Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 31/07/18
-
(ACC Blog) Get Ready for #ACCAugust 4.0
Jul 31, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
By Ryan Baldwin
We’re almost halfway through the summer, Congress is in recess and ACC’s Political Mobilization Department is gearing up for our annual #ACCAugust push! -
The Freedom of Information Act at 52: New Challenges to the People’s Right to Know
Jul 31, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Michael R. Lemov
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) turned 52 years old on July Fourth this year. That birthday marked five decades of the Act’s effective use by citizens and the press to open up government files, force discovery of misinformation and expose outright lies. -
ACSH Explains: What's The Story On Bromopropane?
Jul 31, 2018 | American Council on Science and Health
By Michael L. Dourson
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act amends the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and was signed into law June 22, 2016. -
Pediatricians Sound Alarm About Food Additives and Children's Health
Jul 31, 2018 | TODAY
By A. Pawlowski
When children ingest chemicals added to food and food packaging, their health may suffer, the American Academy of Pediatrics warns in a new policy statement, advising parents to be cautious about plastic containers, avoid processed meats and take other steps to limit kids’ exposure to food additives. -
Canada Proposes Significant New Activity Rule for Phenacetin
Jul 31, 2018 | Chemical Watch
A final Canadian screening assessment has determined that the cosmetic ingredient, phenacetin, is not a concern at currently used levels, but the government is proposing to apply a significant new activity (Snac) rule to it. -
Hansen Clarifies How Echa Has 'Addressed All Relevant SVHCs'
Jul 31, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The SVHC roadmap to have all currently known substances of very high concern included in the candidate list by 2020 is "doing well" even as REACH implementation needs to speed up, Echa head Bjorn Hansen has said. -
How Can You Obtain Information on Substances From Your Suppliers?
Jul 31, 2018 | Chemical Watch
One of the biggest challenges faced by companies that use chemicals is obtaining information on substances from their suppliers – whether it is to check if substances are registered, or if materials and components contain SVHCs in quantities over 0.1% w/w. -
To Secure America's Power Sector, Invest in Infrastructure and Free Markets
Jul 31, 2018 | RealClearEnergy
By Dan K. Eberhart
The calculus of America’s power generation has long relied on a delicate balancing of economic and environmental concerns. -
Perry: US to Become Net Energy Exporter Within 18 Months
Jul 31, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Energy Secretary Rick Perry on Tuesday predicted that the United States will become a net exporter of energy within the next 18 months, an outlook that seemingly clashes with his department's data office. -
Congress Must Act to Protect America From Chemical Terrorism | Opinion
Jul 31, 2018 | Philly.com
By David Wulf
An oil refinery with miles of pipes, a nut-processing plant, a state-owned fish hatchery, a microchip manufacturer, a university research laboratory, and an amusement park – to most, these enterprises have little in common. -
DuPont to Pay $3.1 Million Penalty for Texas Accident
Jul 31, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
DuPont will pay a $3.1 million civil penalty under an agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Justice for violations of EPA’s risk management program (RMP) provisions. -
Groups Oppose Maine's Plans to Lower Pollution Standards
Jul 31, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection is seeking to relax air pollution standards, a move that is receiving opposition from both environmental and tourism groups. -
Judge Orders EPA to Finish Smog Plan for San Joaquin Valley
Jul 31, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A federal judge has ordered EPA to complete a cleanup strategy by early next year for one of the nation's smoggiest areas. -
Levi’s Plans to Slash Emissions in Global Supply Chain by 2025
Jul 31, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Erica E. Phillips
Levi Strauss & Co. is launching an effort to slash the environmental impact of the factories world-wide that make its apparel and accessories.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) Get Ready for #ACCAugust 4.0
Jul 31, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
By Ryan Baldwin
We’re almost halfway through the summer, Congress is in recess and ACC’s Political Mobilization Department is gearing up for our annual #ACCAugust push! This month our team will be working with member companies to host elected officials to highlight the vital role the chemical industry plays in their respective communities and engage in meaningful dialog on our priority issues.
Over the past three years we’ve been privileged to coordinate over 100 events each year with member companies such as LyondelBasell, Anderson Development Company, The Dow Chemical Company, Calgon Carbon Corporation, and Covestro and with members of Congress including Sen. Tom Carper, Sen. Rob Portman, Sen. Chris Coons, Rep. Brian Babin, Rep. Mike Turner, West Virginia state legislators and other elected officials.
This year we look to continue to meet members of congress and other elected officials in their home districts and provide an up close look through plant tours, in-district meetings and industry roundtable discussions on how the business of chemistry helps drive innovations and creates jobs.
Through #ACCAugust our member companies are able to showcase the importance of their respective facilities for the surrounding communities and how the business of chemistry impacts the local, state and federal economies. The chemical industry is responsible for a large portion of the manufacturing renaissance in the U.S., providing 810,000 high-paying skilled jobs that support over a quarter of the country’s GDP. The elected officials that participate in our site tours and roundtables are able to see firsthand how chemistry is critical to everyday life and that the business of chemistry touches more than 96% of all manufactured goods.
You can follow our progress this year on Facebook and Twitter or by searching our hashtags #ACCAugust and #ChemistryMatters.
If you would like to get even more involved? Sign-up at ChemistryMatters to join our growing community of #Chemunicators to see events coming to your community and learn more about the important role chemistry plays in our economy and everyday life.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2018/07/get-ready-for-accaugust-4-0/
-
The Freedom of Information Act at 52: New Challenges to the People’s Right to Know
Jul 31, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Michael R. Lemov
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) turned 52 years old on July Fourth this year. That birthday marked five decades of the Act’s effective use by citizens and the press to open up government files, force discovery of misinformation and expose outright lies.
FOIA is currently under attack through an almost secret war against public information. The current administration has embarked on a new level of opposition to open government. It is using new—and some old—tactics to avoid providing information to the public and the press
In the first year of this administration, requests for information by newspapers, reporters, public interest groups and ordinary citizens increased by more than 5 percent to a record of 823,000 annually. Yet denials and censorship (known as redaction) climbed even faster--to all or part of 78 percent of records requested, according to a recent Associated Press report.
Waiting times for responses to FOIA requests at government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grew by more than 20 percent, George Washington University’s FOIA Project reports. This is not surprising since the EPA is charged by the White House with implementing much of its broad environmental deregulation policy that would repeal or delay dozens of existing and proposed clean air and water rules. By law, such actions regarding any existing rule must be supported by evidence as to its reasonableness and necessity.
Denial and delay of citizen requests to obtain that evidence is a primary means of blocking the effective use of FOIA. To gain access to the information, requestors are often forced to file administrative agency appeals or ask the courts to help enforce the act.
Forcing citizens and the press to appeal or sue is a way of delaying and perhaps denying access to vital government information. Lawsuits are expensive and take time. Nonetheless, lawsuits against federal agencies for release of relevant documents rose by 26 percent in first 500 days of this administration.
For example, a lawsuit under FOIA by Public Citizen was necessary to force the White House to open its meeting logs to the public for the offices of Management and Budget, Science and Technology and the Council on Environmental Quality. A report earlier this year in Politico found that eight Cabinet heads failed routinely to release information on their planned travel schedules and appearances. Six more failed to release appointment calendars. These might show who is influencing their decisions. Or a least who has access to the policy makers.
Delay and denial are only two tactics the administration is using to attempt to undermine FOIA. It is also failing to collect information in the first place or deleting existing information, particularly scientific studies.
According to a report published this month by Public Citizen, the administration scrubbed information about climate change from numerous government web sites.
Similarly, in April the Union of Concerned Scientists reported that EPA deleted from its website information critical to understanding how its environmental policy was developed. The scientists used three separate FOIA requests to collect documents demonstrating that the EPA is violating its own “transparency” policy. The group also said the agency used the denial strategy by wrongly claiming some of the requested documents contained exempt “trade secrets” and so-called “private” information.
There are other ways the administration is shedding information. The president supported and signed congressional legislation that cancelled an Obama administration rule that required contractors bidding on federal construction projects to disclose serious workplace safety violations. Also abandoned by the Office of Management and Budget was a proposed rule that would have required large companies to collect pay data by gender and race, in order to determine patterns of likely discrimination.
The Department of Education has been trying to water down a rule that would allow the government to gather information to evaluate the effectiveness of for-profit career-training schools. The information would compare student debt to post-graduate earnings. But under DOE’s proposal, significantly less data would be gathered and it would be skewed, since only the top-ranked 50 percent of graduates would be included.
Thus, statistics and scientific data valuable to business, the public and students are being eliminated and placed outside the reach of the Freedom of Information Act.
Enacted in 1966, through a determined twelve year effort by Rep. John E. Moss (D-Calif.), FOIA was pushed to passage by a coalition of Democrats and Republicans. It represented a bipartisan attempt to establish, for the first time, a practical route for citizens and the press to learn what their government was doing.
FOIA arose in a different era of turmoil when fear of Russia and Communism caused greatly increased government secrecy. Since then, FOIA has shined a bright light in the dark corners of the Executive branch. Now, in its 52nd year, FOIA faces some of its greatest challenges. Ultimately, the determination of the press and the public will decide the outcome of these attacks on the people’s right to know.
Michael R. Lemov is an attorney who served as Counsel for the House Commerce Committee under John Moss and is the author of People’s Warrior: John Moss and the Fight for Freedom of Information and Consumer Rights; Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2011.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/399673-the-freedom-of-information-act-at-52-new-challenges-to-the
-
ACSH Explains: What's The Story On Bromopropane?
Jul 31, 2018 | American Council on Science and Health
By Michael L. Dourson
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act amends the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and was signed into law June 22, 2016. It created a mandatory requirement for EPA to evaluate existing chemicals with clear and enforceable deadlines, to do so in a transparent fashion, and to do so using risk-based chemical assessments rather than rely on simple epidemiological correlations.
EPA selected the first 10 chemicals to undergo risk evaluation under the amended TSCA and to make those understandable for the public, the American Council on Science and Health is producing risk-based evaluations of each, which will then be compiled into a free downloadable book for consumers.
What is 1-Bromopropane?
As described by the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR, 2017; 2018), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH, 2016), and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2016, 2018a), 1-bromopropane, also known as n-propyl bromide, is a colorless liquid. It has a sweet odor and quickly evaporates into the air when released to the environment. It is slightly soluble in water. 1-Bromopropane is used as a solvent in commercial and industrial applications, such as adhesive sprays, degreasing metals, plastics, and electronic components. It is also used in dry cleaning (including spot cleaning), asphalt production, aircraft maintenance, lubricants, and synthetic fiber manufacturing. It was originally used in the production of pesticides, flavors, fragrances, pharmaceuticals, and other chemicals. 1-Bromopropane is a synthetic chemical and is not known to occur naturally in the environment.
The chemical structure of 1-bromopropane is C3H7Br (NLM, 2018), as shown at the US National Library of Medicine’s Toxnet database (NLM, 2018). It is a type of organic chemical known as an alkyl halide in which a halogen atom, in this case bromine, is substituted for one of the hydrogen atoms on the terminal carbon atom of propane, a commonly used fuel to heat homes and cook food (North Carolina Department of Labor, 2013). This simple structure and the ability of our bodies to metabolize 1-bromopropane lead to its principle effect on the nervous system following inhalation exposure in both humans and animals.
Exposure T 1-Bromopropane
According to ATSDR (2017), the use of 1-bromopropane in manufacturing and commercial and industrial applications may result in its release into the air, water, sediment, and soil. Although 1-bromopropane is broken down quickly in air, it has been detected in the U.S. at very low levels of 0.14–0.16 parts per billion (ppb) (ATSDR, 2017). Unfortunately, little additional information was found on levels of 1-bromopropane that was released from manufacturing and processing facilities. There is also no reliable monitoring data for the levels of 1-bromopropane available in contaminated media at hazardous waste sites.
Some of the 1-bromopropane released into the soil or water is expected to also volatilize into air. However, it is not persistent in soil and in water is broken down by microbes. It is also not likely to bind to food and is not expected to concentrate within the food chain.
According to ATSDR (2017), EPA (2016) and NCDOL (2013), inhalation is the predominant route of consumer and occupational exposure to 1-bromopropane. Occupational exposure to 1-bromopropane occurs primarily from its use in spray adhesives, dry cleaning (including use as a spot cleaner), and degreasing (vapor, cold, and aerosol cleaning). Workers are expected to be the most highly exposed population. Occupational exposure to 1-bromopropane may also occur through skin contact, although exposure through ingestion and the eyes are other possible routes.
Individuals using consumer products containing substantial amounts of 1- bromopropane especially indoors may also have the potential for high exposure to this compound. ATSDR (2017) states that people may also be exposed to 1-bromopropane through the air when it is used during aerosol applications, specifically at locations in close proximity to facilities where it is used, processed, or manufactured. Another potential source of exposure of 1-bromopropane to individuals is vapor intrusion, although this has not been specifically confirmed. Vapor intrusion refers to the potential of volatile chemicals to migrate from groundwater contamination or contaminated soil into an overlying building. Vapor intrusion has been observed for several volatile organic chemicals that have similar properties and overlapping usage as 1-bromopropane (e.g., tetrachloroethylene in dry cleaning) (ATSDR, 2017).
People might also be exposed to 1-bromopropane in consumer products, including aerosol cleaning products, spot cleaners, and arts and craft spray glues. However, no consumer products were identified as containing 1-bromopropane in the U.S.
1-Bromopropane Health Effects
According to both ATSDR (2017) and EPA (2016), 1-bromopropane is well absorbed following inhalation and oral exposures, whereas lower absorption is expected following dermal exposures in both humans and animals. Absorbed 1-bromopropane is metabolized in two different ways. The balance between these two ways determines whether 1-bromopropane will form reactive or harmless breakdown products. Experimental animal studies indicate that 1-bromopropane is rapidly eliminated from the body by exhalation of 1-bromopropane, from metabolism to carbon dioxide that is then exhaled, and by urinary excretion of harmless 1-bromopropane byproducts.
Like exposure to any chemical, toxicity of 1-bromopropane depends on the level to which one is exposed and the length of time of exposure. ATSDR (2017), EPA (2016) and NIOSH (2016) have an abundance of health effect information on 1-bromopropane. According to these agencies, 1-bromopropane may cause health effects in workers following weeks, months, and years of inhalation and dermal exposure.
The major adverse effects of 1-bromopropane identified in humans occur in the nervous system. Case reports of workers occupationally exposed to 1-bromopropane for 2 weeks to 3 years have reported headache, dizziness, weakness, numbness in the lower extremities, ataxia (loss of
body movement), paresthesia (abnormal sensations in nerves---pins and needles), changes in mood, and motor and sensory impairments. Subtle effects have been reported at workplace air concentrations as low as about 1 ppm whereas irreversible loss of full control of bodily movements, inability to walk, and damage to nerves may occur at concentrations of 100 ppm and above. Studies in humans also suggest that 1-bromopropane may also be a respiratory tract irritant. The liver and kidneys may also be affected, however they are not as sensitive as the nervous system for 1-bromopropane exposure. Limited data exist to determine whether 1-bromopropane causes adverse reproductive and developmental effects in humans.
Results from experimental animal studies support the development of nervous system effects found from human exposures. For example, short-term exposure via inhalation to concentrations of 50 ppm and above resulted in changes in neurobehavior and the central and peripheral nervous systems. Ingestion of 1-bromopropane in animals for a shorter term also resulted in impaired learning and memory, sedation, and biochemical changes. In animals, 1-bromopropane exposure can also cause liver and kidney toxicity, adverse reproductive and developmental effects, as well as negative effects on the immune system. While there are no studies in humans that evaluated the potential of 1-bromopropane to cause cancer, longer-term inhalation exposures in animals have resulted in tumors in multiple organs or tissues including the skin, the large intestines, and the lungs.
1-Bromopropane Safe or Virtually Safe Levels
The federal and state governments develop regulations and recommendations to protect public health. Regulations and recommendations are often expressed as a safe or virtually safe level, that is, a level of a substance in air, water, soil, or food that is not expected to cause any adverse health effect, even in people who are sensitive to the chemical’s effects. These safe levels are usually based on information from experiments with animals (usually rodents) at much higher levels of the chemicals than humans would typically encounter. The higher animal exposures are used to see what the adverse health effects are. The scientists then conjecture what the adverse effects could possibly be in humans at a lower level of exposure. Scientists can then estimate the level that will likely protect humans, even those more sensitive to the 1-bromopropane.
Sometimes these safe levels differ among federal and state organizations because they used different assumptions for human exposure, different animal studies, or employ methods that differ slightly. At other times these recommendations differ because new science develops that suggests different levels are toxic or safe. Thus, it should be expected that recommendations and regulations are updated periodically as more information becomes available.
ATSDR (2017) has derived safe or virtually safe levels referred to as minimal risk levels (MRLs.) MRL is an estimate of daily human exposure to a substance that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse effects (noncarcinogenic) over a specified duration of exposure. MRLs can be derived for acute, intermediate, and chronic duration exposures for inhalation and oral routes.
for inhalation and oral routes and for various exposure durations. For the inhalation route, the MRLs are 1 ppm for exposures of 14 days or less, 0.2 ppm for exposures for 15-364 days, and 0.02 ppm for exposures covering 365 days or more. For the oral route, ATSDR (2017) derived a value of 0.2 mg 1-bromopropane/kg-day for exposures for 14 days or less. No short- or long-term safe doses were derived because data were not sufficient to derive such safe levels.
EPA (2016) has not developed noncancer safe concentrations for any exposure route or duration. Instead, EPA created estimated hazard values, i.e., human equivalent concentrations (HEC.) Human Equivalent Concentration is the human concentration (for inhalation exposure) of an agent that is believed to induce the same magnitude of toxic effect as the experimental animal species concentration. For the oral route, this is referred to as the Human Equivalent Dose or HED. They compared HEC to the estimated inhalation exposures from occupational and consumer uses. HECs were derived for single and longer-term inhalation exposures only. These vales were 31 ppm or 10 ppm for single inhalation exposure of 1-bromopropane following occupational or consumer uses, respectively. EPA (2016) derived a range of longer-term inhalation HECs of 25 ppm to 150 ppm based on different effects following occupational uses only. The lowest inhalation HEC of 25 ppm was derived for nervous system effects.
Although ATSDR discusses the potential of a chemical to be carcinogenic, it does not currently assess cancer potency or perform cancer risk assessments. However, EPA (2016) derived a cancer inhalation unit risk (IUR) of 3 x 10-3 (or 3 persons for every 1000 people exposed) per ppm of exposure. Inhalation Unit Risk is an estimate of the increased cancer risk from inhalation exposure to a concentration of 1 µg/m3 for a lifetime. The IUR can be multiplied by an estimate of lifetime exposure (in µg/m3) to estimate the lifetime cancer risk.
Why Is EPA Looking At This Under The Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act?
EPA (2018b) is currently looking at the likely routes of exposure to 1-bromopropane in the environment and will be further developing exposure scenarios, or pathways, of how the public comes into contact with 1-bromopropane. These exposure pathways will then be studied by EPA scientists by comparing the amount of 1-bromopropane exposure in the pathway to its safe or virtually safe level. If human exposure in the pathway is at or below this safe or virtually safe level, then 1-bromopropane exposure from the pathway is not considered to be a human health concern. If exposure is above this safe or virtually safe level, then the pathway might be considered as a possible health concern; several pathways may be added together to suggest a health concern. In either event, regulations might be developed to lessen the exposure of 1-bromopropane from this pathway(s).
Small excesses of the safe or virtually safe dose are seldom cause for concern since these safety levels are developed from conservative assumptions, including the use of safety factors that tend to exaggerate risk and exposure pathways that tend to exaggerate exposure.
See EPA (2018b) for additional information related to the assessment of 1-bromopropane under the new Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (LCSA).
Controversy Over 1-Bromopropane
EPA (2018b) interprets the mandates within the LCSA to conduct risk evaluations on current and prospective uses of 1-bromopropane for which manufacturing, processing, or distribution in commerce “is intended, known or reasonably foreseen.” 1-Bromopropane has a number of uses in these categories that are included in the current scope of EPA’s evaluation. However, EPA is excluding from its problem formulation the use of 1-bromopropane in agricultural products, adhesives and sealants associated with foam cushion manufacturing, and certain automotive care products such as engine degreasers and brake cleaners. The exclusion of some uses may be controversial.
As discussed above, studies in both humans and animals have identified the nervous system as a sensitive target of 1-bromopropane exposure following inhalation exposures. Other noncancer effects occur at higher concentration include effects on the liver, kidney, and the reproductive and developmental systems. For noncancer effects of 1-bromopropane exposure, EPA (2016) has used a range of these toxic effects for the safety assessment of longer-term exposures. For shorter-term exposures, EPA believes that developmental toxicity is appropriate for evaluating safety, based on the fact that such effects may occur from a single exposure during a critical period of development.
This is consistent with EPA’s Guidelines for Reproductive Toxicity Risk Assessment (EPA, 1996, 1991), which states that repeated exposure is not a necessary prerequisite for the manifestation of developmental toxicity. In both humans and animals, a relatively short critical window of vulnerability exists, and a single, high exposure could cause harm to a developing fetus. In addition, 1-bromopropane has a short half-life (half-life is the time required for the concentration of a substance in the body to decrease by half) and its metabolites are reactive toward cellular components (e.g., DNA and proteins) in several organs or tissues in the body.
Although no carcinogenicity studies were available in humans, EPA (2016) has noted that 1-bromopropane is a carcinogen that targets multiple sites in experimental animals following prolonged inhalation exposure. Based on this, 1-bromopropane is “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen” (National Toxicology Program, 2013) and “possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) (International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2018). Although the exact mechanism of 1-bromopropane carcinogenesis is not known, EPA (2016) notes that the weight-of-evidence analysis for the cancer endpoint does not rule out mutation. In fact, several genotoxicity tests were positive using known or postulated metabolites of 1-bromopropane (EPA, 2016). Other authorities have indicated that 1-bromopropane causes cancer through adduct formation, oxidative stress, glutathione depletion, immunosuppression, and inflammation (European Chemicals Agency, 2016; ATSDR, 2017).
During the confirmation hearings of Dr. Michael Dourson, of the American Council on Science and Health Board of Scientific Advisors, to be Assistant Administrator of EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, it was claimed by political opponents that his nonprofit organization, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA), proposed a weaker standard for 1-bromopropane. In reality, in 2004 occupation limits for 1-bromopropane differed by 16-fold between several organizations’ risk values. Dourson et al. had evaluated the underlying information and recommended an occupational exposure limit (OEL) of 20 ppm based on effects in newborns and their value was lower than EPA’s. An NTP study was conducted after the TERA assessment showing cancer findings. New evaluations based on the cancer study (new data) suggest lower limits could be considered.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/07/31/acsh-explains-whats-story-bromopropane-13238
-
Pediatricians Sound Alarm About Food Additives and Children's Health
Jul 31, 2018 | TODAY
By A. Pawlowski
When children ingest chemicals added to food and food packaging, their health may suffer, the American Academy of Pediatrics warns in a new policy statement, advising parents to be cautious about plastic containers, avoid processed meats and take other steps to limit kids’ exposure to food additives.
U.S. regulations currently allow more than 10,000 chemicals to be used in food and the materials that come in contact with it, noted the statement published in the August issue of Pediatrics. But there’s growing concern some of these substances could affect a child’s hormones and development.
Kids may be particularly susceptible because their dose of exposure is higher than that of adults, said lead author Dr. Leonardo Trasande, an expert in children's environmental health and associate professor at the NYU School of Medicine.
“Pound for pound, they eat more food” relative to their body weight, Trasande told TODAY. “Also, their organ systems are susceptible to injury during early development. The effects of an injury can be permanent and life-long.”RelatedPLASTIC BOTTLESLeft your bottled water in a hot car? Drink it with caution, some experts say
The report represents the accumulation of two decades of scientific research documenting increasing evidence about the effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals on children’s health, Trasande said. That’s of great concern because practically every human physiologic function has some endocrine basis, he added.
“The research really does show that (the chemicals) can cause health problems, some of which could be very serious. And because the exposure is small and gradual, we don’t even realize it’s happening,” said Dr. Claire McCarthy, a pediatrician at Boston Children's Hospital and an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School.
There’s no question that babies and children may be more vulnerable to the effects of toxins as their bodies, organs and minds form, added Dr. Wendy Sue Swanson, a pediatrician at Seattle Children's Hospital.
Is microwaving in plastic safe? Dr. Azar’s tips to reduce your riskJUL.09.201502:16THE CHEMICALS OF CONCERN:
The report focused on six additives and their potential health effects, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics:
Bisphenols, like BPA, which are used to harden plastic containers and line metal cans. They can mimic estrogen and may change the timing of puberty, decrease fertility, increase body fat and affect the nervous and immune systems.
Phthalates, which make plastic and vinyl tubes flexible. They may affect male genital development, increase childhood obesity and contribute to heart disease.
Perfluoroalkyl chemicals (PFCs), which are used in grease-proof paper and cardboard food packaging. They may reduce immunity, birth weight and fertility.
Perchlorate, which is added to some dry food packaging to control static electricity. It can disrupt thyroid function, early life brain development and growth.Recommended
Morgan Miller, fellow mom Nicole Hughes raise awareness after drowning of children
Bode and Morgan Miller open up about drowning death of daughter Emmy
Artificial food colors, which may worsen attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms.
Nitrates, which are used to preserve food and enhance color in cured and processed meats. They can interfere with thyroid hormone production and the blood's ability to deliver oxygen in the body.
Report: Bacon, sausage, processed meats cause cancerOCT.26.201500:33CHANGES TO MAKE NOW:
There’s no way to completely avoid food additives, but there are ways to reduce kids’ exposure, Swanson noted: “Don't freak out — we can't control everything — but do decrease your use of plastics as much as you can,” she advised parents.
Here are some tips from the AAP, which represents 67,000 pediatricians:
Eat fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables, and avoid processed meats, especially during pregnancy. “The less we process our food, the better. The less our food travels in packaging, the better, too,” Swanson said.
Avoid microwaving food or beverages in plastic — including infant formula and pumped human milk — because heat can cause chemicals to leach into food. Don’t put plastic containers in the dishwasher for the same reason. If you still want to serve food to your children on plastic dishes, consider heating it in glass containers first, Swanson advised.RelatedCHEMICAL PHTHALATES IN FOOD PACKAGING LINKED WITH LOWER IQ IN KIDSKids whose moms had the highest levels of phthalates in their bodies during pregnancy had markedly lower IQs at age 7, researchers found.
Use glass or stainless steel containers when possible. “We’re so used to plastic that it doesn’t even occur to us to use other materials,” McCarthy noted. There’s no need for plastic serving tools ever, Swanson added. Metal plates, bamboo, aluminum are some options to consider.
Avoid canned foods. Canned foodis a major source of bisphenol exposure, Trasande said.
If still opting for plastic, check the recycling code on a container’s bottom to find the plastic type. Avoid containers with recycling codes 3 (phthalates), 6 (styrene), and 7 (bisphenols) unless they’re labeled as “biobased” or “greenware.”
Reduce the use of plastic wrap when possible. You can use wax paper or aluminum foil to wrap a child’s sandwich, Trasande noted.
https://www.today.com/health/children-s-health-risk-chemicals-additives-food-t134748
-
Canada Proposes Significant New Activity Rule for Phenacetin
Jul 31, 2018 | Chemical Watch
A final Canadian screening assessment has determined that the cosmetic ingredient, phenacetin, is not a concern at currently used levels, but the government is proposing to apply a significant new activity (Snac) rule to it.
The substance – also known as acetamide, N-(4-ethoxyphenyl)- – is primarily used as a laboratory reagent and in some oxidative hair dye preparations as a stabiliser for hydrogen peroxide.
The final assessment upholds findings laid out in a draft screening assessment last year. This identified carcinogenicity concerns, but determined the substance does not meet Cepa section 64 criteria because it is not being being used in ways that constitute a danger to human health or the environment.
However, the government has determined the substance may present a concern for human health if exposures were to increase, so it is proposing to apply the Snac provision.
If adopted, this would require businesses to notify the government before engaging in the following uses:the manufacture of a consumer product or cosmetic, other than hair colour products, in a concentration above 0.1% by weight; orany activity related to such products if the total quantity involved in a single year is greater than 10kg.
This would allow the government to assess whether the new activity constitutes a risk, and whether risk management is necessary.
Activities involving phenacetin in hair colour products are exempt from notifications under the proposal, because "human exposure from these sources is estimated to be low".
Interested persons may submit comments on the proposed Snac to the Minister of the Environment within 60 days.
https://chemicalwatch.com/69115/canada-proposes-significant-new-activity-rule-for-phenacetin
-
Hansen Clarifies How Echa Has 'Addressed All Relevant SVHCs'
Jul 31, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The SVHC roadmap to have all currently known substances of very high concern included in the candidate list by 2020 is "doing well" even as REACH implementation needs to speed up, Echa head Bjorn Hansen has said.
Mr Hansen was responding to a letter from the NGO ChemSec, which had probed him on candidate list "paralysis" and Echa's claim that all currently known relevant SVHCs have been addressed.
In the letter, sent earlier this month, ChemSec’s executive director Anne-Sofie Andersson wrote that Echa's latest progress report on the SVHC roadmap contradicted the findings of the second REACH Review, published back in March. This said that the process of adding SVHCs to the candidate list is "extremely slow" and the precautionary principle is "not yet used".
And Ms Andersson questioned which substances are seen as "relevant" and what Echa means by "addressed".
Mr Hansen said in his reply that he agreed with the conclusions of the review, in particular that implementation of REACH has to become more efficient and needs to deliver more quickly.
"This does not contradict the finding that the implementation of the SVHC roadmap is progressing beyond expectations, nor that this part of REACH as promoted innovation and substitution," he said.
"Much of REACH needs to improve, but the SVHC roadmap is doing well."
The progress report on the roadmap – the fourth of its kind – says that grouping structurally similar substances together "will ensure that a bigger share of all registered substances are addressed, including substances on which information on hazard and exposure is lacking".Questions and answers
ChemSec's letter posed five questions to Mr Hansen and he responded as follows:
Question: Do you agree that non-registered substances could also be relevant for the candidate list?
Answer: The SVHC roadmap's definition of 'relevant' was set jointly by the Commission and member states, Mr Hansen said. Up to 2020, non-registered substances (such as low volume chemicals) should have priority for candidate listing, unless they form part of a group. The roadmap, set out in 2013, lists the aspects that define whether a substance is a 'relevant SVHC'.
Q: Are classified carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic (CMR) chemicals adequately regulated through requirements that apply following their classification?
A: On this Mr Hansen said CMRs are not necessarily adequately regulated through those requirements. Echa considers them as 'addressed', once the authorities have assessed them to see whether they need further regulation. For a number of CMRs, "there is no need for further action at EU level," he added.
Q: What is your view on listing restricted substances on the candidate list and vice versa?
A: Except for CMRs, existing restrictions are taken into account when considering candidate listing, he said, but "no substances are excluded from screening based exclusively on an existing restriction."
Q: What is your plan to ensure that discussions in expert groups "actually bring substances closer to the candidate list" and will not continue to serve as a way of keeping substances "off the regulatory radar for a number of years"?
A: Mr Hansen said Echa was generating data for assessing 750 substances, "many of which have so far not been on the radar screen of the authorities." The agency is "continuously working with national authorities to keep the timelines as short as possible". And it has started to implement the REACH Review actions to "significantly speed up" the evaluation processes, he said.
Q: What assurances will Echa give that it resists industry pressure more effectively and sticks to the scientific hazard criteria for candidate listing?
A: As an independent agency Echa is "well set up for being resilient against external pressure", Mr Hansen said.
"I can assure you that it is our goal to bring the authorisation process, including the candidate list, to its effect," Mr Hansen added.
Echa will "push for further integration" of evaluation, restrictions and authorisation work, he said, and speed up the identification of, and regulatory actions on, new substances of concern.
https://chemicalwatch.com/69167/hansen-clarifies-how-echa-has-addressed-all-relevant-svhcs
-
How Can You Obtain Information on Substances From Your Suppliers?
Jul 31, 2018 | Chemical Watch
One of the biggest challenges faced by companies that use chemicals is obtaining information on substances from their suppliers – whether it is to check if substances are registered, or if materials and components contain SVHCs in quantities over 0.1% w/w. Many companies downstream have attempted to fulfil their obligations by sending letters or emails to their suppliers. Unfortunately it seems that, more often than not, those letters have gone unanswered.
While companies could switch from their current supplier to a more responsive one, that option is often not straightforward. Many companies have tried to build closer relationships in the supply chain, but, again, this might not be practical if those relationships span many hundreds, let alone thousands, of suppliers. Others have added obligations to contractual agreements, requiring suppliers to provide the information.Business ownership
One compliance department at an agrochemical company found that engaging its own business was a good way to improve the information flow. It had been struggling to get confirmation that its suppliers were registering non-active, coformulant ingredients for the 2018 REACH deadline.
The compliance team raised the problem by highlighting that, if the ingredients were not registered, products could not be sold and that would cost much the same as the total value of its agchem sales in Europe. This sparked the attention of the CEO, who from the top ensured that solutions were found and executed. For the business, this meant going beyond one-way communication from customer to supplier.
The business itself sent emails to suppliers and then chased them up with telephone calls; the procurement department was trained in the regulation, so they could talk to suppliers and explain the needs. They discovered that one common reason that their emails went unanswered was because the recipient had no idea what they were about. The approach was successful. Key to its success was the connection between regulatory compliance and the business.Harmonised approach
For some article makers, the different approaches companies have taken have resulted in a complex web of information requirements for suppliers. This has highlighted the need for a harmonised system that shares information on which chemicals are in finished products.
Industry and the authorities are now taking action to address this. Representatives from several sectors have come together to discuss how to develop a solution for collecting and sharing material data for articles – including their chemical composition – across sectors.
Meanwhile, the EU’s Council of Ministers has called on the European Commission and Echa to implement measures to ensure that by 2030 substances of concern in materials – including those in imported articles – can be traced through the entire supply chain.
Ensure you’re fully up to date with your business’ obligations under REACH
This article is an extract from our new report, The Impact of REACH on downstream users. Download your free copy to find out what downstream users of chemicals need to do to remain compliant with REACH.
Download your free copy
https://chemicalwatch.com/69111/how-can-you-obtain-information-on-substances-from-your-suppliers
-
To Secure America's Power Sector, Invest in Infrastructure and Free Markets
Jul 31, 2018 | RealClearEnergy
By Dan K. Eberhart
The calculus of America’s power generation has long relied on a delicate balancing of economic and environmental concerns. Utilities have traditionally sought the most affordable, most plentiful, and most profitable method of generating electricity while also minimizing pollution.
But a third factor, national security, has recently become central to the debate swirling around the future of America’s power generating fleet. The security issue arrives as the power market has tilted in favor of abundant and affordable supplies of natural gas, thanks to the use of hydraulic fracturing to unlock vast reserves in shale formations across the country. Coal and nuclear have found it difficult to compete with natural gas on the basis of price and environmental performance — and they don’t like it.
A recent U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) memo on the resiliency of the national power system concluded that natural gas’ reliance on pipelines creates physical and cyber security vulnerabilities. The report, leaked to the media in May, lays out a proposal that threatens to upset the existing balance between cost, security and environmental performance in favor of tossing a lifeline to coal and nuclear.
What can only be called a bailout of these industries was rejected by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in January. In its rejection, FERC asked regional transmission operators to provide information on resilience challenges in their markets. The DOE memo, which links America’s increasing dependence on natural gas for power generation and potential vulnerabilities in its transmission system to national security, represents the latest attempt to justify government putting a thumb on the scale in favor of coal and nuclear at the expense of ratepayers.
The risk of cyber and physical attacks against pipelines, transformers, and other critical energy infrastructure are serious matters. Congress and FERC should work together to adopt smart policies to improve protections from such attacks. But fear mongering and self-interest should not obscure the fact that the energy industry, together with federal regulators, has been proactive in improving security measures around critical infrastructure.
The reality is that stakeholders from both the private and public sectors have been collaborating for years to gather information on and respond to potential threats. Examples of this focus on improving security are everywhere. Globally, the oil industry is on track to spend an additional $1.9 billion on cybersecurity this year, according to ABI Research.
PJM Interconnection, which operates the electrical grid across 13 states and serves 65 million customers in the mid-Atlantic region, is conducting a study to better understand the fuel-supply risks in an environment trending toward greater use on natural gas. The study will help the utility determine its systems’ resilience to potential pipeline shutdowns, cyberattacks or the impact on gas deliveries of a prolonged cold snap.
More than 50 natural gas and oil companies — including a number of the nation’s largest natural gas pipeline operators — now share cyber threat intelligence with each other and the federal government through the Oil and Natural Gas Information Sharing and Analysis Center.
The American Gas Association (AGA) chairs the Oil & Natural Gas Sector Coordinating Council Cybersecurity Working Group with the Department of Homeland Security to better coordinate physical and cyber infrastructure initiatives. Utility executives from AGA’s member companies have also signed onto the AGA Commitment to Cyber and Physical Security to better ensure their pipelines are able to resist potential cyber and physical security threats.
These quantifiable industry actions are bolstered by proposed legislation from policymakers like Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) to ensure heightened standards for physical and cybersecurity. The power system is also protected by a myriad of regulations imposed by a host of federal agencies, including DOE and the Transportation Security Administration. The energy sector has also adopted the official framework of cybersecurity objectives and standards established by the federal National Institute of Standards and Technology to include protection, defense, resilience and recovery methods.
While there are physical constraints on natural gas’s ability to serve the entire electrical system — which could and should be addressed with a nationwide commitment to infrastructure investment — focusing on the security of natural gas pipelines is a red herring. Instead of the government’s thumb on the scale, the market should determine what fuel supplies will best meet the diverse needs of America’s power-generation sector.
There’s no silver bullet that can ensure the absolute security of our nation’s power system. Investment is needed in the redundant capabilities and preparedness of utilities as well as to improvements of pipelines and other delivery systems. To get there, DOE should encourage more private and public sector investment in the infrastructure needed to power America with the most abundant, affordable, and clean sources of energy available domestically.
To ensure consumers pay the lowest rates for the most reliable energy, the energy sources that power our future should be allowed to compete in an open and fair market.
Dan K. Eberhart is CEO of Canary, LLC, one of the largest independent oilfield services companies in the United States.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2018/07/31/to_secure_americas_power_sector_invest_in_infrastructure_and_free_markets_110318.html
-
Perry: US to Become Net Energy Exporter Within 18 Months
Jul 31, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Energy Secretary Rick Perry on Tuesday predicted that the United States will become a net exporter of energy within the next 18 months, an outlook that seemingly clashes with his department's data office.
“Here we are, the No. 1 oil and gas producing country in the world now,” he said on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends.”
“In just a few years, probably within the next 12 to 18 months, we will become a net exporting energy country.”
Reaching net energy exports will mean that the United States exports more energy than it imports.
Perry’s forecast doesn't match the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the data office within his own department.
The EIA predicted earlier this year in its Annual Energy Outlook that the United States would become a net exporter in 2022, two years later than Perry’s expectation.
That analysis, however, said 2020 is a possibility in a case in which the nation’s oil and natural gas resources and technology prove to be better than predicted.
Perry credited the approaching milestone at least somewhat to advances in oil and natural gas production like hydraulic fracturing and directional drilling.
But he also more generally credited President Trump and the GOP policy changes since the beginning of last year.
“It’s been this mindset that, you know, you can spend your money and have a chance to have a return on your investment. So the tax bill that was passed, the regulations,” he said.
“People know now that they can build an LNG plant and it’s not going to get locked up, or a pipeline. You think about the pipelines that got stopped by the previous administration. Because if you can’t move this energy to the marketplace, it’s going to have a real negative effect on people going out and spending money.”
Oil and natural gas production have increased significantly in recent years, as have exports of both. But the United States still imports millions of barrels of oil every day.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/399670-perry-us-to-become-net-energy-exporter-in-18-months
-
Congress Must Act to Protect America From Chemical Terrorism | Opinion
Jul 31, 2018 | Philly.com
By David Wulf
An oil refinery with miles of pipes, a nut-processing plant, a state-owned fish hatchery, a microchip manufacturer, a university research laboratory, and an amusement park – to most, these enterprises have little in common. They are all separated by geography and engaged in vastly different spheres of business. However, they, and approximately 3,400 other facilities across the United States, are covered by a national security program aimed at preventing terrorists from acquiring chemicals to use in an attack — the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program.
Terrorists have a long history of wanting chemicals, given their potential to inflict mass casualties. Facilities with chemicals continue to be targeted by terrorist groups around the world looking to cause releases onsite or acquire materials to be used in attacks elsewhere. The CFATS program was born in 2006 when Congress, recognizing the threat, directed the Department of Homeland Security to work with stakeholders to close security gaps at high-risk facilities. Much of our success is based on the leadership and understanding of the importance of this issue by Congress. Members like Sen. Tom Carper (D., Del.), who was instrumental in the establishment of the program and has since continued his advocacy, make all the difference.
>> READ MORE: Counterterrorism lessons from Paris, after this week’s World Cup celebrations | Opinion
Chemicals are essential to a broad swath of American businesses, and with few exceptions, the CFATS regulation applies to any facility holding threshold amounts of designated “chemicals of interest.” The universe of high-risk facilities is diverse and not limited to those sites traditionally considered part of the chemical industry. Take that nut-processing facility mentioned earlier, for example. While pistachios and almonds may not spring to mind as potential terrorist weapons, food processing requires the use of high-risk chemicals to clean equipment and provide refrigeration. When used properly, these chemicals are an important part of commerce, but in the wrong hands, they can be deadly.
For more than 11 years, the CFATS program has worked with companies to implement security measures involving more than 300 potentially dangerous chemicals. The program focuses on preventing chemicals being stolen, diverted, sabotaged, or deliberately released. CFATS has assessed risk at more than 40,000 chemical facilities in the United States, with only about 3,400 of them considered to be at the highest risk for attack or exploitation. From perimeter controls to cyber-security measures, CFATS has enhanced security at high-risk facilities. Given the diversity of the businesses considered high risk, CFATS’ success has been based on flexibility and the program’s commitment to working with businesses to meet the regulation’s requirements. We have built a regulatory environment that is grounded in continuous, constructive dialogue with industry stakeholders, a cooperative approach that is on display this week in Philadelphia as government and industry stakeholders gather to discuss security-related best practices and CFATS policies.
>> READ MORE: How afraid should Americans be right now? | Opinion
This year marks the expiration of CFATS authorization. Without action, we risk rolling back the progress we’ve made in securing our nation’s highest-risk chemical facilities. Legislative action is needed to reauthorize this vital program.
Seventeen years after 9/11, we still live in an environment that gave rise to CFATS. At the Department of Homeland Security, we are committed to working with Congress to reauthorize CFATS for the long term and with our stakeholders to continue to protect our communities and our nation from the threat of chemical terrorism.
David Wulf is the director of the Infrastructure Security Compliance Division at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/commentary/chemical-terrorism-united-states-homeland-security-terrorism-20180731.html
-
DuPont to Pay $3.1 Million Penalty for Texas Accident
Jul 31, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
DuPont will pay a $3.1 million civil penalty under an agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Justice for violations of EPA’s risk management program (RMP) provisions. The violations led to an accident that killed four workers in Texas in late 2014.
The accident occurred when nearly 11,000 kg of methyl mercaptan were released at a pesticide manufacturing unit at DuPont’s La Porte plant. Because of a series of maintenance errors, a jerry-rigged piping system transferred the flammable and toxic compound to plant areas where it should not have been. Two unsuspecting workers died when they attempted to clear a vent that they didn’t realize contained methyl mercaptan; two others died when coming to their aid.
According to EPA’s complaint, DuPont’s actions violated 22 separate provisions of the Clean Air Act’s RMP. The alleged violations include failing to develop and implement written operating procedures, adequately implement management of change procedures, and implement safe work practices. The citations also include alleged violations of mechanical integrity regulations.
The accident resulted in DuPont’s inclusion in the Occupational Safety & Health Administration’s (OSHA’s) Severe Violator Enforcement Program. OSHA uses that program to concentrate inspections on employers who have “demonstrated indifference toward creating a safe and healthy workplace by committing willful or repeated violations, and/or failing to abate known hazards,” OSHA says. OSHA also fined DuPont $106,000 for workplace safety violations.
Sign up for C&EN's must-read weekly newsletterSubscribe »
YES! I'd like to receive the C&EN Weekly Newsletter.
The Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board also investigated the accident and made several major recommendations to improve production safety. In 2016, however, DuPont chose to permanently shut down the unit, which manufactured methomyl, a carbamate insecticide marketed by DuPont as Lannate.
“DuPont cooperated fully with the investigations, and believes that the settlement is a reasonable resolution,” the company said in a statement. “While the company does not accept or agree with many of the government’s allegations, we will work collaboratively to improve our process safety practices.”
The RMP provisions had been slated for an update by the Obama Administration in the wake of an ammonium nitrate explosion at a Texas farm warehouse in 2013. A two-year examination of safety regulations resulted in tougher RMP provisions, but the final regulation was withdrawn under the Trump administration by former EPA head Scott Pruitt. EPA has since proposed new revisions to the program.
https://cen.acs.org/safety/industrial-safety/DuPont-pay-3-1-million-penalty-for-Texas-accident/96/web/2018/07
-
Groups Oppose Maine's Plans to Lower Pollution Standards
Jul 31, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection is seeking to relax air pollution standards, a move that is receiving opposition from both environmental and tourism groups.
Maine Public reports the Maine DEP has petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to move the majority of the state out of the Ozone Transport Region agreement.
Northeastern states including New York, Pennsylvania and Vermont all set strict pollution limits as part of the agreement.
Stephanie Clement of the organization Friends of Acadia says if Maine lowers standards, other nearby states may follow suit.
The executive director of the Maine Public Health Association says the state DEP's move is "irresponsible."
Marc Cone, director of the Bureau of Air Quality at DEP, says studies have shown Maine can meet its air quality goals without strict standards.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/07/31/us/ap-us-ozone-levels-maine.html
-
Judge Orders EPA to Finish Smog Plan for San Joaquin Valley
Jul 31, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A federal judge has ordered EPA to complete a cleanup strategy by early next year for one of the nation's smoggiest areas.
Under a two-stage timetable, EPA must approve or disapprove most parts of the ground-level ozone reduction plan for California's San Joaquin Valley by this December. But the agency will have until the end of January to act on several other elements that rely on a 2012 "baseline year" for measuring progress and taking other steps.
The legal validity of the 2012 touchstone could hinge on the ultimate outcome of separate appellate court litigation affecting another part of California, EPA lawyers had argued. While they had sought to stay all proceedings in the San Joaquin Valley case until that litigation is resolved, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of California called that step unwarranted.
Rogers issued the order last week in response to a lawsuit brought in March by the Association of Irritated Residents (AIR), a California advocacy group (Greenwire, March 15).
EPA is now reviewing the ruling, a spokeswoman said in an email this morning. Brent Newell, an association attorney, did not immediately reply to an email seeking comment.
The San Joaquin Valley, spanning some 25,000 square miles in central California, is one of only two areas in the country deemed in "extreme nonattainment" for EPA's 2008 ozone standard of 75 parts per billion.
In the suit, AIR alleged that federal regulators had failed to make a decision on the cleanup strategy — approved in mid-2016 by the California Air Resources Board as an amendment to a state implementation plan — by the end of last year as the Clean Air Act requires.
Federal approval would make the plan enforceable, Newell wrote in an April motion, while disapproval could lead to sanctions, including imposition of a federal alternative.
In the meantime, AIR members "are physically and aesthetically harmed by ozone on a regular basis," Newell wrote in the motion, which asked Rogers to require action on the entire San Joaquin Valley plan by this December.
EPA lawyers didn't dispute that the agency was behind schedule, adding that a December deadline was doable for most parts of the plan. Absent a stay, however, they wanted until next March to act on the four "baseline-year-dependent" elements.
The reason: In a ruling early this year on litigation involving the Los Angeles-area South Coast Air Quality Management District, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had thrown the use of the 2012 baseline into question (Greenwire, Feb. 16).
EPA's motion for a rehearing in that litigation is pending with the D.C. Circuit. Acting on the baseline-year-dependent elements before a final resolution entails "a substantial risk of waste," the agency said in a May filing.
In last week's order, however, Rogers wrote that a stay would undercut the Clean Air Act's statutory timetable. Assuming that the D.C. Circuit doesn't resolve the South Coast case by next January and EPA rejects the baseline-year-dependent portions of the plan, the act still allows another 18 months for submission of a revision, she added.
Ozone, a lung irritant that is the main ingredient in smog, is formed by the reaction of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides in sunshine. EPA further tightened its ozone threshold to 70 ppb in 2015 and launched a new review of the standard last month that is supposed to finish by October 2020.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/07/31/stories/1060091737
-
Levi’s Plans to Slash Emissions in Global Supply Chain by 2025
Jul 31, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Erica E. Phillips
Levi Strauss & Co. is launching an effort to slash the environmental impact of the factories world-wide that make its apparel and accessories.
By 2025, the denim brand wants to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40% in its supply chain, a sprawling set of third-party factories and mills in 39 countries that produce the bulk of its merchandise, from its iconic jeans to T-shirts, jackets and other goods.
Levi’s Vice President of Sustainability Michael Kobori said the company will start by implementing energy-efficiency programs at about 60 of the more-than 500 vendors in the first tier of its supply chain—the suppliers the company works with directly. He said those vendors represent the biggest share of both the brand’s production volume as well as its carbon footprint.ALSO IN LOGISTICS
Retail Returns Specialist Optoro Raises $75 Million in New Funding July 30, 2018Trucks Shift Into Higher Gear With New Technology July 25, 2018Truckers Looking to Haul in More Profits July 22, 2018Former Trump Infrastructure Advisor Joins Private-Equity Firm July 19, 2018
Many of those factories also produce apparel for other brands and retailers, and Mr. Kobori said Levi’s wants to set an example for its peers. “We really want to encourage our industry colleagues in the apparel sector to join us,” he said. “We want to have an outsize impact beyond our own footprint.”
Across many industries, support has been growing in recent years for broader, collective efforts to address sustainability and fair labor standards in supply chains. The Consumer Goods Forum, which counts hundreds of the top global retailers and manufacturers as members, seeks to develop and implement sustainability and labor standards worldwide. EcoVadis vets supply chains for about 150 global firms, including Johnson & Johnson, Nestlé SA and Verizon Communications Inc.
Levi Strauss is planning to follow programs developed by the International Finance Corporation’s Partnership for Cleaner Textiles at its supplier factories. Levi’s emissions targets were approved by the Science Based Targets initiative, a consortium of business and environmental groups aimed at setting standards for environmental plans for companies.
Yossi Sheffi, director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Center for Transportation & Logistics, said common standards set through collaboration across supplier networks are more likely to stick than varying targets for different vendors. “You have leverage, you don’t make suppliers crazy with different requirements and you can audit it,” he said.Newsletter Sign-up
But there’s still concern that having more companies participating could dilute the requirements to the “lowest common denominator,” he said.
As part of the new sustainability push, Levi is also committing to use 100% renewable energy and reduce emissions by 90% in its own facilities. But Mr. Kobori said changing practices at its supplier factories will have more of an impact. “It’s a bigger footprint,” he said. “So there’s a big opportunity.”
Mr. Sheffi said it can be extremely difficult for companies to calculate their total carbon emissions because the true impact stretches beyond the factories and even fabric mills to raw materials providers and transport operations. The basic production of denim material also uses large amounts of water and produces chemical runoff.
“When they say ‘supply chain,’ I’d ask, ‘How deep in the supply chain?’” he said. “If it’s tier 1, do you even know your tier 2, 3, 4, or 5 suppliers? Would they even talk to you?”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/levis-plans-to-slash-emissions-in-global-supply-chain-by-2025-1533042003?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=3
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested