebe67c7d3f847ff_Oilfield%20Tech%20Article.pdf" target="_blank"> Ryan Duman</a>, a Wood Mackenzie senior energy analyst, describing how in parts of Texas and New Mexico, wells can produce up to 10 gallons of wastewater for every gallon of crude oil. "The sheer volume of water is unprecedented."</p><p>And that wastewater can be a toxic blend that's very difficult to treat, in part because it may contain high levels of corrosive salts, naturally occurring radioactive materials, and fracking chemicals whose identities are considered trade secrets and which even the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can't list.</p><p>The agency highlighted this fact in its 2016 <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/12/13/fracking-can-contaminate-drinking-water-has-made-some-water-supplies-unusable-epa-announces-long-awaited-study" target="_blank">national study on fracking and American drinking water supplies</a>. While drafted under strong pressure from industry, the EPA study found that fracking not only generates vast amounts of wastewater but also can and has polluted drinking water supplies in areas nationwide.</p><p>"There aren't water quality standards or even approved analytical methods for most of the chemicals we know are a concern in produced water," <a href="http://nmpoliticalreport.com/868263/nm-officials-consider-options-to-reuse-oilfield-water-en/" target="_blank">said</a> Colin Leyden, senior manager for state regulatory and legislative affairs for the Environmental Defense Fund.</p><p>There's so much toxic wastewater produced from fracking oil and gas in the U.S. that it's difficult to envision just how much water comes from the wells. Expressed in terms of barrels or swimming pools, the numbers still grow dizzyingly high.</p><p>One way to think of it is literally in terms of a waterfall of toxic waste. "One of the things I think we can lose sight of is just how much produced water we are creating … which is more on a per day basis than Niagara Falls has going over it in an hour," <a href="http://www.lw.com/people/joel-mack" target="_blank">Joel Mack</a>, an attorney at Latham & Watkins, a firm which <a href="https://www.lw.com/industries/OilAndGas" target="_blank">represents</a> oil and gas companies, <a href="https://www.epmag.com/service-providers-regulators-can-help-tackle-water-management-1711821" target="_blank">recently said</a> in an E&P Magazine article. He has predicted that water-related costs in the Permian could top $17 billion in 2018.</p><p>Wastewater disposal—which often uses "injection wells" that pump toxic water down underground into areas where oil has been pumped out—is suspected not only of playing a role in causing earthquakes across the U.S., but also linked by scientists to <a href="http://blog.smu.edu/research/2018/03/20/radar-images-show-large-swath-of-texas-oil-patch-is-heaving-and-sinking-at-alarming-rates/" target="_blank">the emergence of massive sinkholes</a> in parts of Texas.</p><p>"The ground movement we're seeing is not normal," said geophysicist Zhong Lu, an earth sciences professor at Southern Methodist University, who recently published research that highlighted the connection of the sinkholes to fracking. "These hazards represent a danger to residents, roads, railroads, levees, dams, and oil and gas pipelines, as well as potential pollution of ground water."</p><h3>Wringing Water From the Desert</h3><p>The industry's demand for water during fracking is also a growing concern, especially in the Permian Basin, which produces most of America's shale oil and which stretches in part over the Chihuahuan Desert.</p><p>Summer temperatures in the Permian can often <a href="https://www.weather.gov/maf/" target="_blank">top 100 degrees</a>. The <a href="https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/pecos/texas/united-states/ustx1033" target="_blank">average annual rainfall</a> in Pecos, Texas, located in the basin, is just 11.55 inches (compared to a <a href="http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/average-annual-state-precipitation.php" target="_blank">Texas-wide </a><a href="https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/average-annual-state-precipitation.php" target="_blank">average</a><a href="http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/average-annual-state-precipitation.php" target="_blank"> of 28.9 inches a year</a>). Much of New Mexico has been <a href="https://www.drought.gov/drought/states/new-mexico" target="_blank">in the grips</a> of a severe drought since the year began, and the same is true to a lesser degree <a href="https://www.drought.gov/drought/states/texas" target="_blank">in Texas</a> as well.</p><p>This means demand for water for drilling and fracking is one of the biggest challenges facing the industry. "Next to profitability and safety, water may well be the next most important topic for an oil company," Laura Capper, CEO at EnergyMakers Advisory Group in Houston, told <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-14/forget-oil-water-is-the-new-ticket-for-pipeline-growth-in-texas" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a>. "It has risen to the forefront over the last five years unlike anything I've ever seen."</p><p>And as the climate warms, Texas and New Mexico will also benefit less from water supplied by rivers flowing into the state from more lush regions. The Rio Grande River Basin is <a href="http://nmpoliticalreport.com/868263/nm-officials-consider-options-to-reuse-oilfield-water-en/" target="_blank">expected</a> to see less water flowing per year, with flows down four to 14 percent over the next dozen years, and the Colorado River Basin expected to dry up even more significantly, up to 30 percent by 2050.</p><p>Most of the water used in the region is claimed by the agricultural industry—60 percent compared to the one percent used by the oil and gas industry. But a key difference is that water used for fracking is often permanently removed from the hydrologic cycle, because it becomes so contaminated that it must be injected in underground disposal wells. This means that the freshwater used by the oil and gas industry can add up over time much more dramatically than water used by other industries.</p><p>In addition, spats over the oil and gas industry's use of water in the Permian are flaring up between its two states. Driven by Permian Basin demand, some landowners in Texas are selling water to drilling companies, drawing down aquifers relied on by residents of New Mexico.</p><p>"Texas is stealing New Mexico's water," New Mexico State Land Commissioner Aubrey Dunn <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/07/texas-landowners-new-mexico-stealing-water-fracking/" target="_blank">told The Texas Tribune</a>. "If you put a whole bunch of straws in Texas and you don't have any straws in New Mexico, you're sucking all the water from under New Mexico out in Texas and then selling it back to New Mexico."</p><p>The latest findings from Duke reinforce this tension, showing "a need to find alternative water sources," the doctoral student Kondash <a href="https://psmag.com/environment/fracking-operations-are-using-more-and-more-water" target="_blank">told the Pacific Standard</a>.</p><p>"Especially in water-scarce areas," he predicted, "you will have more strain and more competition for water."</p><p> <em>Reposted with permission from our media associate </em><em><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/08/15/duke-1440-fracking-wastewater-permian-shale-water-demand" target="_blank">DeSmogBlog</a>.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
EPA Reverses Pruitt’s Last Act on Glider Trucks After States and Green Groups Sue
27 July 2018
Politics
Following legal pressure from environmental groups and a number of states, acting U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Andrew Wheeler issued a memo Thursday reversing Scott Pruitt's last act suspending limits on the manufacture and sale of super-polluting glider trucks.
<p>A federal appeals court issued a temporary stay of the suspension July 18, following a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/glider-trucks-epa-lawsuit-2587797751.html" target="_self">suit</a> brought by the <a href="https://www.edf.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Defense Fund</a>, the <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/" target="_blank">Sierra Club</a> and the <a href="https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/" target="_blank">Center for Biological Diversity</a>. One day later, 16 states and the District of Columbia also filed suits against the glider truck rule suspension, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trucks-pollution/epa-will-enforce-glider-truck-limits-after-states-sue-idUSKBN1KH09X" target="_blank">Reuters reported</a>. </p><p>"The utter lawlessness of Scott Pruitt's gambit to foul our air with thousands of extra ultra-dirty trucks was obvious to all," senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute Vera Pardee said in an email. "Unfortunately, Andrew Wheeler didn't stop Pruitt's last-gasp mayhem until the court stayed his hand. And he still has not withdrawn Pruitt's 2017 proposal to eliminate all pollution limits for these zombie trucks. Until he does, he and his predecessor are birds of a feather."</p><p>The Obama administration had limited the sale of glider trucks—new truck bodies using older engines that can pollute up to 55 times as much as newer ones—to 300 per manufacturer per year. </p><p>On July 6, Pruitt wrote a memo issuing a "No Action Assurance" regarding the enforcement of that rule until July 6, 2019 or until the agency handed down a final rule on glider trucks that was more lenient than the Obama administration decision. </p><p>Wheeler initially refused requests by green groups to reverse Pruitt's reversal, but seems to have come around on legal grounds.</p><p>"[EPA Office of and Compliance Assurance] OECA guidance is clear that a no action assurance should be issued only in an 'extremely unusual' case when the no action assurance is necessary to serve the public interest and only when no other mechanism can adequately address that interest," Wheeler wrote in Thursday's memo. </p><p>He further wrote that, after consulting with EPA agencies and looking over precedent, "I have concluded that the application of current regulations to the glider industry does not represent the kind of extremely unusual circumstances that support the EPA's exercise of enforcement discretion."</p><p>However, that doesn't mean the EPA has given up on making life easier for glider truck manufacturers. Thursday's memo concluded with a promise to speed the process for creating a new rule. </p><p>Opponents of any reversal to glider truck limits cite concerns over the health impacts of the trucks' elevated <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution" target="_self">air pollution</a> levels.</p>One of the state officials who had joined the suit against the "No Action" rule, New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood, told Reuters that the EPA had previously calculated that adding 10,000 glider trucks "with non-compliant engines onto our roads in a single year could result in up to 1,600 premature deaths."
From Your Site Articles
Read More
Show Less
Oil and Gas Operations Release 60 Percent More Methane than EPA Thought, Study Finds
22 June 2018
Energy
First gas from the Oselvar module burns on the flare of the BP Ula oil platform in the North Sea. Varodrig / CC BY-SA 3.0
A study published Thursday found that U.S. oil and natural gas operations release 60 percent more methane than currently estimated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), according to a press release from the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at University of Colorado, Boulder.
<p style="">The study, published in <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2018/06/20/science.aar7204" target="_blank">Science</a>, calculated yearly methane emissions from the oil and gas industry totaling 13 million metric tons (approximately 14.3 million U.S. tons), mostly from leaks. In fact, the amount of methane leaked by these operations in 2015 had as much impact on the climate as emissions from <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal" target="_self">coal</a>-fired plants during the same year, undermining the idea that natural gas has a lower carbon footprint than coal. </p><p style="">"This study provides the best estimate to date on the climate impact of oil and gas activity in the United States," co-author and CIRES scientist Jeff Peischl said in the release. </p><p style="">Methane has 80 times the warming impact of carbon dioxide over the first 20 years after it is released into the atmosphere, and methane emissions estimated by the study were equal to 2.3 percent of natural gas production in the U.S. </p><p style="">However, the study's authors said the problem could be solved if the industry worked to investigate and repair leaks. </p><p style="">"Natural gas emissions can, in fact, be significantly reduced if properly monitored," study co-author and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientist Colm Sweeney said in the release. "Identifying the biggest leakers could substantially reduce emissions that we have measured."</p><p style="">Doing so would even be in the natural gas industry's best interest, since researchers concluded that two billion dollars worth of methane, which could otherwise heat 10 million homes, is lost to leaks.</p><p style="">"This is a solvable problem because you are losing product that you could sell," Steven Hamburg, study co-author and lead scientist of the <a href="https://www.edf.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Defense Fund</a> (EDF), which lead the research, told <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-methane/us-oil-gas-system-methane-leaks-larger-than-epa-estimates-study-idUSKBN1JH2TP" target="_blank">Reuters</a>. "But the entire industry has to take action to stop the problem," he said.</p><p style="">Peischl said the study drew on 10 years of research and previous studies to reach its conclusions. Scientists at 16 research institutions including the EDF, CIRES, NOAA, Harvard and Princeton reviewed measurements from more than 400 well pads in six basins where oil and gas are produced. They also looked at measurements from midstream facilities, valves, tanks and aerial surveys of oil and gas operations. </p><p style="">The study said that the EPA likely underestimates emissions because it first asks industry permission to take measurements, and so workers likely tighten up any leaks before their visit. </p><p style="">Hamburg told Reuters that <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/donald-trump" target="_blank">Trump</a> administration efforts to reverse Obama-era methane rules did not have an impact on the EPA's lower estimations, but might impact its ability to respond to the higher ones.</p><p style="">"The data is saying the problem is worse than we thought, the need for regulation is thus that much greater," Hamburg said.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="9cfe3" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="IZPUCI1576663398"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="963549642452545536" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">How to Reduce Methane Emissions From the Oil and Gas Industry Across North America https://t.co/fYO0pBRkos @ClimateCentral @OccupySandy</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/963549642452545536">1518563111.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
The artwork "Come Hell or High Water" by Michael Pinsky. Akuppa John Wigham / Flickr / CC BY 2.0
The economic models policymakers rely upon greatly underestimate the economic risks posed by climate change, according to a policy brief released Monday by experts from the Environmental Defense Fund, Harvard University and London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), an LSE press release reported.
<p>The paper, published in <a href="https://academic.oup.com/reep/advance-article/doi/10.1093/reep/rey005/5025082" target="_blank">Review of Environmental Economics and Policy</a>, urged the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to improve how it explains the results of economic models as it works on its Sixth Assessment Report to be published between 2021 and 2022, in order to bridge the gap between the projected scientific and economic impacts of global warming. </p><p>"These discrepancies between the physical and the economic impact estimates are large, and they matter. However, physical impacts are often not translated into monetary terms and they have largely been ignored by climate economists," the paper's authors, Thomas Stoerk of the Environmental Defense Fund, Gernot Wagner of the Harvard University Center for the Environment and Bob Ward of the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy and Grantham Research Institute at LSE, wrote.</p><p>For example, the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report found that risks associated with "global aggregate," or economic, impacts were only moderate for up to three degrees Celsius of warming above pre-industrial levels, while risks associated with threats to species and habitats, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/extreme-weather" target="_self">extreme weather</a>, threats to developing nations and the poor and "large-scale high-impact events" were reported to be high. </p><p>One of the reasons for this discrepancy, the paper found, was that the economic models used did not adequately account for the possibility of "tipping points" that can make economic and climate outcomes suddenly much worse, especially if global temperatures rise by more than two degrees Celsius. </p><p>The Dynamic Integrated Climate–Economy (DICE) model, for instance, projects that global economic output would only fall by 10 percent if the world warmed by six degrees Celsius. However, research cited in the paper found that, when the possibility of passing physical tipping points was used to introduce a more extensive "damage function" into the model, global output was predicted to fall by 50 percent in a six-degree warmer world. </p><p>"Thus climate policy recommendations based on the current framework seriously underestimate the economic value of climate damages," the paper concluded. </p><p>The paper urged the IPCC to, first, "strengthen its focus on decision making under uncertainty," and second "focus on estimating how the uncertainty itself affects economic and financial cost estimates of climate change."</p><p>The researchers directly flagged their paper in a letter to the co-chairs of the IPCC Working Group II, professor Hans-Otto Pörtner and professor Debra Roberts.</p>The current warning comes little over a week after one of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/economic-benefits-paris-agreement-2571761404.html" target="_self">first studies</a> to consider the economic benefits of honoring the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/paris-agreement" target="_self">Paris agreement'</a>s stricter goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius found that doing so could save the world economy $20 trillion.<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="b5abd" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="COEDFN1576663409"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="957382739103281153" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Extreme Weather a Huge Threat, Trump’s Actions Make It Worse https://t.co/90gPlvpl56 @OneWorld_News @worldresources @YaleClimateComm</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/957382739103281153">1517092806.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt speaking at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Maryland. Gage Skidmore / CC BY-SA 2.0
Newly released emails show that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Scott Pruitt has routinely been in contact with one of the most prominent climate denier groups, the AP reported this weekend.
<p>The emails, obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request by the <a href="https://www.edf.org" target="_blank">Environmental Defense Fund</a> and the <a href="https://www.southernenvironment.org/" target="_blank">Southern Environmental Law Center</a>, show that John Konkus, a deputy public affairs official, routinely reached out to senior staffers at the Heartland Institute to collaborate on denier invitee lists for a proposed public hearing on climate science last May. </p><p>Konkus and EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman also regularly commiserated with Heartland officials on negative press coverage of the agency, and collaborated on ways to amplify positive messages. Then-Heartland president Joseph Bast celebrated the retirement of New York Times climate reporter Justin Gillis in an email shared with EPA staffers last fall, writing that he is "still waiting for Chris Mooney and Juliet Eilperin at the WaPo and Seth Borenstein at AP to flame out."</p><p>As reported by the <a href="https://apnews.com/amp/64cd37b0503440c0b92e6ca075f87dd4" target="_blank">Associated Press</a>:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"The emails underscore how Pruitt and senior agency officials have sought to surround themselves with people who share their vision of curbing environmental regulation and enforcement, leading to complaints from environmentalists that he is ignoring the conclusions of the majority of scientists in and out of his agency especially when it comes to <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change">climate</a>-changing carbon emissions."</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="2c059" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="55IENY1576663565"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="984956922800541700" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Majority of Americans Want Climate Education in Schools https://t.co/FTHnKdNLBA @greenpeaceusa @Sierra_Magazine</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/984956922800541700">1523667004.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p><strong>For a deeper dive:</strong><br></p><p><a href="https://apnews.com/amp/64cd37b0503440c0b92e6ca075f87dd4" target="_blank">AP</a></p><p> <em>For more </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/" target="_blank"><em>climate change</em></a><em> and </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/" target="_blank"><em>clean energy</em></a><em> news, you can follow Climate Nexus on </em><a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateNexus" target="_blank"><em>Twitter</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://www.facebook.com/ClimateNexus/" target="_blank"><em>Facebook</em></a><em>, and sign up for daily </em><a href="http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=7c84c08aaa" target="_blank"><em>Hot News</em></a><em>.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
By Richard Denison
In June 2016, Congress had the rare success of passing bipartisan legislation to update our nation's badly broken chemical safety system. It finally gave the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the power to strengthen health protections for American families.
Fast-forward 22 months and the implementation of that law is now in jeopardy.
<p>The <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a> administration is systematically weakening the EPA and seeking to dismantle key new authorities and mandates Congress just gave it under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act. This with the goal of shifting critical policies to serve the chemical industry's agenda instead of protecting public health.</p><p>Here are five actions Trump's EPA Administrator <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/scott-pruitt">Scott Pruitt</a> and his handpicked political appointees have already taken to undermine the law—potentially setting us back decades.</p><p><strong>1. Shelved proposed bans of three toxic chemicals</strong></p><p>In January 2017, the EPA proposed to ban high-risk uses of three dangerous chemicals: methylene chloride, N-methylpyrrolidone and trichloroethylene. Methylene chloride, for one, is used in widely available paint strippers and is responsible for <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dangerous-paint-stripper-chemical-methylene-chloride-ban-on-hold/" target="_blank">dozens of deaths</a> in recent years.</p><p>Less than a year later, with a new president in the White House, the EPA has indefinitely delayed action on these chemicals by moving the proposed bans from active to "long-term action" status. This effectively puts them on the back burner, going against the very spirit and goal of the 2016 chemical safety reform.</p><p><strong>2. Issued new and illegal rules for TSCA</strong></p><p>One of the first orders of business under the <a href="https://www.edf.org/health/toxic-chemicals-law-should-now-better-protect-us" target="_blank">2016 Lautenberg Act</a> was for the EPA to issue "framework rules" governing how the reformed law will work for years to come.</p><p>The proposed rules—released at the tail end of the Obama administration—were fair and faithful to the law. But the final rules published in July 2017 did a U-turn from those that had been proposed and now reflect the wish list of the chemical industry.</p><p>They are also patently illegal, which is why <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/04/17/edf-joins-opening-brief-in-legal-challenge-to-epas-prioritization-and-risk-evaluation-rules/" target="_blank">we're suing the EPA</a>.</p><p><strong>3. Reversed course on new chemical reviews</strong></p><p>After the new law passed, the EPA immediately began to conduct the more robust reviews of new chemicals before they entered the market that the legislation called for.</p><p>But in response to industry demands, the EPA reversed course to instead avoid applying protective measures to speed up the approval process.</p><p>These changes circumvent clear requirements in the law and essentially return America to an era where few chemicals were adequately assessed or tested for safety as a condition of entering the market—and the public was <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/01/04/hiding-its-tracks-the-black-box-of-epas-new-chemical-reviews-just-got-a-whole-lot-blacker/" target="_blank">kept in the dark</a>.</p><p><strong>4. Pushed to dismantle key EPA programs</strong></p><p>Political leadership at the EPA is <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/03/06/the-big-squeeze-dangers-for-public-health-lurk-in-recent-epa-re-org-efforts/" target="_blank">t</a><a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/03/06/the-big-squeeze-dangers-for-public-health-lurk-in-recent-epa-re-org-efforts/" target="_blank">argeting key programs</a> for "reorganization." Those at risk include:</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>The Integrated Risk Information System program, which provides critical scientific information on chemical hazards to support public health decisions. Attempts by Pruitt's political appointees to weaken or eliminate the program have so far been unsuccessful, but this fight is <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/03/06/the-big-squeeze-dangers-for-public-health-lurk-in-recent-epa-re-org-efforts/" target="_blank">far from over</a>.</li><li>EPA's Safer Choice program, which certifies products made with safer chemicals to help shoppers find products that are better for people and the planet. Pruitt has transferred a full third of its staff to another program.</li><li>Science and research funding critical to furthering understanding of how chemicals affect our health and environment. Pruitt's latest budget request slashed funding for such programs by more than 48 percent.</li></ul><p><strong>5. Stacked the agency with industry cronies</strong></p><p>It's no secret that the Trump administration has placed scores of people with deep conflicts of interest in powerful positions across the federal government.</p><p>Political appointees to the EPA are no exception. Case in point: Immediately prior to her appointment to the EPA, Nancy Beck was a senior official at the American Chemistry Council—the chemical industry's primary lobbying arm. <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/04/19/of-foxes-henhouses-and-tsca-implementation-the-chemical-industry-burrows-into-epas-toxics-office/" target="_blank">In her new job</a>, she is shaping policy on hazardous chemicals, making decisions that directly affect the financial interests of ACC member companies.</p><p>Among her numerous controversial moves so far: To direct the weakening of the TSCA framework rules—changes that in some cases mirrored the exact wording of ACC comments on the proposed rules. Beck, while at ACC, actually wrote such comments.</p><p>By reversing progress on <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/toxics">toxic</a> chemical regulation and by crippling the agency charged with its implementation, the Trump administration is consistently elevating industry interests over the protection of our health.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="9ea38" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="LYJ9FW1576663128"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="952309310738063360" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">EPA Rule Change Would Expose Teenagers to Highly Toxic Chemicals https://t.co/wpwwgc2QkI @bpncamp @pesticideaction @PAN_UK</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/952309310738063360">1515883207.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p><em>Richard Denison is a lead senior scientist at <a href="https://www.edf.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Defense Fund</a>.</em><br></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less