More chemicals added to EPA watch list

EPA adds 23 chemicals, including BPA, to key list for scrutiny, possible action

Assessing health risks for chemicals
is hard, ongoing work.

The Environmental Protection Agency has added 23 chemicals — including bisphenol A (BPA), seven phthalates and two flame retardants — to a key list of chemicals that will have particular uses carefully scrutinized for possible regulation or other controls.

The agency on Oct. 23 updated the list of chemicals in commerce that meet certain criteria, such as being used in children's products or being carcinogenic, persistent in the environment or harmful to development, reproduction or the neurological system.

Manufacturers of some of the newly added chemicals include Dow Chemical Co., DuPont, Eastman Chemical Co., Mexichem S.A.B de C.V., Momentive Performance Materials Holdings LLC and Webb Chemical Service Corp.

The EPA also removed 15 chemicals and groups of chemicals from the Toxic Substances Control Act Work Plan list.

The updated TSCA Work Plan now lists 90 chemicals and chemical groups.

The agency is assessing the risks of particular uses of chemicals on that list. It already has completed four assessments and has initiated risk management actions for trichloroethylene (TCE) and methylene chloride.

Assessments for the newly added chemicals will begin after 2017, the agency said.

Depending on the findings of its risk assessments, the agency could decide to regulate one or more uses of the chemical, work with industry to reduce exposures or conclude that its analysis showed a particular use raised no concerns.

Richard Denison, lead senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, commended the EPA for updating its work plan to reflect new data.

“The work plan should be a living document that is revised as new information emerges,” he said.

Scientist questions removal of chemicals

Denison questioned the agency's decision to remove 13 chemicals because manufacturers didn't report making them in 2011, the most recent year for which the agency obtained production volume information. The agency said it concluded that these 13 chemicals were no longer in commerce.

“Reporting under the Chemical Data Reporting rule is subject to a high threshold of 25,000 pounds per site in the reporting year. In addition, numerous exemptions from reporting are provided,” Denison said.

Given the threshold and exemptions, the EPA should explain how it determined the chemicals are no longer being produced in or imported into the U.S. at any level by any company, Denison said.

The EPA's selection of some of the 23 newly added chemicals isn't surprising, as the agency voiced concerns about possible health or environmental harms they could cause in action plans it released between December 2009 and April 2011.

Those chemicals and chemical groups are decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE), hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), nonylphenol and nonylphenol ethoxylates and the seven phthalates.

The EPA added the remaining chemicals for reasons such as 2011 Toxics Release Inventory data showing elevated releases into the environment; 2012 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule information showing the chemicals are used in consumer products, including children's products; and the compounds being newly identified as presenting significant health or environmental hazards.

Other newly added chemicals

The 12 chemicals the agency added for such reasons are:

• 1,3-butadiene, Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) No. 106-99-0, a commodity petrochemical that the EPA said increasingly is used to make rocket fuels, plastics, commercial latex paints and other compounds. Manufacturers, including Chevron Phillips Chemical Co., Lanxess Corp. and Michelin Corp., reported making or importing more than 4.3 billion pounds in 2011.

• 2,5-furandione, CAS No. 108-31-6, a chemical intermediate that the EPA said is used to make thousands of adhesives, floor polishes, leather treatments, personal care products, water treatment chemicals and other compounds. Manufacturers, including Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Greenchem Industries LLC and Lanxess, reported making or importing more than 572 million pounds in 2011.

• dimethylaminoethanol, CAS No. 108-01-0, which the EPA said is used to make dyestuffs, pharmaceuticals, corrosion inhibitors and other compounds. Manufacturers, including BASF Corp., Huntsman Corp. and Solvchem Inc., reported making or importing more than 120 million pounds in 2011.

• 2-hydroxy-4-(octyloxy)benzophenone, CAS No. 1843-05-6, which the EPA said is used in rubber and plastic products as well as food packaging. Manufacturers, including BASF Corp., Cytec Industries Inc. and SC Johnson & Son Inc., reported making or importing 2 million pounds in 2011.

•  3,3'-dichlorobenzidine, CAS No. 91-94-1, which the EPA said is a probable human carcinogen used to make dyes. No public manufacturing or production volume data were available from the agency's CDR rule website.

• 4,4'-(1-methylethylidene)bis[2,6-dibromophenol], or TBBPA, CAS No. 79-94-7, which the EPA said is used to inhibit combustion in epoxy resin circuit boards and electronic enclosures. Manufacturers, including Albemarle Corp., LG International America Inc. and Sabic Innovative Plastics US LLC, reported making or importing 120 million pounds in 2011.

• barium carbonate, CAS No. 513-77-9, which the EPA said is used in oil well drilling and used to make products including paper, special glass, ceramics, bricks and electrodes. Manufacturers, including Chemical Products Corp., Ferro Corp. and Solvay America Inc., reported making or importing 36 million pounds in 2011.

• dicyclohexyl phthalate, CAS No. 84-61-7, which the EPA said is used to make plastics and as a heat sealer for paper finishes such as price labels and pharmaceutical labels. Wind Point Partners, Lanxess and a company that withheld its name (saying it was confidential business information) reported making or importing between 500,000 and 1 million pounds in 2011.

• isopropylated phenol, phosphate or iPTPP, CAS No. 68937-41-7, which the EPA said is used as a flame retardant. Manufacturers, including Chevron Corp., ICL-Industrial Products America Inc. and Special Material Co., reported making or importing 15 million pounds in 2011.

• molybdenum and molybdenum compounds, a category of chemical used as alloying agents in cast iron, steel and other metals. Because this is a group of chemicals, Bloomberg BNA could not obtain national production data.

• pentachlorothio-phenol, CAS No. 133-49-3, which the EPA said is used to make rubber more pliable. The EPA withheld production volume data for this chemical to protect the proprietary business information of Strucktol Co. of America, the sole manufacturer, which reported making or importing it in 2011.

• triphenyl phosphate or TPP, CAS No. 115-86-6, which the EPA said is widely used to slow fires in polyurethane foam, polyvinyl chloride, printed wiring boards and children's products. Manufacturers, including Albemarle Corp., Chevron and Ferro Corp., reported making or importing 10.7 million pounds in 2011.

Source: Bloomberg News

If you work with chemicals, exposure is a serious occupational health and safety risk. Electrocorp has designed a wide range of industrial and commercial air cleaners that help remove airborne chemicals, gases, fumes, odors, particles, dust and biological contaminants. Contact Electrocorp for more information and a free consultation.

Chemical companies back new laws but less regulation

Chemical giants want stronger federal law

Chemicals used in products need to
be regulated more, experts say.

The powerful chemical industry is putting its lobbying muscle behind legislation that would establish standards for chemicals used in products from household goods to cellphones and plastic water bottles – but also make it tougher for states to enact their own regulations.

Many states already have acted on their own.

“Rather than be picked apart on a state-by-state basis, with different regulations, we needed to have a coherent and cohesive federal system,” said Anne Kolton, spokeswoman for the American Chemistry Council.

The group, which represents Dow, DuPont, BASF Corp. and 3M, spent nearly $6 million on lobbying in the first half of the year, the most recent reporting period.

There’s widespread agreement that the current law needs an overhaul.

Chemical manufacturers aren’t required to develop new data on toxicity and exposure, which has led to products containing chemicals that haven’t been screened for safety.

The President’s Cancer Panel said in 2010 that act “may be the most egregious example of ineffective regulation of environmental contaminants.”

But a big sticking point is the role of the states in regulating chemicals.

Regulation of chemicals took on new urgency after a crippling spill in West Virginia last January contaminated drinking water for 300,000 residents. The chemical in the January spill, crude MCHM, is one of thousands not regulated under current law.

West Virginia, which has not aggressively regulated chemicals, supports the Senate bill. It would require safety evaluations for all chemicals and give the Environmental Protection Agency authority to take action against chemicals deemed unsafe – ranging from labeling requirements to a ban. It would also overtake some state regulations – primarily when EPA takes action to regulate a chemical.

California, by comparison, has some of the toughest chemical regulations in the country.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, is fighting to preserve state regulations. She said under the bill, states “face sweeping pre-emption even when there is no meaningful action by the federal government.”

In a letter to Congress last year, California EPA Secretary Matt Rodriquez said dozens of California laws and regulations would be at risk if the bill passes, including those regulating greenhouse gases and safe drinking water.

New York’s attorney general has raised similar concerns. Regulation by states such as California and New York can have a national impact because of their large markets.

Several of ACC’s larger members, including Bayer Corp., DuPont and Dow Chemical, lobbied on the Senate bill in the first half of the year. Connie Deford, Dow’s director of product sustainability and compliance, said the company supports the framework of the Senate bill.

“We believe it’s critical for our industry that we have a stronger federal chemical management system than where we sit today,” Deford said.

Outgunned financially, environmentalists have sometimes used star power to help illuminate their cause, but that hasn’t been enough to overcome industry opposition. The Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition had teamed up with actress Jessica Alba to promote different legislation. The bill never got a vote in Congress.

In an interview, Alba said she can’t compete with lobbyists.

“You can have certain public figures go in and advocate and raise a red flag and put a spotlight on an issue, but at the end of the day, it’s people that are there day in and day out, that are pounding the pavement,” Alba said.

Source: The Journal Gazette

Concerned about chemical contaminants in your environment? A complete air purification system with activated carbon and HEPA help remove the widest range of airborne chemicals, gases, fumes, odors, particles, dust, mold, bacteria, viruses, VOCs and more. Browse Electrocorp's air cleaners for commercial and industrial applications and contact Electrocorp to ask about home and office units as well.

Europe lists nine chemicals as Very High Concern

Europe requires chemicals of concern
to be used with specific authorization.

The European Commission has officially designated nine chemicals, including one used to make coated galvanized steel, as substances of very high concern, meaning their uses will have to be authorized.

In a separate action, Austria, Denmark, Germany and Sweden announced their intent to nominate an additional 10 chemicals as substances of very high concern (SVHC).

The European Commission regulation, published in the Aug. 19 Official Journal of the European Union, carries out recommendations made by the European Chemicals Agency in 2013.

The regulation places nine chemicals on the Annex 14 list of the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals (REACH) regulation (EC 1907/2006).

Listing in Annex 14 means the substance can't be used without specific authorization. The Aug. 19 regulation includes deadlines by which authorization requests must be filed. Depending on the chemical, the deadlines fall between Feb. 22, 2016, and July 22, 2017.

Steel-coating chemical of concern

Among the nine chemicals is strontium chromate (EC No. 232-142-6; CAS No. 7789-06-2), which is made in or imported into the European Union in a total volume ranging between 1,000 metric tons and 10,000 metric tons (1,102-11,023 U.S. short tons) per year, ECHA said in a background document supporting its recommendation. Much of that is exported, ECHA added.

Coil coating refers to steel that is coated, often including a layer of zinc, during the manufacturing process, as opposed to coating in batches after production. Flat-rolled steel is often shipped in rolls known as coils.

Wayne Pigment Corp. is the main U.S. company making strontium chromate, while Akzo Nobel Coatings Inc. is among the chemical's importers.

Strontium chromate primarily is used to protect steel and zinc in coil-coated galvanized steel, ECHA said. The coil-coated metal mainly is used in buildings.

Much smaller quantities of strontium chromate are used in primers, sealants, joint compounds and top coat paints for aerospace applications and in anticorrosion primers, in fillers and sealants for the construction and maintenance of heavy duty vehicles and trucks, military vehicles and agricultural equipment, ECHA said.

Other chemicals added to the list:

• Ethylene dichloride, also known as 1,2-dichloroethane. The most common use of 1,2-dichloroethane is to make vinyl chloride, which is used to make a variety of plastic and vinyl products, including polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes, furniture and automobile upholstery, wall coverings, housewares and automobile parts. The uses that would be subject to authorization are 1,2-dichloroethane's use as a solvent and as an ingredient in chemical mixtures, ECHA said.
• Oligomeric reaction products of formaldehyde with aniline (technical MDA);
• Arsenic acid;
• Bis(2-methoxyethyl) ether (diglyme);
• 2,2'-dichloro-4,4'-methylenedianiline;
• Dichromium tris(chromate);
• Potassium hydroxyoctaoxodizincatedichromate
• Pentazinc chromate octahydroxide

Member States Propose 10 SVHCs

Meanwhile, on Aug. 4 Austria, Denmark, Germany and Sweden filed information to support the nomination of several phthalates and other chemicals among 10 compounds they said should be classified as substances of very high concern.

Those 10 chemicals are:

• Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
• 2-benzotriazol-2-yl-4,6-di-tert-butylphenol (UV-320) 
• Dibutyl phthalate 
• 2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-4,6-ditertpentylphenol (UV-328) 
• Cadmium sulphate 
• Cadmium fluoride 
• 2-ethylhexyl 10-ethyl-4,4-dioctyl-7-oxo-8-oxa-3,5-dithia-4-stannatetradecanoate
• Diisobutyl phthalate 
• Benzyl butyl phthalate 
• A reaction chemical proposed by Austria

Source: Bloomberg News

Concerned about chemical exposure at the workplace? 

Activated carbon is the best
filtration media for chemicals,
gases, fumes and odors.

Longterm exposure to most chemicals can affect employee well-being, health and productivity.

Electrocorp has designed industrial and commercial air cleaners with one of the most comprehensive filtration systems to remove the widest range of airborne contaminants.

The activated carbon + HEPA air filters remove chemicals, fumes, vapors, odors, particles, dust, allergens, bacteria, viruses and mold.

Contact Electrocorp for more information and a free consultation.

States take action on toxic chemicals regulations

Toxic chemicals can hide in many
commonly used products.

In Vermont, the Senate has just passed a bill potentially empowering the Green Mountain State to ban chemicals it deems harmful to consumers.

Some 3,000 miles away, in Washington State, environmental reformers weren’t as successful: A bill to ban six toxic flame retardants died in the Senate, beaten back by industry opposition and politicians’ cries of state overreaching.

In state capitols from Maine to Oregon, environmental advocates are filing bills to identify and ban noxious chemicals and industry groups are fighting back with pointed rebukes and high-pitched lobbying. Toxic reform legislation is either breathing with new life or being extinguished altogether.

The toxics tug-of-war in state houses is direct fallout from the muddled environmental politicking of Washington, D.C.

In 1976, Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act, a federal framework intended to safeguard the public from dangerous chemicals. Yet in the nearly four decades since, TSCA, as it is known, has done little more than gather dust.

Among tens of thousands of chemicals in commerce, the Environmental Protection Agency has “only been able to require testing on a little more than 200 existing chemicals,” and banned five, the EPA told The Center for Public Integrity.

Everyone wants to revamp TSCA — from the industry’s $100 million lobbying arm, the American Chemistry Council, to the Environmental Defense Fund, an advocacy group, to the EPA itself.

Yet three years to the month since the late New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg proposed sweeping change through the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011, the TSCA overhaul remains in the works, with proposals, counter-proposals and criticisms about the working draft’s fine print.

Fed up with logjams in D.C., state legislators are filing hundreds of measures in their own states to do what the federal government hasn’t — take action against destructive chemicals, by singling out the most dangerous toxins and seeking to remove them from shelves.

As the Center for Public Integrity reported last year, the American Chemistry Council and other industry groups fight nearly every state measure, contending that a patchwork of state laws would do more harm than good, and that true change should come through TSCA.

Source: Center for Public Integrity. This article has been edited for length.

Concerned about toxic chemicals in products and in the air? Electrocorp has designed commercial and industrial air purifiers with activated carbon and HEPA to remove the widest range of airborne contaminants. Contact Electrocorp for more information and a free consultation.

Vermont pondering bill to regulate toxic chemicals

The bill would allow regulated use of
some chemicals that are harmful to health.

Federal regulations for reporting toxic chemicals in consumer products have not changed in decades, but Vermont is poised to join other states to label – and possibly ban – products containing chemicals considered harmful to public health.

Vermont has passed legislation to regulate the use of certain chemicals one at a time, including flame retardants, Bisphenol A (BPA), mercury and lead. But a new proposal would allow the Vermont Department of Health to expand this list every other year without legislative approval.

The bill, S.239, asks the department to create a list of potentially harmful chemicals and require manufacturers to label or remove toxic chemicals from their products – a proposal that has alarmed businesses across the country.

“Ultimately, we think industry should welcome some degree of regulation and transparency to provide the public better products and safer products,” Health Commissioner Harry Chen said in testimony last week before the Senate Economic Development Committee.

But some manufacturers say the list of toxic chemicals could be bad for business in Vermont. Some companies spend millions each year to report chemicals in their products in states with similar existing regulations, industry representatives told lawmakers drafting the bill.

The bill cleared the Senate Health and Welfare Committee (where it was introduced by Sen. Ginny Lyons, D-Chittenden) and was then taken up by Senate Economic Development to address business concerns.

“I’m trying to bring the tension level down and let everybody know we’re not on a witch hunt,” committee Chair Sen. Kevin Mullin, R-Rutland, said last week. “We’re just trying to protect people from bad chemicals.”

The committee later revised the bill to exempt electronic products and any chemicals found in ammunition for air rifles, such as lead. The bill was voted out of committee Friday and the full Senate will vote on the bill as soon as Wednesday.

Environmental groups support the bill. It would protect consumers against the harmful effects of toxic chemicals, according to Lauren Hierl, political director for the Vermont Conservation Voters.

Asthma, obesity, infertility and cancers are some of the health effects of chemicals found in products sold in Vermont, she said. “They are just exacerbating these bad health trends,” she said. Hierl said she does not expect Vermont to ban chemicals that do not have a replacement.

Under Vermont’s proposed system, the health department and an advisory committee would compile a list of chemicals considered harmful to health, require manufacturers to disclose to the state these chemicals found in their products and mandate that the chemicals be either labeled or not sold in the state.

Source: VT Digger. The article has been edited for length.

Concerned about toxic chemicals in your working environment? Electrocorp offers industrial and commercial air purification systems that remove VOCs, fumes, odors, particles, dust, bacteria, viruses, mold and more. Contact Electrocorp for more information. 

Tension over outdated regulations in cosmetics industry

Toxic chemicals in cosmetics products
have been linked to health problems.

Concerned about old regulations that have left it with little power to ensure the safety of thousands of consumer products, the Food and Drug Administration launched talks with the cosmetics industry more than a year ago.

The goal was to reach a deal on a regulatory regime that has not changed since 1938.

The regulator and the regulated appeared to reach a rare kumbaya moment last summer — an agreement on the outline of legislation to beef up the agency’s authority while giving the industry greater certainty.

But the talks collapsed, and those once-promising private discussions have given way to public pronouncements of disillusionment, frustration and distrust.

In a letter, a top FDA official charged that the cosmetics industry’s latest proposals would undercut the government’s already weak authority, prevent states from undertaking enforcement actions and “put Americans at greater risk from cosmetics-related illness and injury than they are today.”

In his letter, FDA Deputy Commissioner Michael Taylor told two trade groups representing the $60 billion-a-year industry that there is no longer enough common ground to “justify devoting further taxpayer resources to this negotiation.”

The Personal Care Products Council, which represents an estimated 600 companies, quickly rejected the notion that it wants to weaken federal oversight of cosmetics, and it said suggestions that cosmetics products are dangerous are reckless, counterproductive and not supported by data.

“We are extremely disappointed that FDA has indicated they will not participate in further discussions,” Lezlee Westine, the group’s president, said in a statement. “We all share in the common goal of protecting consumers. In fact, product safety is the cornerstone of all that this industry represents. . . . We will work with Congress to pursue meaningful solutions.”

Tests revealed toxic ingredients in popular products

The stalemate has proved particularly galling to consumer advocacy groups, who have long pushed for more government oversight over the chemicals used to produce millions of products used by Americans every day, from lipstick and hair spray to toothpaste, deodorant and baby lotion.

Janet Nudelman, director of the California-based Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, said the industry’s proposals — which could put the onus on the FDA to prove that questionable chemicals are unsafe and could preempt some state regulations — are “a slap in the face” to Americans who expect transparency about the products they use.

“Industry simply should not be calling the shots anymore,” she said. “They’ve been calling the shots for over 75 years in what little federal regulation there is.”

She cited tests that have turned up lead in lipstick, formaldehyde in hair care products and mercury in face cream.

The cosmetics industry has called some of those findings misleading and unnecessarily alarming, noting that the FDA found no level of lead in lipstick that would pose health concerns.

Compared to its authority to oversee pharmaceuticals and foods, the FDA remains virtually toothless when it comes to regulating cosmetics. It has no power to review products before they go on the market.

Companies do not have to list all of the ingredients in their products, and they do not have to register their manufacturing facilities with the government. They also are not required to report “adverse events,” making it difficult for regulators to spot potential problems.

Other countries have put in place far more stringent regulatory systems. The European Union, for example, has banned the use of about 1,300 chemicals in consumer cosmetics products. By comparison, the FDA has banned fewer than a dozen, most of which were listed in the 1970s and 1980s, the agency said.

However, some companies have made changes in the wake of consumer demands. Johnson & Johnson recently reformulated its iconic baby shampoo and other products after pledging to remove formaldehyde and another chemical that regulators have deemed potentially harmful, even as it has maintained that the products were safe.

Source: Washington Post

Concerned about chemical exposure at work or at home? Electrocorp offers industrial-strength air cleaners with activated carbon and HEPA air filters to remove the widest range of airborne contaminants (including formaldehyde, xylene, common VOCs). Contact Electrocorp for more information and a free consultation.

Asbestos registry law in effect in Canadian province

Saskatchewan first province to enact asbestos reporting legislation

Asbestos exposure can lead to life-threatening
illness and is a public health hazard, authorities say.

Nearly a year after the death of an advocate from cancer caused by asbestos exposure, the Saskatchewan government has officially enacted a law named after him — a law making it mandatory for public buildings containing the notorious mineral to report it.

The Public Health Amendment Act, also known as Howard’s Law, went into effect on Nov. 7. The law makes Saskatchewan the first Canadian province to enact legislation requiring a public registry of buildings known to contain asbestos.

Crown corporations, schools, health facilities and provincial government organizations must now report any asbestos content in their facilities to the Saskatchewan Asbestos Registry.

“At the present time, it’s mandatory for public buildings,” explained Don Morgan, Saskatchewan’s minister of labour relations and workplace safety. “That will include buildings owned by public sector entities, and it will be optional for building owners beyond that point. So if you are a large commercial landlord and you wish to list your buildings, you could, but we require it for hospitals, schools and that type of thing.”

The provincial government passed the act in the legislature after its third reading on April 18, five months after Saskatchewan launched a voluntary registry and an online information guide about buildings with asbestos.

Morgan anticipates that the new law will benefit the public in two ways: providing specific information about asbestos content in the province’s buildings, and raising public awareness of the general existence of the material.

The risk occurs if asbestos is accidentally disturbed
and asbestos fibers become airborne.

“It exists in a lot of buildings that were constructed before 1980,” he said. “In most of them, it’s encased and it’s not a factor. The problem arises when somebody will go in to change plumbing pipes or do electrical work and then will inadvertently disturb the asbestos, and it becomes airborne. The risk occurs if it’s accidentally disturbed or moved into the air,” Morgan said.

Howard’s Law is, in part, the legacy of the late Howard Willems, an asbestos awareness activist who worked for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency while co-chairing local oh&s committees (COHSN, Nov. 19, 2012). In 2010, Willems was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a type of lung cancer linked to asbestos. He passed away on Nov. 8, 2012.

“We’ve accomplished everything that Howard set out to do,” said Jesse Todd, a health and safety officer in Saskatchewan and the chairman of the Saskatchewan Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (SADAO). “We’ve carried on in his name, in his honour, so it’s very gratifying to see this become law.”

Willems co-founded SADAO with fellow activist Bob Sass in 2010, out of the former Saskatchewan Ban Asbestos Committee.

Todd suggests that the other provinces — and the federal government, which has jurisdiction over a lot of buildings and facilities under the Canada Labour Code — need to consider adopting similar asbestos registries. “I believe that a registry would benefit those workers as well,” he said.

“There are some good regulations out there that do refer to how to deal with asbestos once it’s been identified. But the problem is, people do not have the tools available to them to identify where asbestos is prior to beginning a renovation of a building.”

Source: OHS Canada

Need to know more about occupational health and safety concerns surrounding asbestos? Electrocorp's air cleaners for mold and asbestos abatement contain activated carbon and HEPA filters to remove airborne asbestos fibers and gases from the indoor air environment. Contact Electrocorp for more information and a free IAQ consultation.

Recycling plant fined for lack of respiratory protection

Companies may have to pay large fines
if they fail to protect workers.

EAST TROY, Wis. – Strategic Materials Inc., a glass and plastic recycling company, has been cited for 11 health violations carrying proposed fines of $82,000.

The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration found a repeat violation involving the company's failure to develop and implement a respiratory protection program following a May complaint inspection of the East Troy facility.

"Strategic Materials must protect the respiratory health of its workers and maintain a workplace free of known hazards," said Kim Stille, OSHA's area director in Madison. "As one of the nation's leading recycling companies, it should know the hazards unique to the industry."

A repeat violation exists when an employer previously has been cited for the same or a similar violation of a standard, regulation, rule or order at any facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years.

Similar violations were cited in August 2012 at the company's Sarasota, Fla., facility.

Nine serious violations include failing to prevent workplace exposure to airborne concentrations of dust and lead above the eight-hour time-weighted average limit; prevent excessive accumulation of combustible dust; provide respiratory protection; have a hearing conservation program; implement engineering controls for dust accumulation; and have training on the bloodborne pathogen standards and hazardous chemicals in use in the workplace.

A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.

One other-than-serious violation involves failing to train forklift operators. An other-than-serious violation is one that has a direct relationship to job safety and health, but probably would not cause death or serious physical harm.

The Houston-based company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations and proposed penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director, or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Previously inspected by OSHA at several of its 40 locations nationwide, this was the first at the company's East Troy facility.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA's role is to ensure these conditions for America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.

Source: OSHA News Release

Concerned about hazardous chemicals and poor indoor air quality in your workplace? Electrocorp has designed a wide range of commercial and industrial indoor air cleaners for many applications. The air purifiers use a large activated carbon filter as well as HEPA to remove airborne chemicals, gases and odors, particles, dust and biological contaminants. Contact Electrocorp for more information and a consultation.

California presses ahead on regulation of toxic chemicals

In new battleground over toxic reform, American Chemistry Council targets the states

Companies will have to assess whether safer
chemicals are available and remove toxic
chemicals from their products.

Aiming to identify and remove dangerous chemicals from consumer products, California formally adopted new rules that go well beyond a flimsy federal protection net weakened by delays.

California’s Safer Consumer Products Regulations, described as the first of its kind in the country, allows the state to publish a list of potentially threatening chemicals — and then, by next April, target up to five priority products containing them.

Companies manufacturing those goods in California will have to launch detailed assessments to see whether safer chemicals are available and, if so, alter their products. The goal: To remove toxic chemicals from commerce and prompt industry to provide safe alternatives.

The initial target of five products, state officials say, represents the launch of an effort they envision bringing long-term change.

California is moving ahead against the backdrop of long-running delays in revamping federal statutes meant to protect consumers from toxic substances.

The federal Toxic Substances Control Act, passed in 1976, grants the Environmental Protection Agency power to require testing of dangerous compounds. Yet some four decades later, the EPA has rarely used that power as Congress has been tied up in a protracted effort to reform TSCA.

Under TSCA, the EPA said, it has “only been able to require testing on a little more than 200 existing chemicals,” and banned five. “Restoring confidence in EPA’s existing chemicals chemical management program is a priority for EPA and the Administration,” the agency said in a statement.

State officials across the U.S. support strengthening TSCA — but don’t want changes to handcuff their ability to protect consumers in their own states. Just last month, the Environmental Council of the States, a non-profit, non-partisan association of state environmental leaders, passed a resolution urging reform of the federal statutes. Among the group’s goals:

• Preserving “state authority to protect citizens and the environment from toxic exposures and to manage chemicals of concern … ”
• Ensuring that “the burden is effectively placed on manufacturers to prove that existing and new chemicals are safe.”

The American Chemistry Council, an industry advocacy group, has opposed hundreds of state bills in recent years, the organization’s tax forms show. The ACC says true toxic reform should come through TSCA, not the states, and backs a pending proposal pushed by the late New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg.

In California, the ACC pushed back against the new regulations. “At best the proposed regulation will produce a marginal improvement in human health and environmental safety, but at great expense and lost opportunities for businesses nationwide,” the council wrote in October.

Now, the state department will develop a list of “priority products” that contain one of approximately 150 toxic chemicals.

Editor's note: This article has been edited for length. 

Source: Public Integrity

Worried about chemical exposure or poor indoor air quality at your workplace? Contact Electrocorp for versatile air cleaning solutions that work. Call 1-866-667-0297.

Study to shed light on people's attitude toward health and safety

IOSH funds research into public's attitude toward health and safety regulations

Health and safety measures often include
personal protective equipment and air
cleaners, as shown above.

A study led by the University of Reading in partnership with the University of Portsmouth and funded by the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) will examine how the social standing and perceived value of health and safety regulation has changed over the last 50 years.

Researchers will interview key stakeholders from health and safety practice, including former regulators, politicians, policymakers, workers and trade union safety representatives, employers and managers, and others who have played an active role in health and safety law during the period.

Health and safety regulations affect everyone, and they have become an important area of the law, according to the project's principal investigator Prof. Paul Almond of the University of Reading.

He mentioned the recent Deepwater Horizon BP disaster in 2010 and events such as the Piper Alpha oil rig fire that brought the need of protective laws to the forefront of people's minds. The laws are designed to protect the public from harmful side effects of work.

The nature of the laws has changed from very specific and prescriptive complex laws to a broader law also covering the office-based service-sector economy.

Based on facts and figures, these laws have become a success story, with rates of death, injury  and illness falling significantly, but there seems to be a negative stigma attached to the concept of health and safety.

The researchers hope to uncover the reasons why the public is not embracing health and safety regulations, and what kind of actions may cause this situation to change.

Workplaces have changed over time, and the nature of the hazard is very different than what it was in the 1960s and 1970s, says Jane White,  IOSH Research and Information Services manager.

"Now we face a juxtaposition between the public perception of red tape and the reality of a legal framework that is fit for purpose."

The project is scheduled to last two years.

This article has been edited for length. Source: Occupational Health & Safety Online

Breathe cleaner air at work

Exposure to contaminated air can affect workers' health and well-being. Unfortunately, most building materials, textiles, finishing products and electronics can contribute to poor indoor air quality.

Of course, the risk is even higher if workers also handle hazardous substances, machinery or products that expose them to airborne chemicals, fumes and gases.

Activated carbon adsorbs airborne
chemicals, gases and fumes.

Health and safety regulations may require personal protective equipment, adequate ventilation and air cleaning measures to keep workers safe and healthy.

For the most advanced air cleaning systems at your workplace, contact Electrocorp to speak to an IAQ expert.

Electrocorp has designed air cleaners with a triple-protection air filter system for the most comprehensive air purification systems, which includes an activated carbon wall with many pounds of granular activated charcoal for chemicals and fumes, a HEPA or micro-HEPA particle filter and UV germicidal filtration for biological contaminants.

Whether it's air cleaners for office environments, the health care sector, welding and soldering, law enforcement or many other chemical and odor control applications, Electrocorp will proudly supply versatile air filtration systems that last. Ask about special carbon blends and other options.

Chemical info available through EPA Web Tool

Tool expands access to scientific, regulatory information on chemicals

The web tool allows for a comparison
of multiple chemicals.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has launched a web-based tool, called ChemView, to significantly improve access to chemical specific regulatory information developed by EPA and data submitted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The ChemView web tool displays key health and safety data in an online format that allows comparison of chemicals by use and by health or environmental effects.

The search tool combines available TSCA information and provides streamlined access to EPA assessments, hazard characterizations, and information on safer chemical ingredients.

In addition, the new web tool allows searches by chemical name or Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number, use, hazard effect, or regulatory action. It has the flexibility to create tailored views of the information on individual chemicals or compare multiple chemicals sorted by use, hazard effect or other criteria.

The new portal will also link to information on manufacturing, processing, use, and release data reported under the Chemical Data Reporting Rule, and the Toxics Release Inventory.

In the months ahead, EPA will be continuously adding additional chemicals, functionality and links. When fully updated, the web tool will contain data for thousands of chemicals. EPA has incorporated stakeholder input into the design, and welcomes feedback on the current site.

To view and search ChemView, click here.

Working with chemicals or worried about fumes and vapor exposure? Electrocorp is one of North America's leading manufacturers of industrial and commercial air purification systems. The air cleaners feature a multistage filter system with a granular activated carbon wall, HEPA and pre-filters. Special carbon blends and industry-specific options are available. Contact Electrocorp for more information.

Chemical exposure: Businesses looking for safer solutions

Smaller businesses listen to clients' concerns about toxic chemicals in household products and materials

Clients and businesses demand safer products and materials.

Small businesses need to be tuned into their clients’ preferences and concerns in order to survive.

Since chemical exposure and indoor air quality is now ranking high as a public health concern, it is no wonder many small businesses are supporting their clients’ wishes for safer alternatives and better regulations.

In Maine, for example, more than 100 businesses have signed or written letters urging government officials to take action on this issue, saying they are worried about recalls and their liability when toxic chemicals are revealed in the products they are using or selling.

More than 150 businesses also participated in a survey, which showed that businesses regularly encounter clients asking about toxic chemicals or potential hazards.

Many consumers and businesses have been calling for an updated federal standard, which would require chemical companies to demonstrate the safety of their products before they are widely used, allow more public information on chemicals and their health impacts, give EPA the best available science to do research on chemicals and support businesses that are developing safer chemicals.

The new Safe Chemicals Act would update the Toxic Substances Control Act from 1976.

Source: Sun Journal 

Cleaner air is safer air

Activated carbon is among the most effective and trusted
filter media to remove gaseous pollutants indoors.

Small businesses and professionals working in people’s homes can boost their chemical confidence by using a portable yet powerful air cleaner with activated carbon and HEPA filtration technologies.

Electrocorp offers industrial-strength air cleaners with many pounds of granular activated carbon to adsorb a wide range of chemicals, gases, fumes and odors, plus a HEPA filter to trap airborne particles and dust.

The air cleaners can be used for construction (like welding and fume extraction), mold and asbestos remediation, woodworking, interior decorating (and painting) and general purpose air cleaning (Electrocorp is a division of AllerAir Industries, which provides home and office air purifiers).

Contact Electrocorp for more information.
 

New proposed regulation takes tough stance on toxic chemicals

The proposed regulation will provide
consumers with info about toxic chemicals
in common household products.

California has often been at the forefront of tough regulatory standards when it comes to air pollution and chemicals.

That reputation is likely to uphold, as the state agency in charge of regulating toxic substances has released a new proposal for a “green chemistry” regulation that is supposed to inform consumers about harmful chemicals in products.

This is a revised draft – the first version was criticized for being too weak.

The new version has a longer list of “chemicals of concern”, doles out more responsibility to comply with the regulation and has stricter guidelines for products that include traces of potentially harmful chemicals such as lead and bisphenol A.

The aim is for consumers to be able to identify harmful substances in the products they use and to push manufacturers to replace harmful chemicals with safer alternatives.

The businesses will otherwise be required to explain to regulators why the substances are needed and take steps to raise consumer awareness and reduce their exposure.

Some highlights of the proposal:

• The proposal lists around 3,000 chemicals of concern (up from 800 in the previous draft)
• Products containing a particularly dangerous toxin will be exempted only if they contain less than 0.01 percent (as opposed to 0.1 percent in the previous draft)
• It’s not only the manufacturers who are responsible for complying with the regulation, but also importers and those in control of product design.

Source: San Francisco Chronicle 

Worried about exposure to airborne chemicals at home or at work? Electrocorp offers a wide range of versatile air cleaners with a comprehensive air filtration system to remove most chemicals, gases, odors, fumes, particulate matter, pathogens and more. Contact us for more information: 1-866-667-0297.