In this article, “States, firms fill chemicals leadership void” author Ken Zarker from Washington State Department of Ecology’s Pollution Prevention and Regulatory Assistance Section, discusses the Chemical Safety Improvement Act of 2013 and how its beneficial to look at lessons learned from states action on chemicals management to help craft a workable national solution.

Here is the link to the P2 Pathways landing page:
http://www.greenbiz.com/business/engage/enterprise-blogs/p2-pathways

Formaldehyde is used in adhesives to make a wide range of building materials and products. Exposure to formaldehyde can cause adverse public health effects including eye, nose and throat irritation, other respiratory symptoms and, in certain cases, cancer.

“The proposed regulations announced today reflect EPA’s continued efforts to protect the public from exposure to harmful chemicals in their daily lives,” said James J. Jones, EPA’s acting assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “Once final, the rules will reduce the public’s exposure to this harmful chemical found in many products in our homes and workplaces.”

In 2010, Congress passed the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act, or Title VI of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which establishes emission standards for formaldehyde from composite wood products and directs EPA to propose rules to enforce the act’s provisions. EPA’s proposed rules align, where practical, with the requirements for composite wood products set by the California Air Resources Board, putting in place national standards for companies that manufacture or import these products. EPA’s national rules will also encourage an ongoing industry trend towards switching to no-added formaldehyde resins in composite wood products.

EPA’s first proposal limits how much formaldehyde may be emitted from hardwood plywood, medium-density fiberboard, particleboard and finished goods, that are sold, supplied, offered for sale, manufactured, or imported in the United States. The emitted formaldehyde may be left over from the resin or composite wood making process or be released when the resin degrades in the presence of heat and humidity. This proposal also includes testing requirements, laminated product provisions, product labeling requirements, chain of custody documentation, recordkeeping, a stockpiling prohibition, and enforcement provisions. It also includes a common-sense exemption from some testing and record-keeping requirements for products made with no-added formaldehyde resins.

The second proposal establishes a third-party certification framework designed to ensure that manufacturers of composite wood products meet the TSCA formaldehyde emission standards by having their composite wood products certified though an accredited third-party certifier. It would also establish eligibility requirements and responsibilities for third-party certifier’s and the EPA-recognized accreditation bodies who would accredit them. This robust proposed third-party certification program will level the playing field by ensuring composite wood products sold in this country meet the emission standards in the rule regardless of whether they were made in the United States or not.

More on Formaldehyde Proposals: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/formaldehyde/index.html

More on EPA’s TSCA Work Plan chemical effort: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/workplans.html

CONTACT:
Molly Hooven
Hooven.molly@epa.gov
202-564-2313
202-564-4355

Find out how to transform the way your organization manages their energy costs with this free one hour webinar.

Steve O’Brien, PE, CEM, a consulting engineer with Basic American Foods, will describe how his company’s energy conservation journey over the last 35 plus years. He will focus the discussion on how BAF has evolved from a company that focused on project execution to a company with an energy management system.

HOW TO CONNECT
Go to: https://securemeeting.centurylinkccc.com/w/pub/entry?hcid=1179877&loc…

Many people have security systems in place that hold back webinars. First time CenturyLink CCC user? Run system test: http://stateoftexas.qwestccc.com/utilities/fullbrowsertest.aspxwww.google.com=”">

AUDIO ACCESS
When you log in to the link above the system will give you the option to take a call. Please use this option because it helps us keep track of who attends these webinars. However, if you are unable to use the web based system you can get audio only at: 1-877-820-7831 Passcode is: 591210.

SPEAKER:
Steve O’Brien, PE, CEM
Steve has been addressing industrial energy issues for various companies since 1975. He currently works as a consulting engineer for Basic American Foods. He is a Registered Professional Engineer in Wyoming and a Certified Energy Manager. He has managed many energy conservation project to reduce energy consumption. He also lead the effort establish sub-metering and energy use targets all of BAFs plant. His current efforts are to push energy control down to the floor level via lean principles. In his spare time Steve enjoys bicycling and travel with his wife Sharon.

ABOUT THE LEAN AND ENVIRONMENT WORKGROUP
The Lean and Environment Work Group is a workgroup from the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable meets on the third Tuesday of every month.

For more information including:
- Copies of past presentations
- Announcements and updates
- contact information

See: https://sites.google.com/site/leangreenworkgroup/
Hugh O’Neill, Chair
Paula Del Giudice, Board Liaison, and group co-facilitator
Thomas Vinson, work group co-facilitator

States in the U.S. are taking the lead in chemicals policy, resulting in a changing regulatory landscape for companies to navigate. This webinar provided an overview of current state legislation with different perspectives from across the country. Attendees learned about the variety of strategies and approaches being used in legislation including chemicals of concern, restricted substances lists, targeted sectors and products, and alternatives assessment tools.

This webinar is part of NPPR’s Safer Chemistry Challenge Program Webinar Series and was co-hosted with the P2 Policy and Integration Workgroup.

Presenters:
Kerri Malinowski
Maine Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Remediation and Waste Management

Cathy O’Dell
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Carol Kraege
Washington Department of Ecology

State Profiles in Chemical Policy Implementation Presentation

Recording

TRI Pollution Prevention Search

TRI recently launched a new web tool to highlight reported P2 practices that reduce the use and environmental impact of toxic chemicals. This TRI Pollution Prevention Search displays TRI information collected under the Pollution Prevention Act in an integrated, easy-to-use fashion. The key strength of this tool is that it combines standardized, quantitative environmental metrics with qualitative information on the organizations and activities that have demonstrated environmental improvements (as described in the TRI P2 Fact Sheet).

P2 Reporting Tipsheet

If you’ve worked with one of the 20,000+ facilities that meet the TRI reporting criteria and helped them to reduce their toxic chemical pollution, then the optional P2 section of their TRI report is an opportunity to share these efforts! We encourage you to share the P2 Reporting Tipsheet with relevant facilities in advance of the July 1st TRI reporting deadline, along with any details you suggest including on their TRI report. If you wish you may include details about what was accomplished and who provided assistance in the writeable “notes” section on the front of the tip sheet.

Reporting this information through TRI is win-win-win for the facility, the TAP, and the public, as it publicly highlights organizations and companies who promote and implement P2 while also enabling EPA data users to learn about effective P2 practices and available resources. For more information, feel free to contact Daniel Teitelbaum of the TRI Program at Teitelbaum.daniel@epa.gov.

WASHINGTON D.C. – A new report issued on by the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable (NPPR) reveals significant state actions to address toxic chemical pollution. According to the research, over 77 individual chemical restriction bills have been passed by states in recent years, including 31 bills related specifically to mercury. The new report, “State Chemicals Policy: Trends and Profiles” reveals that almost all 50 states have either proposed or enacted legislation aimed to regulate chemicals. In 2013 alone, more than 26 states had bills introduced that are under consideration by state legislatures.

“Toxic chemical pollution is a growing and costly problem for our state,” said Ted Sturdevant, legislative and policy director for Washington State Governor Jay Inslee. “The costs of cleaning up from chemical pollution puts a drag on our economy and threatens public health. As the report shows, states are listening to citizens and taking actions on toxic threats.”

The report includes key trends and themes underway in the states, including six state toxic policy profiles. Some examples of recent trends include:

In late 2012, manufacturers were required to report the presence of certain toxic chemicals in children’s products to both Maine and Washington. In Washington State, a new publicly available data base of the reported chemicals is available to identify chemicals of concern in children’s products.

California adopted legislation to implement the nation’s most ambitious state-level program to monitor toxics levels over time in the human population. California has also issued draft regulations to address toxics in consumer products.

Oregon issued its toxics reduction strategy that is centered on a list of priority chemicals and a set of actions to reduce their presence in the environment and affects on human health.

Wisconsin passed legislation in 2012 that requires a publicly-available list of batteries that have been certified as containing low levels of mercury.

“Some consider state actions as a patchwork or piecemeal approach to chemical regulation. But in the absence of comprehensive and effective action at the federal level, we are seeing increasing states action,” said Ken Zarker, Chair of the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable.

“Ultimately, we realize that many states don’t have the resources to adequately deal with essentially the need for a national solution. This report can help states build on successful approaches taken by others, to learn from that experience. This report is aimed at facilitating that sharing. It will also help build consistency across the states, reducing the patchwork.

The report highlights key themes in state chemicals policy.
• States are transitioning from single-chemical solutions to more comprehensive approaches.
• States are focused on addressing state and regional needs to protect public health, especially children and pregnant women.
• States are embracing green purchasing policies for less toxic products.
• Even as many states move to comprehensive, risk-based systems for chemical management, restrictions on certain hazardous chemicals remains an important policy tool.
• States are embracing product lifecycle management solutions to prevent toxics release, rather than relying exclusively on end-of-pipe cleanup.
• States recognize the need for more information on toxics, including which chemicals are present in which products, which chemicals are present in human tissue, and exposure levels.

The report contains a recent history of state action on toxics, a summary table of legislative actions, key trends, and six state profiles (CA, ME, OR, MN, WA, WI).

Broadcast version:
A new report issued by the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable highlights the increased action to address toxic chemical pollution. In recent years, almost all 50 states have either introduced or passed legislation that is focused on chemical regulations, but ultimately federal action is needed to make necessary reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976.

Report: State Chemicals Policy: Trends and Profiles

Press Release: NPPR States Policy Report Press Release

(This Webinar hosted by WSPPN and NPPR is part of the Safer Chemistry Challenge Program Series)

Methylene chloride has been used for many years in consumer product paint strippers that are purchased from Home Depot, paint supply and hardware stores.  The strippers are used by consumers, small furniture stripping companies, contractors, boatyards and various other businesses to strip a range of items.  The chemical is a carcinogen and acute exposure to methylene chloride strippers is linked to two deaths in California in the last few years.  This presentation will describe two projects that focused on developing, testing and demonstrating safer alternatives to methylene chloride consumer product paint strippers.  It will also focus on the actions California agencies could take to restrict the use of the strippers.

Dr. Katy Wolf is director of the Institute for Research and Technical Assistance (IRTA), a nonprofit organization established in 1989.  IRTA identifies, develops, tests and demonstrates safer alternatives for industrial and consumer product applications.  IRTA also performs emerging and advanced technology demonstrations that reduce or eliminate the use of hazardous substances.  IRTA’s work focuses heavily on solvent alternatives in cleaning, dry cleaning, electronics, paint stripping, coatings, lubricants and adhesives.  Over the last 20 years, IRTA’s projects have led to a reduction in the use of hazardous substances in California of more than 100 tons per day.  Dr. Wolf spent fourteen years at the Rand Corporation, where she performed research on alternatives to ozone depleting substances and chlorinated solvents. Dr. Wolf has authored more than 200 publications. She has a Ph.D. in Chemical Physics.

PowerPoint Presentation