Tag Archives: EPA

The Notorious B.P.A. – EPA Takes Action

Posted on by

Bisphenol A (BPA) is currently banned in a checkered way across the United States and across the world. Canada and all the European Union have banned BPA in some uses, and now China and Malaysia have too. So where is the US at a federal level in regards to BPA regulation, you might wonder?

Well, wonder no more. Today the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that because BPA has been shown to cause reproductive and developmental effects in animal studies, EPA is requesting public comment on possible toxicity testing and environmental sampling to study BPA’s potential environmental impacts.

BPA lines a can of worms. BPA is a chemical that has, in fact, been shown to mimic estrogen and has been linked to increased risk of cancer, altered brain development, early puberty and other metabolic changes. We’ve avoided discussing it in this blog because – frankly – it’s a can of worms.

You might think we mean the “public perception vs. industry interests” can of worms, but what we really mean is another can: many types of plastics, not just BPA, have tested positively for endocrine manipulation.

Time magazine pointed out a recent study in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives where researchers found that many plastic products leach endocrine-disrupting chemicals — even products labeled “BPA-free.”

In the study, researchers tested 455 common plastic products and found that 70% tested positive for estrogenic activity [EA]. Once those products were subject to real-world conditions—microwaving or dishwashing—the number rose to 95%. The study concluded: Almost all commercially available plastic products we sampled, independent of the type of resin, product, or retail source, leached chemicals having reliably-detectable EA [estrogenic activity], including those advertised as BPA-free. In some cases, BPA-free products released chemicals having more EA [estrogenic activity] than BPA-containing products.

Given that context, it sometimes seems there’s a witch hunt on for BPA. But if BPA is going to serve as a regulatory driver for health issues associated with consuming food stored or served in plastics in so many countries around the world, it’s likely to be at least discussed here in the U.S. too. The comments to EPA will likely be a rousing debate — so keep an eye on the discussions!

Cadmium Banned in Europe in November

Posted on by

The European Commission announced May 20 that the European Union will ban cadmium in jewelry, brazing sticks and plastics beginning this November. A Commission press release states that the new legislation, which will be adopted as an amendment under the EU’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation, will prohibit the use of cadmium in all types of jewelry products, except antiques; brazing sticks, which are used to join dissimilar materials; and — in theory — all plastics.  

We say “in theory” in regards to the cadmium ban in “all plastics” because the Commission notice on the updated cadmium restriction appears to have inconsistencies regarding plastics.

The notice on World Trade Interactive suggests that cadmium will be banned in all plastics (with the exception of some recycled PVC).  But an article in British Plastics & Rubber points out semantic oddities in the Commission’s draft document.

The draft references the proposed amendment to Restriction 23 of Annex XVII, which covers cadmium and its compounds.  However, the Commission’s report contained no changes from the 2010 document regarding the list of materials that would be affected.  The wording of the recent statement says “all plastics” would be affected by the ban, but the itemized list of named plastics remains the same.

This leaves the door open for some agents to interpret that plastics not itemized on the list are exempt.

This language snarl is worth being aware of.  In the long view however, while it may delay a revision, it likely won’t stop the fact that cadmium use in virtually “all plastics” will be banned in the EU either in Q4 of this year or shortly thereafter.

And that, of course, is the “heads up.”  (For more on the language snarl, see article, Cadmium — banned or not?)

Cadmium backstory. Cadmium has many uses. It’s used in paint as a pigment, for starters. Or was. EPA and regulatory bodies around the world have been trying to restrict or prohibit cadmium use in paint for years. Often trace amounts of cadmium result in public-perception denigration and expensive product recalls that affect the bottom line; such events are arguably more of a deterrent for industry than the anti-cadmium regulations themselves.

Last summer, for instance, REACH compliance watchdogs found traces of cadmium in Shrek glasses for children. The glasses were manufactured to be sold at McDonald’s as part of the Shrek film promotion. McDonald’s had to recall over 12 million of the glasses that would have retailed for $2 each; that’s a loss of $24 million, plus the operational costs of the recall.

Many think recall events due to substances like cadmium are primarily a supply chain communication failure. While that is true, recalls also point to a regulatory gap and a supply chain that quite naturally tries to cut corners.

The EU appears to be ready to send a clear message:  no cadmium. And to many manufacturers — although probably not to the manufacturers of cadmium pigment — a clear regulation is a welcome regulation. Last year, EPA moved on this item as well when cadmium turned up in kids’ jewelry.

Cadmium alternatives. There’s no reason we need to be using cadmium in this day and age, right?  Problem is, especially for industrial uses, cadmium is very effective as a plating over steel as it’s remarkably resistant to corrosion.

A cadmium alternative for components must be, among other things:

  1. A panacea: act as a general corrosion coating for all seasons
  2. Specific protection: provide good salt spray and scribed corrosion protection
  3. Non-crackable case: cannot succumb to hydrogen embrittlement or stress corrosion cracking.

As a coating, the cadmium alternatives must, among other things:

  1. Retain thread profile/detail underneath, especially in jewelry
  2. Be solderable
  3. Be usable in electrical equipment in terms of conductivity and heat-effect limits.

At minerals.usgs.gov, the government says that coatings of zinc or vapor-deposited aluminum can substitute for cadmium in plating applications.

In 2002, a group published an evaluation of cadmium replacement alternatives for aircraft with notable results. Typically aircraft are exempt from cadmium legislation because of a “no known alternative” clause. In other words, nothing works as well so it is allowed for now.

This still creates a cost and a wrench in manufacturing process, however, due primarily to the problem of disposal of this known-toxic material at end-of-life. Where does cadmium go to die? We’ve all heard of the aircraft boneyard.  Aircraft manufacturers are responsible for end of life disposal of all parts and components (and substances).  The costs associated with end-of-life makes alternatives to cadmium look better and better.  For more on aircraft and replacements, see the Rowan Technology Group 2002 report on cadmium replacements.  It’s an interesting document.  Spoiler alert:  the report concludes that aluminum (Al) is the best cadmium replacement for uses in aerospace, automotive and electronic components in terms of behaving most like cadmium.

The point is that there are alternatives to cadmium — depending on application. For the most part, the replacements are sister- or cousin-metals.

For more on the cadmium ban coming in November under REACH regulation, review the European Commission’s press release.  Also, keep an eye on this blog as we’ll keep you posted on the critical cadmium (and similar) regulatory update status as we go through 2011.

E-Waste: Track Me If You Can

Posted on by

Last October, US EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson visited Giuyu, China, arguably the world’s most famous e-waste site.  Following the visit, attention to the issue of global e-waste has been intensifying.  So has talk of end-of-life product stewardship and regulations thereof.  Such regulations would have huge impact on supply networks in the US and elsewhere.

So far, end-of-life regulations in America have been on a state-by-state level.  Increasingly, there are murmurings of federal, even global, restrictions on disposal. EPA’s end-of-life regulations for electronics would be similar to WEEE but US-based.

Tracking and managing all these moving parts — literally in terms of components and figuratively in the form of data — is poised to become the next great supply network data management challenge.  Keep an eye on waste management facilities and services in the coming four quarters; likely to see new products and services there as well as M&A activity.  This activity comes down to scrambling for product stewardship management and associated dollars.

EPA awards $2.5 million towards e-waste tracking. In March earlier this year, Chelsey Drysdale wrote in PDC&F that environmental groups have been urging the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to issue a policy requiring federal agencies not be permitted to export used electronics to developing nations.

Earlier this morning, May 2, 2011, EPA announced it had awarded a grant to the United Nations University (UNU) to help curb rising pollution and health problems associated with discarded electronics.  The agency said the five-year, $2.5 million grant will help authorities track shipments of North American electronic waste and provide support to nations in both Africa and Asia coping with e-waste imports.  Those imports would include end-of-life computers, TVs, and cell phones.

Again:  tracking and managing all these moving parts — literally in terms of components and figuratively in the form of data — is poised to become the next great data management challenge. The good news is that end-of-life tracking is easier than our current challenge of supplier product ingredient visibility [see previous post, “Product Ingredients: say can you see?“].

“The electronics that improve our everyday lives often end up discarded in developing countries where improper disposal can threaten the health of local people and the environment,” said Michelle DePass, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of International and Tribal Affairs. “EPA recognizes this urgent concern and is committed to working with domestic and international partners to address these issues.”

Is that a regulation?  No.  It is a preliminary call to action for US-based electronics manufacturers and distributors?  Absolutely.

It’s 12:00: Do you know where your e-waste is going?

Track it if you can.

Electronics Stewardship: EPA Creates Task Force

Posted on by

On Nov. 8, 2010, Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley established an interagency Task Force to develop a national strategy and recommendations for improving Federal stewardship of used electronics.  The Task Force was to be co-chaired by the US Environmental Protection Agency, General Services Administration, and Council on Environmental Quality.

Currently, regulation is done on a state-by-state basis.  The map below from EPA may help.

Universal waste regulations can vary between states; and states can add different types of wastes or modify the category.  The map (courtesy EPA) shows the states that have universal waste regulations and which of those states have added different waste categories (in green).

Universal waste is a category of waste materials deemed to be “lower risk” hazardous waste generated by a variety of people.  This waste includes CRTs which includes of course computer monitors, TVs, phones, and similar electronic devices.

Murky? It can be. The point of this federal Task Force is to, among other things, pursue federal legislation and therefore condition and possibly comb out the tangle of provincial law on electronics waste in the US.

Electronics Stewardship Task Force mission. The Task Force mission is towards American businesses, government and citizens working together to manage electronics throughout the product lifecycle — from design and manufacturing through use and eventual recycling, recovery, and disposal.  It’s a bold idea.  The deadline for the group to produce a national framework is May 6, 2011.

By May 6, the Electronics Stewardship Task Force will produce a national framework for:

  1. Directing Federal agencies to exercise all appropriate authorities to achieve the electronic stewardship goals, consistent with domestic and international law.
  2. Developing a system-based approach to the long-term design, management and disposal of Federal used electronics.
  3. Information gathering and tracking, regulatory options, and best management practices for used electronics that can be used by the Federal agencies and leveraged to the private sector.
  4. Building partnerships in the public and private sector for sustainable electronics management nationwide.
  5. Reducing exports of used electronics to developing countries that lack the capacity to properly manage them, and assess how federal agencies can improve their ability to deter these exports.
  6. Building capacity within and share best practices with developing countries, so they can improve their ability to safely handle used electronics, while promoting economic development.

Electronics Stewardship framework background. Unwanted or discarded electronics not reused or recycled represents a lost opportunity to reuse functioning electronic equipment and components, such as cellphone and computers/laptops or recover valuable resources, such as precious metals, plastics or minerals that are found in scarce or critical supply.

Additionally, used electronics may be exported to developing countries that lack capacity to manage them appropriately and result in negative impacts to human health and the environment.

The majority of electronics recyclers in the United States refurbish, repair, or pre-process (demanufacture, shred, sort) used electronics to prepare them for the final recovery step. Facilities that further recover raw materials, through smelting and refining (end-processing), are mostly located outside the United States.

Such facilities can convert electronics scrap into

  1. high grade copper and precious metals (e.g., gold, silver, and palladium),
  2. new CRTs, or
  3. new plastics

all of which can be reused in the marketplace.

The current comment period ended on March 11. There will be another opportunity to comment on the Framework developed by the Task Force after it is delivered to the Council on Environmental Quality, which, again, is slated for May 6, 2011.

Electronics Stewardship current regulation. Currently, there are no federal mandates that require electronics recycling or restrict unwanted electronics equipment from solid waste landfills in the United States.

Bear in mind that EPA does, however, control how cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors (for instance, from TV and computers) are managed domestically – especially if they are subject to hazardous waste regulation. EPA requires notifications if CRT monitors are exported for recycling.

A growing number of states are mandating collection and recycling of used electronics. In addition, there are now two electronics recycling standards and accredited certification and innovative product stewardship software programs that address the handling of used electronics throughout the recycling chain.

For more, see: http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/03/01/2011-4505/solicitation-of-input-from-stakeholders-to-inform-the-national-framework-for-electronics-stewardship#p-56

EPA Denies Requests for Chemical Confidentiality

Posted on by

Last summer, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated it would reject confidentiality claims for chemical identity in health and safety studies (see our previous post: EPA to reject confidentiality claims).

EPA says it already notified five companies that the identities of 14 chemicals associated with a number of health and safety studies submitted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and claimed as confidential are not eligible for confidential treatment.  The chemicals were unnamed.

More chemical names connected with health and safety studies will be released in the future.

This newsflash is of particular interest for those that manufacture (defined by statute to include import) and/or process chemical substances and mixtures subject to TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.).

“The public deserves access to critical health and safety information on chemicals, but if the name of the chemical is kept secret in the health and safety report, the information is of no real value to people,” said Steve Owens, EPA’s assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP).

Owens said the agency is committed to increasing the American people’s access to this important information.

And the caveat is…The agency plans to deny confidentiality claims for chemical identity in health and safety studies provided to the agency under TSCA.  The only caveat comes if and when your chemical identity contains process or mixture information that is expressly protected by law.  That will take some convincing.  And some research and legal expertise.

Timeframe: 31 days. So how long do companies have to pursue the caveat or, if not, to watch their data go public?  The last paragraph of the EPA letter sent to companies states:

“EPA will make the information available to the public on the thirty-first (31st) calendar day after the date of your receipt of this determination…”

For more information on chemical transparency initiatives in U.S. manufacturing, go to: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/transparency.html

For information on technology to manage chemical transparency initiatives in US manufacturing, try the products page on the Actio  website or try: http://www.materialdisclosure.com.

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

EPA, ECHA Enter Partnership for Chemical Data Sharing

Posted on by

Arguably the two top environmental acronymn heavyweights, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) have just announced a partnership that will promote enhanced technical cooperation on chemical management activities.  This is another sign that America’s revamping of chemical regulation known as TSCA reform will likely become more REACH-like and more solidified.  The question is, how soon?

ECHA is the agency that implements the European Union’s chemical management program known as REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals).  The REACH regulation has taken the world by storm.  EPA said in a release that the newly-announced partnership is part of EPA’s commitment to “improve chemical safety.”

One of the major anticipated areas of collaboration, say the agencies, will be on the exchange of data and information.

For example, the statement of intent will promote the exchange of non-confidential information on hazards, uses, and substance identification between ECHA and EPA, including data collected under REACH and by REACH software.  The two agencies will also share criteria for managing confidential business information with the goal to increase the availability of chemical information to the public.

Overall this joining of efforts and sharing of best practices is probably a good idea.  We just hope for more efficiency rather than another dimension of beurocracy.  For more on this, see details at the EPA page.

Revamped eChemPortal for Access to Over 600,000 Chemicals

Posted on by

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in partnership with ECHA, has launched its newest version of eChemPortal. Also known as the Global Portal to Information on Chemical Substances, eChemPortal provides free public access to over 600,000 records on chemical substances.

The revamped portal, hosted and funded by ECHA, includes the ability to search participating databases by chemical property (i.e., physical chemical properties, environmental fate and behavior, ecotoxicity and toxicity).

The ECHA dissemination database, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Aggregated Computational Toxicology Resource (ACToR), US EPA Integrated Risk Information System (US EPA IRIS), and the United Kingdom Coordinated Chemicals Risk Management Programme Publications (UK CCRMP Outputs) are among 19 participating databases that gather information on existing chemicals, new industrial chemicals, pesticides, and biocides.

New web links provide information according to the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS), including the GHS classification of an estimated 1,500 chemicals stored by the Japanese government.

Visit eChemPortal’s Help page for more information on using eChemPortal.

http://www.actio.net/default/index.cfm/actio-blog/revamped-echemportal-dec-2010/

EPA’s ToxCast Screens 1,000 Chemicals for Toxicity

Posted on by

Earlier this week, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that its ToxCast screening program has screened 1000 chemicals, helping determine the way in which exposure to chemicals effect human health. The EPA plans to use the cost-effective tests to screen thousands of chemicals.

The first phase of testing included approximately 300 chemicals, using over 500 automated tests or assays. The assays used human and animal cells and proteins to screen chemicals. The results were compared to animal studies from EPA’s databases, helping to determine which ToxCast assays can predict a chemical’s toxicity and disease-causing potential.

The second phase of testing currently includes 700 chemicals, consisting of consumer and industrial products, food additives, and drugs that failed to make it to market. The drugs and human clinical trial data were donated by pharmaceutical companies, and enable the EPA to compare the ToxCast screening results with actual human clinical data.

ToxCast “allows us to start predicting potential toxicity to human health and the environment instead of just describing the toxic effects that occur after chemical exposure,” said Dr. Paul Anastas (pictured), assistant administrator of EPA’s Office of Research and Development.

ToxCast contributes to Tox 21 — a federal agency collaboration consisting of EPA, US Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institutes of Health — which plans to screen 10,000 chemicals by the end of next year.  ToxRefDB is the database where information and testing results on chemicals is stored.

For more on chemical legislation at the state level, see http://circuitsassembly.com/blog/?p=1416.

‘Riddled’ With Mistakes

Posted on by

I haven’t the slightest idea why Gene Riddle didn’t properly dispose of thousands of gallons of hazardous waste from his long-defunct printed circuit board shop, but I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes today.

Riddle, who owned Riddle Inc. from 1972-1991, has been brought up on federal charges for failing to get permits for nearly 3,800 gallons of oxides, acids and other materials typical in PCB wet processing. After the plant closed, the waste materials allegedly were stored in a building that was falling apart. Worse, it was situated just a few hundred yards from a creek that was prone to flooding. The surging waters breached the building several times, leading the feds to slap Riddle with illegal discharge violations to boot.

It’s a cautionary tale not just for those who are in the PCB business, but those who are ever affiliated with it. Given the increasing number and depth of regulations that amplify the need to pay attention not just to what goes on under your roof but that of your suppliers’ as well, one wonders whether the dirty (and I mean dirty) little secret of how many emerging nations handle waste will come back to haunt the Western OEMs that so heavily depend on that part of the supply chain.