Tag Archives: environmental regulations

EPA Induces ToxCast Labor, Hires 4 Companies

Posted on by

Interesting news:  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ToxCast chemical screening program has awarded contracts to four United States-based companies to test up to 10,000 chemicals for potential toxicity to people and the environment. ToxCast is designed to determine how chemical exposures affect human health.

The idea behind ToxCast is that it will be able to screen thousands of chemicals in fast, cost-effective tests.  A key goal of the initiative is to reduce EPA’s reliance on slow and expensive animal toxicity tests, enabling the agency to screen chemicals more quickly and “to predict and identify potential risks to Americans.”  Frankly testing mice and bunnies does seem, besides distasteful, a bit archaic.

The companies are:

All four companies will likely hire new employees as a result of these contracts, and it’s good that EPA considered this in the selection.  The companies have offices across the U.S., including smaller markets such as Michigan.  Two of the companies — Vala Sciences and BioReliance — are small businesses.

The four companies will initially screen up to 1,000 chemicals currently in the ToxCast program using innovative technologies such as stem cell toxicity tests. These new technologies can quickly determine the potential for a chemical to cause harm to the human body.  Screening results from the new technologies will be combined with data already being generated by the other 500 rapid chemical tests used by EPA’s ToxCast program.

The chemicals ToxCast is now screening are found in industrial and consumer products, food additives and drugs.

EPA scientific studies using ToxCast have already been published in peer-reviewed science journals, and demonstrate the ability of ToxCast to predict a chemical’s potential to cause several diseases.

For more information on ToxCast database:  http://actor.epa.gov/actor/faces/ToxCastDB/Home.jsp

Image credit: Jack Dykinga – USFWS/public domain

EPA, Dell, Sprint and Sony Have New E-Waste Policy

Posted on by

The US Environmental Protection Agency made a Big Announcement this week in Austin, TX, regarding e-waste and product stewardship — the announcement came as EPA head Lisa Jackson stood beside leaders from Sprint, Dell and Sony.

In Austin, EPA Administrator Jackson signed a voluntary commitment agreement with Dell CEO Michael Dell and Sprint CEO Dan Hesse to promote a US-based electronics recycling market. Sony Electronics Inc. representatives were apparently present and “also committed to improving the safe management of used electronics,” but it wasn’t clear whether they signed anything. But their presence indicates good intentions.

“Americans generate nearly 2.5 million tons of used electronics each year,” said Chris Nowak of Actio Corp., the New England-based company that tracks manufacturing regulations worldwide and bundles these findings into product stewardship compliance software.*

“This is a key commitment made today by Dell, Sony and Sprint,” Nowak said. “Evolving end-of-life policies such as these force designers, quality assurance personnel and manufacturers to think differently about their products and their product quality.”

Michael Dell, chairman and CEO, Dell Inc. said, regarding the stewardship initiative, “Last fiscal year, we diverted more than 150 million pounds of end-of-life electronics globally from landfills, and we are well on our way to meeting our goal of recycling 1 billion pounds by 2014. We encourage everyone in our industry to commit to easier, more responsible recycling as we all work to protect our planet.”

E-waste not, want not. Under the strategy announced today, the US General Services Administration (GSA) says if products do not comply with comprehensive and robust energy efficiency or environmental performance standards, those products will be removed from the information technology purchase contracts used by federal agencies.  GSA also says it will ensure that all electronics used by the Federal government are reused or recycled properly.

Key components of today’s announced strategy include:

  1. using certified recyclers
  2. increasing safe and effective management and handling of used electronics in the US
  3. working with industry in a collaborative manner to achieve that goal.

For more information on the EPA and industry collaboration, click here.

Electronics stew:  wardship and US policy. It’s not the first time we’ve heard rumblings of this sort. Last October, Lisa Jackson visited China — including a site visit to Guiyu, home of perhaps the most famous e-waste dump but certainly not the only one.   And just a few weeks ago a new e-waste bill was proposed by US Representatives Gene Green and Mike Thompson, with a focus on the exports of used electronics. It’s called the Responsible Electronics Recycling Act. It establishes a new category of “restricted electronic waste” — that is — waste that cannot be exported from the US to developing nations.

Exemptions from the bill include:

  1. used equipment can still be exported for reuse as long as it’s been tested and is fully functional
  2. nonhazardous parts or materials are also not restricted
  3. crushed cathode ray tube (CRT) glass cullet that is cleaned and fully prepared as feedstock into CRT glass manufacturing facilities.

WEEE WEEE WEEE. In other responsible product end-of-life news: in February 2011, members of the European Parliament (MEPs) passed new WEEE guidelines for electronic waste.  Key points are as follows:

  1. manufacturers would help pay for goods disposal
  2. EU governments would implement more stringent penalties for breaching, e.g, for falsely identifying shipments as “reusable”
  3. authorities would be able to target all WEEE categories
  4. current ambition levels for collection rates would be maintained
  5. European standards would be set for collection, recycling and treatment for WEEE management.

For full details, see article on the top 5 WEEE bits.

Europe accepts a RoHS. In related RoHS news, the Council of the European Union (“the Council”) officially revised the RoHS directive earlier this summer. In the Big Picture, this critical recast attempts to harmonize the directive across the European Union.

In the smaller picture, RoHS affects hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment.  The chemical restrictions will now apply to all electrical and electronic equipment, as well as to cables and spare parts, and to medical devices, medical equipment, control and monitoring equipment – which were previously exempt from RoHS compliance but are not exempt now.

REACH Guidance EZ – Documents For the Rest of Us

Posted on by

Those interested in REACH regulation should know that the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has published a new version of its Guidance in a Nutshell.  Relevant to any company that makes, sells, buys or even thinks about finished goods, it’s called “Guidance in a Nutshell on Requirements for Substances in Articles.”

The updated “Guidance in a Nutshell” is a good document for those of us who are engineers, and who are not lawyers or overly obsessed with the finer points of Policy minutiae. The document addresses in simple terms the primary bullet points of ECHA’s new version of the Guidance on Requirements for Substances in Articles, itself something of a monster (worth wrestling with for some of us, but not all).

The Nutshell document’s aim is to help companies who produce, import or supply articles.  Specifically, it will help them to identify their obligations regarding substances in articles under REACH.  The document briefly explains key bullets such as:

  1. the concept of an article
  2. obligations for registration, notification and communication
  3. possible exemptions from these obligations

Here are the links you need:
Guidance in a Nutshell on Requirements for Substances in Articles:
http://guidance.echa.europa.eu/docs/guidance_document/nutshell_guidance_articles2_en.pdf

Guidance on requirements for substances in articles:
http://guidance.echa.europa.eu/docs/guidance_document/articles_en.htm

General ECHA guidance website:
http://guidance.echa.europa.eu/index_en.htm

Green Chemistry Status in California and All US States

Posted on by

Green Chemistry simply means: using chemistry to reduce or eliminate the use and generation of hazardous materials. Below, we’ve provided a table itemizing which states have stages of green chemistry laws implemented.  Just scroll down.  We all need an overview sometimes.  You can download the Green Chemistry Status pdf version here.

The California Green Chemistry Initiative may be a great idea, but it started an environmental regulatory trend whereby the state regulates chemicals in manufactured products. It applies to goods made or sold in the state. The green chemistry initiatives are similar to, in particular, DfE or Design for Environment and REACH. Often, Green Chemistry focuses on children’s products. This sparks the public interest, makes legislation easier to pass, and let’s face it, it appears children are more vulnerable and susceptible to the maleffects of toxic substances, largely because of toxic attacks on youth in critical developmental stages.

Would it be ideal to have Green Chemistry be some kind of standard at the federal level? Absolutely. Manufacturers, associations, regulatory bodies and the public agree on that. In theory. But then you get the politics, infighting, lobbying, special interest groups on both the left and right — and we’re back to state and local regulations. Of course these are all different, in different stages of implementation. This spells disaster for manufacturers trying to abide by the law.

To solve the problem, we’ve created an up to date Status Table that shows the status of Green Chemistry laws, state by state.

If you have trouble seeing the table below, view and print a high-resolution pdf version. Data are current as of December 2010.

Reuters recently ran an article that pointed out:

“In addition to the health and environmental safety of these greener chemicals, green chemistry brings a competitive advantage to companies:

1. Less risk of product recalls and potential damage to company reputation
2. Cost savings gained when hazardous materials are removed to reduce the costs associated with handling, transportation, disposal and compliance of hazardous materials
3. Improved chances of greater stakeholder engagement from customers, employees, managers, and investors are achieved when a company demonstrates initiatives to reduce their negative impact on the environment
4. Cost savings from greater efficiencies in manufacturing process.”

http://www.actio.net/default/index.cfm/actio-blog/