December, 08 2008, 12:50pm EDT
EPA's Latest Chemical Proposals Get It Half Right, Recent EPA Toxics Advisor Says
EPA offers sound approach to update the Toxic Substances Control Act Inventory, but throws good money after bad into another voluntary testing program
WASHINGTON
The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed one good and one
bad "enhancement" to its Chemical Assessment and Management Program
(ChAMP) during a public meeting today, according to Environmental
Defense Fund (EDF). EDF welcomed EPA's proposal to require
pre-manufacture notification for any chemical removed from the nation's
list of chemicals in commerce if a company decides to reintroduce it
into the market. But EDF was
strongly critical of a second proposal to extend a poorly performing
voluntary program for obtaining critical chemical safety information to
inorganic chemicals produced in high volumes.
EDF
strongly opposed the latter proposal to initiate yet another "phased,
multi-year" voluntary program for high-production-volume (HPV)
inorganic chemicals.
"We
know from the failure of both EPA's HPV Challenge and the industry's
half-hearted Extended HPV Program to deliver the quality data sets
needed to make sound decisions that a voluntary approach doesn't work,"
said Dr. Richard A. Denison, a senior scientist at EDF, who until recently
was a member of the National Pollution Prevention and Toxics Advisory Committee (NPPTAC) that advises EPA's toxics office. "To extend such a flawed model to inorganic chemicals is simply throwing good money after bad."
Despite
a decade of effort under the HPV Challenge, final data sets have yet to
be submitted for nearly half of the chemicals sponsored, and remaining
gaps have been identified in at least a third of those data sets that
have been submitted. Several hundred HPV chemicals were not sponsored
at all under the program. And since the launch of the Challenge, many
hundreds of additional chemicals have reached HPV production levels,
yet most of those have not been sponsored under the Extended HPV
program, and data sets have been submitted for fewer than two dozen.
Instead
of pursuing yet another voluntary program, EDF urged EPA to immediately
proceed to issue mandatory test rules using its TSCA Section 4
authority for as many inorganic HPV chemicals as possible. Only for
those chemicals for which it cannot make the requisite findings to
support a test rule should EPA consider other approaches, including
vigorously supporting an expansion of its data generation authorities
through legislative reform of TSCA.
In
contrast, EPA has offered a sound proposal setting forth the rules
under which it plans to remove from the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) Inventory chemicals that companies indicate they are no longer
producing or importing.
"EPA should be commended for thinking through the implications of 'resetting' the Inventory,"
Denison stated.
"While a few aspects need strengthening, we strongly support the core
element of EPA's proposal: requiring pre-manufacture notification for
any chemical removed from the Inventory if a company decides to
reintroduce it into the market." [Below this release are additional
comments describing needed clarifications and improvements to EPA's
proposal.]
Denison
noted that EPA's rationale for taking this approach closely mirrors an argument EDF made in comments it filed in May 2008, when EPA first proposed an Inventory reset: it
would allow EPA to assess and, where needed, control potential risks
prior to allowing a chemical back into commerce. EDF also noted that
applying pre-manufacture notification (PMN) requirements to chemicals
removed from the Inventory would help to minimize incentives for companies
to seek removal of as many chemicals as possible to avoid reporting or
other requirements that apply to Inventory chemicals.
Additional comments and needed enhancements to EPA's proposal to reset the TSCA Inventory
* Any Inventory
resetting must be done using a reporting mechanism that tracks
production/import over a significant period. EPA's experience with
reporting of production and import data under its Inventory Update Rule
(IUR) - which entails the reporting of only one year's volume once
every five years (recently raised from every four years) - shows that
there is enormous fluctuation from one reporting cycle to the next that
must reflect underlying changes in chemical supply and demand dynamics
and production and use patterns.
[2].
These data demonstrate that infrequent and time-limited reporting
yields a highly inaccurate picture of which chemicals are in commerce,
as well as their actual manufacturing levels over time.
*
Given experience with IUR reporting, EDF is concerned that use of only
a 3-year window as suggested by EPA could significantly underestimate
the number of chemicals in commerce.
*
EPA needs to carefully consider the length of the reporting period it
uses to reset the Inventory, and should require reporting of any
production or import that has taken place at any time during the
reporting window.
*
While we are concerned that some companies might be able to "game the
system" if a too-short reporting window is employed, this concern will
be alleviated considerably as long as EPA requires (as it has proposed)
that any chemicals removed from the Inventory be subject to PMN
notification prior to their reintroduction.
*
We support EPA's proposal to conduct a reset on a periodic basis, a
measure that would also help to alleviate our concerns that a reset
with too short a window could miss many chemicals in commerce.
*
No lower threshold should apply to the reporting used to reset the
Inventory. Production or import of a chemical in any amount at any
time during the reporting window should trigger its retention on the
Inventory if its original purpose is to be retained.
*
Exemptions available from reporting conducted under TSCA Section 8(a)
should not apply. Numerous classes of chemicals have been granted full
or partial exemptions from IUR reporting by EPA, some of which are
based on presumptions of low environmental or health concern. Because
the purpose of the Inventory is to list chemicals in commerce
independent of any sort of risk consideration, such exemptions are
wholly inappropriate.
Specifically, EPA should not provide Inventory
reset exemptions for:
* Polymers (exempted from IUR reporting under CFR 710.46(a)(1))
* Microorganisms (CFR 710.46(a)(2))
* Naturally occurring substances (CFR 710.46(a)(3))
* Certain forms of natural gas (CFR 710.46(a)(4))
* Petroleum process streams (CFR 710.46(b)(1))
* Specific exempted chemical substances (CFR 710.46(b)(2))
Also
inconsistent with the Inventory's purpose would be providing exemptions
for small manufacturers; for this reason, EDF supports EPA's proposal
to conduct the Inventory reset using its Section 8(b) rather than
Section 8(a) authority.
*
A publicly available list of all chemicals removed from the Inventory
must be maintained. Many such chemicals, even if not in active
production, may nevertheless still be stockpiled, present in products
as ingredients, byproducts or residuals, or present as pollutants in
air, water, soil, sediment or waste sites. And of course, they may
return to active production in the future. Maintenance of a public
list of all chemicals removed from the Inventory would serve as a
compliance tool (see more on compliance below). It is critical,
therefore, that EPA retain -- and the public still have access to -- an
inventory of, and any and all information available on, any chemicals
removed from the Inventory.
*
Any chemicals removed from the Inventory must be subject to TSCA
Section 5 notification requirements. As discussed at length in our May
2008 comments and noted above, we strongly support EPA's proposal in
this regard. We support EPA's "clean" reset option, under which EPA
would set forth this requirement as unambiguous policy via a Federal
Register notice: As has been the case historically, any chemical not
on the Inventory is subject to Section 5 requirements.
We
do not support the alternative EPA discusses of seeking to issue a
Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) to cover such chemicals. This approach
would be more cumbersome and not offer any advantages over the more
direct proposed approach.
*
Processors should be included in the Inventory reset. The language of
Section 8(b) is unambiguous: EPA is required to "compile, keep
current, and publish a list of each chemical substance which is
manufactured or processed in the United States." We see no basis or rationale for excluding processors from certification under an Inventory reset.
EPA
should not allow companies to certify "future" manufacture or
production as a means to retain a chemical on the Inventory. Such an
approach would necessarily be based on speculative or uncertain
information that could easily change, leaving chemicals listed on the
Inventory that are not actually in commerce, thereby frustrating the
entire purpose of the reset. This approach could also create a
perverse incentive for companies to seek to retain listings for
chemicals not currently in production so as to avoid Section 5
notification and review requirements, thereby frustrating what we see
as a key advantage to the core element of EPA's proposed approach.
*
EPA needs to require, not merely invite, certification and take
additional steps to ensure compliance. We are troubled by EPA's
statement that it would merely "invite" companies to certify their
production or import (73 FR 70642; paragraph 3 of the Inventory reset
background document). Elsewhere EPA more appropriately refers to
"requiring certification" (paragraph 9(a) of the Inventory reset
background document). If the Inventory reset exercise is to be - and
be perceived as - credible, it must include all reasonable steps to
ensure compliance by all companies that produce, import or process
chemicals:
*
EPA must require companies to certify as to which chemicals they
produce, import or process. Such a certification should be signed by a
senior officer and be legally binding.
*
EPA should also require that a company certification indicate that the
chemicals it identifies are the only chemicals listed on the Inventory
that it produces, imports or processes.
*
EPA should commit to undertake additional steps to assess the extent of
compliance achieved under the reset, and to promptly initiate actions,
including robust enforcement, to address any non-compliance. EPA
should cross-check its reset Inventory chemical lists with other
sources of reported information (e.g., IUR and other Section 8
reporting; PMN submissions, etc.) as one means to identify
discrepancies. It should use its enforcement authorities (access to
company records, audits, inspections, etc.) on at least a spot basis to
ensure full compliance.
*
EPA should provide public access to up-to-date versions of both the
reset Inventory and the list of removed chemicals. As proposed by EPA,
these lists should also include entries for any chemicals with
identities claimed as confidential business information, providing as
much identifying information as possible consistent with allowed
protections for legitimate CBI.
[1]
See EDF's recent report on the HPV Challenge and Extended HPV Program, High Hopes, Low Marks, available at www.edf.org/hpvreportcard.
[2]
USEPA, National Pollution Prevention and Toxics Advisory Committee
(NPPTAC), Broader Issues Work Group, "Initial Thought-Starter: How can
EPA more efficiently identify potential risks and facilitate risk
reduction decisions for non-HPV existing chemicals?" Draft dated
October 6, 2005, pp. 3-4, at www.epa.gov/oppt/npptac/pubs/finaldraftnonhpvpaper051006.pdf;
and Environmental Defense comments on Proposed Rule, TSCA Inventory
Update Reporting Revisions (70 Fed. Reg. 3658, 26 January 2005), Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2004-0106, accessible at www.regulations.gov (search for docket number).
Environmental Defense Fund's mission is to preserve the natural systems on which all life depends. Guided by science and economics, we find practical and lasting solutions to the most serious environmental problems. We work to solve the most critical environmental problems facing the planet. This has drawn us to areas that span the biosphere: climate, oceans, ecosystems and health. Since these topics are intertwined, our solutions take a multidisciplinary approach. We work in concert with other organizations -- as well as with business, government and communities -- and avoid duplicating work already being done effectively by others.
LATEST NEWS
'Everyone in the World Needs to See This': Footage Shows IDF Drone Killing Gazans
"There is no way they could have been considered combatants," said one writer and analyst. "This is unreal."
Mar 21, 2024
Adding to the mountain of evidence that Israel is engaged in a genocidal war on the Gaza Strip, Al Jazeera on Thursday aired footage of what the news outlet reported was an Israeli drone targeting four Palestinians in Khan Younis last month.
Those killed by the unmanned aerial vehicle in the rubble of the southern Gaza city appear to be unarmed teenagers or young men. According to a translation of the coverage, they were not identified in the reporting.
While Al Jazeera deemed footage "too graphic" to be included on its daily live blog covering the war, a clip of it quickly spread on social media, where critics of the Israel Defense Forces operation expressed outrage.
"OUTRAGEOUS even after months of outrages," declared Palestinian American political analyst Yousef Munayyer. "This video shows an Israeli military drone literally stalking four unarmed civilians posing no threat and eliminating them one after the other!!!"
Tariq Kenney-Shawa, Al-Shabaka's U.S. policy fellow, said: "This is among the worst footage I've seen. Not only were these boys clearly unarmed and present no threat whatsoever, but they were struck multiple times even after stumbling/crawling away. There is no way they could have been considered combatants. This is unreal."
Note: The following video contains graphic images.
Assal Rad, an author with a Ph.D. in Middle East history, said: "Have we ever seen so many war crimes take place right before our eyes? Any country still providing weapons and aid to Israel is complicit in these crimes."
Exiled American whistleblower Edward Snowden asserted that "everyone in the world needs to see this. Note that this footage permits no room for 'it was a mistake,' showing repeated, specifically targeted strikes on the unarmed and even wounded."
"The sort of behavior the ICJ explicitly forbid in the genocide ruling against Israel," added Snowden, referencing the International Court of Justice's preliminary order in January for an ongoing case led by South Africa.
Since the ruling, rights groups around the world have accused Israel of ignoring the ICJ order by continuing to bomb and starve people across Gaza. The mounting casualties—at least 31,988 killed and 74,188 wounded—have elevated demands for the U.S. government to end arms transfers to Israel.
The United States gives its Middle East ally $3.8 billion in annual military aid and since the Israeli assault was launched in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack on October 7, the Biden administration has sought $14.3 billion more while bypassing Congress to send more weapons. U.S. President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin face a genocide complicity case in federal court.
While the Biden administration has repeatedly vetoed and opposed cease-fire resolutions at the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly, Nate Evans, a spokesperson for Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., confirmed Thursday that the United States plans to unveil a new one on Friday.
The resolution will "unequivocally support ongoing diplomatic efforts aimed at securing an immediate cease-fire in Gaza as part of a hostage deal, which would get hostages released and help enable a surge in humanitarian aid," Evans told Al Jazeera. "This resolution is an opportunity for the council to speak with one voice to support the diplomacy happening on the ground and pressure Hamas to accept the deal on the table."
Blinken said Thursday that "there's a clear consensus around a number of shared priorities. First, the need for an immediate, sustained cease-fire, with the release of hostages. That would create space to surge more humanitarian assistance, to relieve the suffering of many people, and to build something more enduring."
Keep ReadingShow Less
New CDC Data Reveals 'National Embarrassment' of For-Profit Healthcare
"Our leaders must act to kick insurance companies to the curb and enact Medicare for All now," said one advocate.
Mar 21, 2024
Single-payer advocates on Thursday pointed to new federal life expectancy data—which shows Americans live shorter lives than people in any other major most-developed nation—as the latest proof of the need to enact a Medicare for All-type universal healthcare program.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. life expectancy was 77.5 years in 2022, an increase of 1.1 years from the previous year. The leading U.S. causes of death in 2022 were heart disease, cancer, unintentional injuries, and Covid-19.
The 2022 figures reversed two consecutive years of declining U.S. life expectancy, largely due to Covid-19, which has killed nearly 1.2 million people in the country. However, U.S. life expectancy in 2022 was still below its pre-pandemic high of 78.8 years in 2019.
"Despite spending the most per capita on healthcare, we have a consistently lower life expectancy than our peers in comparably wealthy countries."
"While it is good news that U.S. life expectancy is finally rising again, it is important to remember that despite spending the most per capita on healthcare, we have a consistently lower life expectancy than our peers in comparably wealthy countries with universal healthcare," said Eagan Kemp, the healthcare policy advocate at Public Citizen.
The United States is the only developed nation in the world without guaranteed universal healthcare.
"We must keep making the point that profit-driven healthcare is not only worse for patients—it's a national embarrassment," Kemp added. "Our leaders must act to kick insurance companies to the curb and enact Medicare for All now."
One 2022 study found that more than 338,000 U.S. Covid-19 deaths could have been prevented if the country had a single-payer universal healthcare system like Medicare for All.
While opponents—including U.S. lawmakers who take substantial donations from the for-profit healthcare and insurance industry—often argue that Medicare for All would be too expensive, a 2020 Congressional Budget Office analysis found that such a program would save between $300 billion and $650 billion annually.
The same study found that approximately 68,000 people die each year in the United States because they lack access to healthcare.
Meanwhile, millions of American families face bankruptcy and financial ruin due to healthcare expenses, as the CEOs of 300 major U.S. healthcare companies made $4.5 billion in collective compensation in 2022.
The United States has the lowest life expectancy of any large rich country while spending far more on healthcare than comparable nations. Figures vary by source and year, but according to the 2023 edition of the CIA Factbook, the U.S. ranked 48th in worldwide life expectancy, while 2021 World Bank figures place the U.S. in 59th place globally, between Algeria and Panama.
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) last year led more than 120 lawmakers in reintroducing bicameral Medicare for All legislation.
"There is a solution to this health crisis—a popular one that guarantees healthcare to every person as a human right and finally puts people over profits and care over corporations," Jayapal said at the time. "That solution is Medicare for All—everyone in, nobody out."
Keep ReadingShow Less
AOC, Sanders Renew Fight for Green New Deal for Public Housing
"Every American deserves to live in a safe, vibrant, and environmentally conscious community—including public housing residents," said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Mar 21, 2024
Backed by dozens of progressive groups and congressional Democrats, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday reintroduced legislation designed to tackle both the affordable housing crisis and the climate emergency.
The New York Democrat and Vermont Independent are leading the renewed fight for the Green New Deal for Public Housing Act, which would invest up to $234 billion over a decade into "weatherizing, electrifying, and modernizing our public housing so that it may serve as a model of efficiency, sustainability, and resiliency for the rest of the nation."
Ocasio-Cortez noted that "years of grassroots organizing on behalf of vulnerable Americans led to the creation of the first federal public housing units—but, for decades, the federal government has allowed our limited public housing stock to fall into disrepair."
"Residents are dealing with mold growth, lead-based paint hazards, lack of central cooling and heating, failing water infrastructure, and numerous other safety concerns," the congresswoman said. "It is beyond time for the federal government to take responsibility and pass legislation that offers comprehensive, public solutions."
"The Green New Deal for Public Housing Act will allow for an increase in public housing units, create an estimated 280,000 jobs, and invest up to $23 billion a year over 10 years for highly energy-efficient developments," she explained. "This will produce on-site renewable energy, expand workforce capacity, and focus on community development. Every American deserves to live in a safe, vibrant, and environmentally conscious community—including public housing residents. I am confident this legislation is how we make that a reality."
The jobs estimate comes from an analysis released Thursday by the Climate and Community Project and the Socio-Spatial Climate Collaborative—which also found that the proposed upgrades to U.S. public housing stock would cut carbon emissions by 5.7 million metric tons, the equivalent of taking 1.26 million cars off the road each year.
"Public housing is an essential source of stable and affordable housing for 1.7 million Americans, and our research shows we are rapidly losing units to conversions, demolitions, and deterioration," said Kira McDonald of Climate and Community Project. "This legislation would constitute decisive action to stave this loss and transform living conditions for public housing residents. In so doing, it would improve residents' health, safety, help eliminate carbon emissions, and help build the new green industries we need to decarbonize."
As Ocasio-Cortez's office summarized, the bill would:
- Expand federal programs to provide residents with meaningful work investing in their communities, to own and operate resident businesses, to move toward financial independence, and to participate in the management of public housing;
- Expand resident councils so that public housing residents have a seat at the table for important decisions regarding their homes; and
- Replenish the public housing capital backlog and repeal the Faircloth Amendment, which limits the construction of new public housing developments.
The legislation would also create two grant programs for deep energy retrofits; community workforce development; upgrades to energy efficiency, building electrification, and water quality; community renewable energy generation; recycling; resiliency and sustainability; and climate adaptation and emergency disaster response.
As world leaders dragged their feet on climate action last year, declining to demand a global phaseout of planet-heating fossil fuels at the most recent United Nations climate conference, all life on Earth was forced to contend with record high temperatures. The United States alone saw 28 disasters that each caused at least $1 billion in damage, collectively costing at least $92.9 billion.
"In these difficult times, we must move forward boldly to address the systemic and existential crises facing us today and that includes urgently combating climate change and making sure every American has a safe and decent place to call home," Sanders said Thursday. "It is unacceptable that, on a single given night in America, over 650,000 people are homeless."
That record number comes from an annual report
released by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in December. As Common Dreamsreported at the time, academics and advocates have long stressed that the formal figure only represents a faction of the people dealing with housing insecurity nationwide.
"It is unacceptable that, in the richest country in the history of the world, people are choosing between paying rent and putting food on the table," argued Sanders. "It is unacceptable that our nation's public housing is in a state of chronic disrepair and energy inefficiency after generations of government neglect. It is unacceptable that we have not done more to transform our energy systems, our communities, and our infrastructure away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy. This legislation is a major step in the right direction, and I am proud to partner with Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez in introducing it today."
The rent is too damn high y'all.
It's time we pass transformative legislation like @RepAOC and @SenSanders' Green New Deal for Public Housing. Everyone deserves access to safe, clean, affordable housing without spending over 20% of their income on rent.
Let's get it done!! ✊🏿 pic.twitter.com/U9rO1yQY3G
— Congressman Jamaal Bowman (@RepBowman) March 21, 2024
Joining the pair in backing the bill are 55 other House Democrats and Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.).
Markey, who has
spearheaded the broader battle for a Green New Deal with Ocasio-Cortez, said that "in the five years since its introduction, Green New Deal advocacy has catapulted environmental justice to the top of the national agenda, helped deliver historic victories, and charted a course for a better future."
The Green New Deal for Public Housing Act is also endorsed by over 70 advocacy groups and labor unions, including the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, American Federation of Teachers, Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) Action, Movement for Black Lives, MoveOn, National Low Income Housing Coalition, Public Citizen, and Sunrise Movement.
"Our opponents use tactics like the Faircloth Amendment to defund our public housing. And then they point to our public housing and say, 'Look, it's not working.' That's what they do—but we're not confused," declared DaMareo Cooper, co-executive director of CPD Action.
"We're in another awakening right now. People have been through too much. They are tired. We are tired. Enough is enough," Cooper added. "We all know that it's impossible for you to think that a government in this day and age cannot create housing for everyone."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular