ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Chemicals”

Climate Progress

Three Years After Deepwater Horizon, Congress Has Failed To Improve Drilling Safety

By Climate Guest Blogger on Apr 20, 2013 at 2:54 pm

By Shiva Polefka

Today, Saturday, April 20th, marks the third anniversary of the explosion aboard BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig that killed 11 workers and set off the largest accidental spill in the oil industry’s history. The ruptured Macondo well spewed nearly 5 million barrels of crude oil over the course of the summer, ultimately fouling more than 1,000 miles of Gulf of Mexico coastline and bringing the vast fishing and tourism industries of the region to a standstill, before the Macondo well was finally sealed and “killed” on September 19, 2010.

Following the Deepwater Horizon blowout, President Obama appointed a panel of experts that convened as the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. Its final report, issued in January 2011, revealed the irresponsible practices of BP and its contractors, uncovered a lack of federal oversight, and provided a comprehensive set of policy reforms that would make the offshore energy industry safer.

Earlier this week, members of the Commission, now acting independently as a group called Oil Spill Commission Action (OSCA), released their second “Report Card” on the progress major actors were making to implement their recommendations.

So, three years after the catastrophe, what has changed? Have we acted on the painful lessons taught by Deepwater Horizon? Are government and industry leaders taking steps to reduce the risk of another destructive spill or blowout? The answers are decidedly mixed.

Department of the Interior and Industry

OSCA awarded the Obama administration a B, in recognition that the Department of the Interior has enacted some of the safety reforms recommended within the official report, and brought about a 15 percent increase in offshore rig inspections occurring in the Gulf.

OSCA gave the oil industry a B-, noting that it has voluntarily contributed in meaningful ways to the reduction of risk future oil spills in response to Deepwater Horizon, by implementing new safety standards and readying four oil well capping systems for the Gulf of Mexico like the one ultimately used to stanch the Macondo well’s blowout. Before Deepwater Horizon, no such systems existed.

Read more

Health

EPA To Investigate The Safety Of Flame Retardants

By Katie Valentine on Mar 29, 2013 at 6:35 pm

The Environmental Protection Agency will review 20 flame retardants used in common household items, in response to mounting research linking these chemicals to cancer, neurological damage and other health effects. The EPA will conduct risk assessments on four of the chemicals under the existing Toxic Substances Control Act, legislation that the agency acknowledges needs to be reformed in order to better protect Americans from toxic chemicals.

The chemicals are used to increase a material’s resistance to fire and are present in a host of items, including mattresses, furniture, electronics, clothing and food. The EPA notes that the chemicals can persist in the environment, making their way into household dust and eventually accumulating in people’s blood — in fact, researchers have found 97 percent of people in the U.S. test positive for flame retardants in their blood.

Flame retardants have been studied extensively and linked to a multitude of health effects. The flame retardant Tris, which was banned in the 1970s from children’s pajamas but is still found in a host of items, has been associated with cancer and harm to the liver, brain and kidneys. Several of the chemicals have been found to be endocrine disruptors — one flame retardant was found to cause “extreme weight gain, early onset of puberty and cardiovascular health effects” in lab animals. One study found the presence of certain flame retardants in umbilical cord blood to be associated with slowed neurological development in children. In fact, flame retardants were included among more than 800 chemicals that constitute a “global threat” in a World Health Organization report last month.

The EPA’s announcement comes amid increased pressure to address the health affects of flame retardants. Officials in California are pushing legislation that would ban the chemicals in household furniture and baby products sold in the state. Last month, 23 Democratic senators wrote a letter to the EPA, urging it to address the dangers flame retardants pose to human health. In January, Gatorade announced it would be removing the flame retardant bromated vegetable oil in its products in response to complaints and a popular change.org petition. The EPA’s announcement also comes a year after promises by the agency to investigate the chemicals in response to a Chicago Tribune series investigating the chemicals.

Health

How Your Household Products May Be Contributing To A Global Health Threat

By Rebecca Leber on Feb 21, 2013 at 4:52 pm

More than 800 man-made chemicals found in everyday products — in your household cleaners, makeup, electronics, canned food, and clothing — are becoming “a global threat that needs to be resolved,” according to a new report from the World Health Organization and United Nations Environment Program. Research links these hormone-disrupting chemicals to a host of medical problems, including certain cancers, birth defects, and other diseases.

These chemicals include phthalates and BPA, which are both used in plastics. The U.S., Canada, and parts of Europe have banned them in some products for children, but Endocrine Distrupting Chemicals (called EDCs) still lurk in the hundreds of thousands around the world. “The vast majority of chemicals” in common use have not even been tested for safety, report authors wrote.

The report takes a more urgent tone on EDCs than a 2002 WHO report that found evidence of man-made chemicals’ harm to be “weak.”

Since then, the link between everyday chemical exposure and health problems has become clearer. A separate study last year showed that exposure can be harmful to humans even in small doses. The Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency continue to study BPA’s dangers in low doses.

“Frankly, for BPA, the science is done. Flame retardants, phthalates … the science is done,” WHO report co-author Thomas Zoeller told Environmental Health News. “We have more than enough information on these chemicals to make the reasonable decision to ban, or at least take steps to limit exposure.”

But one major hurdle to addressing and regulating toxic chemicals in the U.S. involves battling industry groups like the American Chemistry Council and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which have waged campaigns against Environmental Protection Agency oversight of toxic chemicals.

Justice

How The Roberts Court Could Declare War On International Treaties

By Ian Millhiser on Jan 22, 2013 at 10:30 am

Republican Superlawyer Paul Clement

The Roberts Court does not much care for America’s obligations to other nations. Five years ago, in a case argued by future Tea Party Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), the Court held that Texas could simply ignore an international treaty ensuring that foreign nationals arrested in the United States are informed of their right “to request assistance from the consul of [their own state.] Even North Korea honored this treaty when two American journalists were held captive by that country for five months in 2009.

On Friday, the Supreme Court announced it would hear a case that could further undermine whether other nations can trust America’s word when we agree to certain obligations under a treaty.

On its surface, Bond v. United States is a case about a petty criminal who tried to poison her husband’s mistress. When Carol Anne Bond learned her neighbor was pregnant with Bond’s husband’s baby, she obtained several highly toxic chemicals from her job with a chemical manufacturing company, and then applied those chemicals to the neighbor’s mailbox, car door handles, and house doorknob. The mistress next door suffered chemical burns as a result.

As Bond soon discovered, however, the United States is a party to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction. In order to ensure that America meets its obligations under this treaty, Congress passed a law that makes it a criminal act “to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon” for a non-peaceful purpose. So Bond’s petty act of revenge quickly became a federal case.

As a general rule, the Constitution does not permit Congress to criminalize murder or assault or other non-economic crimes of violence, except in certain limited circumstances. But that does not mean that the chemical weapons law Bond ran afoul of is unconstitutional. Article II of the Constitution provides that the President “shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties;” and Article I of the Constitution permits Congress “[t]o make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.” So the president signed onto a valid treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, which was then ratified by the Senate. Congress passed a law “carrying into execution” this valid treaty. As a textual matter, the constitutionality of Bond’s conviction is not a difficult case.

But, of course, it is now in front of the same Court that recently imposed implausible new limits on Congress’ power to carry into execution the federal government’s lawful authority in the challenge to the Affordable Care Act — ignoring a recent opinion by none other that conservative Justice Antonin Scalia in order to do so. The justices that brought us that decision, not to mention the Court’s election-buying decision in Citizens United and numerous other decisions ignoring the Constitution’s text and longstanding precedent, cannot exactly be trusted to follow the law in Bond either.

It’s worth noting that Bond is represented by Republican superlawyer Paul Clement, the same attorney behind the challenge to health care and the same lawyer that’s now charged the American taxpayer as much as $3 million to defend the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act. It is highly doubtful that Ms. Bond can afford Clement’s legal fees on her own, suggesting that she has a wealthy benefactor with a deep ideological interest in undermining America’s ability to keep its treaty obligations — or in continuing the project Clement began in the health care case of dismantling America’s ability to solve national problems.

Health

Why One 15-Year-Old Girl Wants The FDA To Crack Down On Her Gatorade

By Guest Blogger on Dec 13, 2012 at 2:55 pm

A petition calling for beverage producers to stop using a little-known chemical additive in their products has gained more than 150,000 signatures on Change.org, sparking a debate about the U.S.’s current regulation of the food and beverage industry.

15-year-old Sarah Kavanagh started the petition after checking the label on her Gatorade and discovering that “brominated vegetable oil” (BVO) — an additive used to keep flavor from separating — was listed on the bottle. When she researched the substance further, she found out that it can be associated with serious neurological and fertility issues, and wondered why it was still allowed to be used in the United States:

Use of the substance in the United States has been debated for more than three decades, so Ms. Kavanagh’s campaign most likely is quixotic. But the European Union has long banned the substance from foods, requiring use of other ingredients. Japan recently moved to do the same.

“B.V.O. is banned other places in the world, so these companies already have a replacement for it,” Ms. Kavanagh said. “I don’t see why they don’t just make the switch.” To that, companies say the switch would be too costly.

The renewed debate, which has brought attention to the arcane world of additive regulation, comes as consumers show increasing interest in food ingredients and have new tools to learn about them. Walmart’s app, for instance, allows access to lists of ingredients in foods in its stores.

BVO is found in approximately 10 percent of all drinks sold in the U.S., including Mountain Dew, Fanta Orange, Fresca, and Gatorade. Although evidence suggests serious effects of BVO may not occur unless consumed in very large quantities, its use points to larger issues concerning the way food is regulated in the United States. Serious loopholes in laws and regulations allow thousands of additives into food without any oversight from the FDA.

When setting up regulation of food additives, Congress exempted two types from FDA oversight: those already approved by the agency and those “generally recognized as safe.” It is the second type — “the loophole that swallowed the law” — that is a cause for concern. As the New York Times points out, companies using this loophole “can create a new additive, publish safety data about it on its Web site and pay a law firm or consulting firm to vet it to establish it as ‘generally recognized as safe’ — without ever notifying the F.D.A.” In fact, of the 10,000 additives allowed in food, 3,000 have never been reviewed by the FDA.

And the debate over BVO is just the latest of several controversies surrounding the chemical content of other beverages, in which energy drinks have been tied to more than a dozen deaths, and sugary drinks conclusively linked to obesity.

– Greg Noth

Security

Rep. Dan Lungren’s Chemical Facilities Legislation Endangers Constituents To Terrorist Attack

By Lee Fang on Aug 29, 2011 at 6:00 pm

Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) meets with top chemical producer lobbyist Larry Sloan

After serving as the California attorney general and a lobbyist for the firm Venable, Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) decided to run again for Congress in 2004, claiming that the War on Terrorism had drawn him back into public service. “If 9/11 had not occurred, I would not be running,” he told reporters at the time.

This year, Lungren became chairman of a key anti-terrorism subcommittee that oversees the nation’s infrastructure and technology security. Tasked with protecting vulnerable chemical manufacturing plants from a terrorist attack, Lungren’s main legislative accomplishment has been the shepherding of the Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) through committee. However, many are arguing that the bill is laden with loopholes for the chemical industry. Large-scale chemical companies, like Koch Industries, have lobbied against expensive requirements to use less dangerous chemicals and to let the Department of Homeland Security set certain safety standards. Lungren’s bill, as critics have detailed, extends reckless loopholes for chemical companies while exempting many water treatment plants from post-9/11 safety rules.

As Homeland Security officials have warned for years, an explosion at a chemical plant remains one of the most lethal terrorism risks for the nation. A Center for American Progress report, Chemical Security 101, details the dangers posed by unsecured chemical facilities across the nation. Notably, there is at least one chemical plant within proximity of Lungren’s district:

– The General Chemical Bay Point Works in Pittsburg, California is a chemical manufacturing facility produces high purity electronic grade hydrofluoric acid (concentration 49% to 70%) for use in semiconductor and silicon manufacturing industries. An explosion or attack at this plant would endanger the lives of up to 3 million people in the Sacramento and Bay Area.

Lungren led House Homeland Security Committee Republicans in voting to kill amendments that would have closed security loopholes and required safer chemicals at the General Chemical Bay Point plant near his district.

Though he promised to return to Congress to keep the country safe from terrorism, Lungren’s primary accomplishment is a giveaway to chemical companies more interested in short-term profit than protecting the lives of Americans.

Update

This post originally stated that the Dry Creek Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant in Roseville, near Lungren’s district, uses dangerous chemicals. This plant recently converted to safer chemicals. We regret the error.

Climate Progress

Koch Lobbying Aggressively To Allow Safety Loopholes At Chemical Sites At Risk Of Terrorist Attacks

By Lee Fang on Aug 24, 2011 at 3:21 pm

One of the largest private companies in the country, Koch Industries, is fighting tooth and nail against regulations aimed at protecting the United States from a terrorist attack on chemical plants, according to a new report. Since 9/11, homeland security officials have worked to establish rules for top chemical producers to ensure that major American plants identify vulnerabilities and shore up potential risks. However, the safety rules are costly, and as Greenpeace reveals in a study released today, Koch has used its influence in Congress to loosen enforcement on its own sprawling network of chemical facilities.

There are two bills that deal with industrial chemical safety standards and terrorism prevention. One bill, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standard (CFATS), will “exempt most facilities and actually prohibit the authority of Department of Homeland Security to require safer processes.” Another bill, the Continuing Chemical Facilities Antiterrorism Security Act (CCFASA), closes security loopholes and provides authorities the power to enforce the law on chemical manufacturers. Koch has pushed for an extension of CFATS and has unambiguously lobbied to kill the CCFASA bill.

John Aloysius Farrell, Ben Wieder and Evan Bush, reporters for iWatch News, have covered the issue and note the proximity of Koch’s most dangerous facilities to large population centers:

– An Invista chemical plant in LaPorte, Texas, where a spill and vaporization of formaldehyde could threaten almost 1.9 million potential victims within 25 miles.
– A Georgia-Pacific plant in Camas, Wash., where a chlorine spill and gas cloud could endanger 840,000 people within 14 miles.
– A Flint Hills refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas, where 350,000 people living within 22 miles would be threatened by a hydrogen fluoride spill and vaporization.
– And a Koch Nitrogen plant in East Alton, Ill., where 290,000 people live within 11 miles, and face the potential danger of a poisonous anhydrous ammonia cloud.

Koch’s campaign donations appear closely aligned with their anti-terrorism prevention lobbying. For instance, Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA), the lead author of the flawed CFATS extension, blocked amendments to the bill that would “require facilities to asses their ability to convert to safer chemical processes, close regulatory loopholes, and involve non-management level workers in the chemical security process.” Lungren has accepted over $22,000 from Koch-related campaign donations.

Climate Progress

Rep. Moran: Republicans Insist On Styrofoam Cups Because ‘They Believe That Money Trumps Health’

By Tanya Somanader on Jul 23, 2011 at 12:09 pm

Under former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s “Green the Capitol” initiative, lawmakers decided to ban polystyrene (styrofoam) cups and containers from the House cafeteria and replace the non-recyclable items with biodegradable utensils. But per their allergy to the “environmentally-friendly,” House Republicans balked at the effort when they assumed the majority this year and resumed using styrofoam products.

In March, 114 House Democrats urged House Speaker Boehner (R-OH) to consider the environmental and health risks associated with styrofoam. Noting the extensive health effects (chromosomal abnormalities or central nervous system dysfunction) that can occur from such products, the lawmakers said, “the desire to save a few pennies should never come at the expense of jeopardizing staff, members and visitors’ health.”

Deaf to the warning, House Republicans swatted down Moran and Rep. Peter Welch’s (D-VT) second attempt to reinstate the ban on styrofoam on Friday. Exasperated by their intransigence, Moran told ThinkProgress that the House now falls behind the health standards of McDonald’s and other fast food restaurants that dumped these products over 20 years ago. Blasting it as a failure to lead, Moran cited the Republicans’ refusal to believe in global warming and their decision to believe instead “that money trumps health”:

MORAN: Some of [the motivation] was because the Speaker [Pelosi] did it, they didn’t want to. And they don’t believe in global warming, and they saved a little money. They believe that money trumps health.

Watch it:

Climate Progress

GOP Wants To Slash EPA Funding To 1990s Levels, Slash Funds For Oil Spill Prevention

By Stephen Lacey on Jul 12, 2011 at 1:28 pm

In a bold response to the recent oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico and Yellowstone River, House Republicans are marking up a FY 2012 appropriations bill today that would cut funding for the Environmental Protection Agency to 1999 levels, slash the agency’s oil spill prevention budget, and fail to provide additional resources for Deepwater Horizon victims.

Below is a brief summary of the funding levels set by the GOP majority in the Interior & Environment Appropriations bill report language for FY12:

Don’t Protect Kids — Protect BP: “The Committee’s recommended level also does not provide additional resources for the air toxic monitoring at schools or for the Deepwater Horizon litigation.” (page 62)

Slash The Oil Spill Prevention Budget, But Call It A ‘Priority’: “The Committee has not provided an additional $5,100,000 and 16 FTE requested for increased facility inspections under the latest SPCC [Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure] rule, but recognizes these activities will be a priority within base funds.” (Pg. 76)

Ignore Cancer Risk Of Arsenic: “The Committee directs that no further action be taken to post EPA’s 2010 draft cancer assessment of inorganic arsenic as final or for the use of any risk values from this assessment in federal regulatory or permitting decisions pending the completion of the NAS study.” [The National Academy of Sciences study referred to could take more than a year to complete.] (pg. 60)

The budget also rolls back the EPA to the Bush years — the George H. W. Bush years, that is.

Regulate Like It’s 1990: “EPA’s justification identifies over 300 air toxics rules that need to be under development by fiscal year 2012.  At the same time, no new legislation has passed since 1990 mandating that EPA engage in these rulemakings.  This is the clearest example of EPA’s regulatory agenda running out of control and it must be tempered.” (pg. 61)

Slash EPA Staff To 1992 Levels: “the Agency is directed to bring the headquarters FTE in line with the regional FTE and to cap its FTE level at no more than the fiscal year 2010 level of 16,594 which is 609 FTE blow the budget request, and the Agency’s lowest FTE utilization level since 1992.” (pg. 71)

Republicans also believe all means of enforcing compliance with EPA Rules are pointless: “The Committee rejects the $9,631,000 proposed increase for the Regaining Ground in Compliance Initiative on the grounds that additional monitoring, inspections, and reporting are not the solutions to improving compliance.” (pg. 62)

If monitoring, inspections, and reporting “are not the solutions to improving compliance,” then what is?

Read the entire Report for the FY12 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up