Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Feedstock Prices Drive Resin Higher
Jun 19, 2015 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
With spring heating into summer, North American prices for polyethylene, polystyrene and PET bottle resin prices have warmed up as well. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Asserts 'Broad Authority' To Protect Workers In New Vapor Guidance
Jun 19, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA is claiming “broad authority” to protect workers from indoor air contamination in its new vapor intrusion guidance, rejecting arguments from some federal agencies and industry that EPA is trying to encroach on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) responsibilities for ensuring worker health and safety. -
(ACC Mentioned) California Lists Ethylene Glycol as Reproductive Toxicant
Jun 19, 2015 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has added ethylene glycol to the Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity (CW 15 April 2014). -
Actress Jessica Alba Spotted on 14th Street Hanging with Friends
Jun 19, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Helena Andrews
Hey isn’t that… actress Jessica Alba, star of “Dark Angel,” “Sin City” and Tay Tay’s “Bad Blood” video, dining out with friends at 14 Street’s always-packed Pearl Dive on Wednesday night? -
Why Jessica Alba is So Worried About Toxic Chemicals
Jun 19, 2015 | ABC News
By Ali Weinberg
Jessica Alba is worried about chemicals. -
Is Your Sofa Toxic? Ask the EPA
Jun 19, 2015 | Bloomberg View
From the formaldehyde in your floorboards to the phthalates in your nail polish to the flame retardants in your upholstery, substances that can be toxic to humans are in countless everyday products. Are they safe when used in these ways? The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is supposed to ensure that they are, but its hands are largely tied: The 1976 law that governs chemical regulation sets the bar for action too high. Before limiting the use of any substance, the agency must show that its restriction is less burdensome than possible alternatives and that the financial benefits outweigh the costs -- a standard that's been hard to prove in court. The EPA hasn't issued any new restrictions on chemicals since 1990. Many states have rushed in to fill the vacuum, but this isn't ideal, either. If a chemical is proved to be dangerous to you or your children, protection from it shouldn't depend on what state you live in. (Conversely, if a chemical is proved to be safe, access to it shouldn't depend on where you live, either.) Meanwhile, manufacturers are left trying to follow sometimes contradictory regulations. A better fix is to update federal law to give the EPA the authority and resources it needs to investigate -- and when necessary, restrict or ban -- chemicals used in commercial and industrial products. Bipartisan legislation in Congress would move in this direction by making it easier for the EPA to impose restrictions on chemicals it deems unsafe and requiring the agency to review at least 25 chemicals every five years. The bill isn't perfect, though. It would also prevent states from putting restrictions on any chemicals that the EPA says it plans to examine -- a process that can take years. And it would enable the EPA to approve vaguely defined "low-priority" chemicals without a full-scale review. So if for some reason the EPA were to lose interest in such regulation, state efforts could be blocked without much to replace them. Congress could address this concern by amending the bill to let states decide whether to apply their own restrictions on a chemical until the EPA has finished its review. Then the bill would go a long way toward fixing a system that serves neither consumers nor industry particularly well. And it would ease any concerns that the stuff in your living room or medicine cabinet is going to kill you. -
Protecting Our Future Fathers
Jun 19, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Sophie Wunderlich
Father’s Day is almost here! When we think about Father’s Day, it’s natural for us to just think back to our childhoods: making our dads breakfast, attending family picnics, or drawing elaborate cards with our cherished 100-pack of crayons. -
Toxic Chemicals In Your Child’s Car Seat
Jun 19, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Megan Boyle
Parents do a lot of research before they buy a car seat. -
Congress: Ask Yourself, Not the EPA, About the Clean Air Act
Jun 19, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Tom Ewing
In the last week, the House Energy & Commerce Committee held two hearings on EPA’s proposal to lower the air quality standard for ground level ozone. -
Hypocritical Attack on EPA and Supporters of Water Rule
Jun 19, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Whit Fosburgh
A June 17 opinion piece from Will Coggin of the Environmental Policy Alliance attacks the EPA’s recently released final rule to clarify protections of the Clean Water Act. -
Administration’s Climate Services for Resilient Development a Smart Move
Jun 19, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Daniel Speckhard
News of the Pope’s encyclical on climate change only reinforces what those of us working to alleviate extreme poverty already know – that there is a moral issue at play, with the poorest and most vulnerable at the greatest risk.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
-
(ACC Mentioned) Feedstock Prices Drive Resin Higher
Jun 19, 2015 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
With spring heating into summer, North American prices for polyethylene, polystyrene and PET bottle resin prices have warmed up as well.
Regional PE prices surged up by 5 cents per pound in May, marking the first time in eight months that prices for that material had increased. In the meantime, the material had absorbed four price drops totaling 16 cents.
The list of reasons for the May increase included higher global feedstock costs, which were the result of oil price increases. Supplies of both PE and ethylene also were tight in both Asia and Europe. These conditions led to above average exports from North America to Latin America, Asia and Europe.
A PE buyer in the southeastern United States said that although the May increase took hold, he expects prices to be flat for the next few months, unless Asian prices drop below North American prices, as was the case earlier in 2015.
U.S./Canadian PE sales results showed solid gains in the first four months of 2015, according to the American Chemistry Council. High density PE sales in the region were up 8 percent, with domestic sales growth of more than 4 percent boosted by export sales growth of almost 30 percent.
Domestic HDPE sales growth was led by the third-party market, where sales to resellers surged almost 45 percent for the four months, while sales to distributors jumped 15 percent.
U.S./Canadian sales of linear low density PE surged ahead at a clip of almost 5 percent in the four-month period, while low density PE sales ticked up a little more than 2 percent. In LLDPE, domestic sales growth of more than 6 percent was dampened by a drop of more than 1 percent in export sales. For LDPE, domestic sales growth of almost 4 percent was reduced by an export sales drop of more than 4 percent.
Four-month sales of LLDPE into shipping sacks were up 16 percent. LDPE sales to distributors ballooned 47 percent in that period.
At the producer level, Westlake Chemical Corp.’s first-quarter olefins sales volume in pounds — including PE — was up almost 8 percent vs. the same period last year. LyondellBasell Industries’ first-quarter PE sales volume in pounds was up 6 percent in the Americas, while its first-quarter PP sales volume in pounds increased by 3 percent in the region.
Regional polystyrene prices weren’t far behind PE, climbing 3 cents per pound in May. It was the second consecutive monthly PS price increase, following a month of flat pricing in March and a combined drop of 11 cents in the first two months of the year.
Higher prices for benzene feedstock again played a role in the May PS increase. Benzene prices jumped 26 cents per gallon in May, reaching the $2.85 mark and bringing the two-month total price hike to 77 cents. Regional PS makers had been seeking increases of 6 cents in May, but settled for half of that amount after successfully lifting prices 5 cents per pound in April.
North American PS sales climbed almost 3 percent in the first four months of 2015, according to ACC. Growth in the market’s flagship food packaging/foodservice end market were especially strong, increasing by more than 5 percent. That sector accounted for about 61 percent of total PS sales in the region for that four-month period.
A PET bottle resin hike of 4 cents per pound was seen for North America in May, marking the second straight month that prices for that material have increased by that amount. Demand for PET bottle resin have improved with warm weather — which drives beverage demand — as its feedstock costs have climbed.
It’s the third straight monthly hike for the material overall, following a 1-cent-per-pound increase in March. Prices had been flat in February after tumbling a total of 16 cents between November and January.
Regional PP prices trickled down 1 cent per pound in May, marking the second straight monthly decline for that material — and the fifth in six months. North American PP prices now are down a net of 25 cents per pound since December.
The 1-cent PP downturn matched a similar drop in price for propylene monomer feedstock. In April, regional PP makers had successfully increased their profit margins by limiting the resin price drop to 4 cents per pound, even as propylene prices fell 4 cents.
Sales of PP in North America surged more than 7 percent in the first four months of 2015. Domestic sales growth of almost 8 percent was dampened slightly by an export sales decline of almost 7 percent.
Regional sales of PP into injection molding applications soared 11 percent in that four-month period, according to ACC. That growth was led by a 20 percent leap for sales of PP into consumer and institutional products.
North American PVC resin prices were flat for the second consecutive month in May, following a 3-cent increase that hit the market in March. U.S./Canadian PVC demand growth has been solid in the first four months of 2015, rising almost 4 percent. Export sales growth of almost 13 percent has lifted domestic sales, which were up only about 1 percent.
For domestic PVC, sales into rigid pipe and tubing improved 15 percent in the four-month period. Rigid pipe and tubing is the biggest single end market for regional PVC, generating 45 percent of domestic sales through April.
The raw materials that form the basis for North American commodity plastics didn’t generate much movement during May. West Texas Intermediate crude oil prices bounced between $58 and $62 per barrel for most of the month, but ended roughly where they had started — between $60 and $61 per barrel.
On the natural gas side, prices fell about seven percent to $2.65 per million British thermal units during May, allowing the material to maintain a strong advantage vs. crude oil as a regional feedstock.
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Asserts 'Broad Authority' To Protect Workers In New Vapor Guidance
Jun 19, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA is claiming “broad authority” to protect workers from indoor air contamination in its new vapor intrusion guidance, rejecting arguments from some federal agencies and industry that EPA is trying to encroach on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) responsibilities for ensuring worker health and safety.
EPA June 11 released its long-delayed technical guidance for assessing and mitigating risks from vapor intrusion, which occurs when vapors from below-ground contamination rise into the indoor air of overlying buildings.
In comments on a 2013 draft of the guidance, the Defense Department (DOD), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and some industry groups argued OSHA has lead authority over indoor air at workplaces, and therefore OSHA limits should be used to assess vapor risk in non-residential buildings. Industry argued the overlapping authority between two federal agencies should lead EPA to withdraw and revise the draft vapor intrusion guidance.
But EPA's final guidance clearly states its authority to protect workers from indoor air contamination stemming from chemical releases, and advises against using OSHA's Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) to protect workers from vapor intrusion.
"EPA has broad authority and distinct responsibilities to assess and, if warranted, mitigate vapor intrusion in residential and nonresidential settings arising from a chemical release that causes subsurface contamination by volatile hazardous chemicals," according to the agency's final guidance.
To bolster its authority, EPA points to an OSHA acknowledgment, on a website updated in May, that its own PELs are not sufficiently stringent to protect workers. "OSHA recognizes that many of its [PELs] are outdated and inadequate for ensuring protection of worker health," EPA says in the final guidance.
An environmentalist tracking the guidance says OSHA's recent acknowledgment that its PELs are not sufficiently stringent to protect workers from indoor air contamination is "great news" that will hopefully prompt OSHA to strengthen its standards.
EPA has already been addressing vapor intrusion in non-residential buildings, the source says, so the clarification will likely affirm current practice. The strong language in the EPA guidance suggests that EPA and OSHA prevailed over other federal agencies in negotiations on the draft guidance at the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the source says.
Conflicting Comments
Whether OSHA's PELs or EPA risk-based limits should apply at occupational sites at risk of vapor intrusion has been a long-running question that brought conflicting comments on EPA's 2013 draft guidance. Industry and federal agencies argued EPA ignored OSHA's role, while regulators from Virginia and California urged EPA to clarify its authority to protect workers.
Historically, OSHA has set standards for indoor air at occupational sites. But OSHA's PELs have not been updated in decades and are typically weaker than EPA's risk-based standards, sometimes by orders of magnitude.
In 2013, prior to OSHA's acknowledgment on its website in May that many of its PELs are outdated and inadequate for protecting workers, a state regulator told Inside EPA the question of agency jurisdiction raised both political and technical challenges.
An EPA assertion that OSHA's limits fail to protect workers would raise problems politically, the regulator said. And at sites where the chemical of concern for vapor intrusion from historic or off-site contamination is also used in industrial processes, differentiating between the underground and indoor sources of contamination is especially difficult.
In the final guidance, EPA says it has a "critical mandate" to protect human health, and that its authority to protect workers from indoor air contamination stems from statutes, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
The guidance also cites a November 23, 1990, memorandum of understanding (MOU) between OSHA and EPA seeking improved environmental and workplace safety, and says that agreement remains in effect. Also, in February 1991, a second MOU established a process for the two agencies to coordinate "in identifying environmental and workplace health and safety problems" and better enforce their respective environmental and workplace statutes.
Although the guidance notes that the agencies "each have a distinct statutory responsibility to ensure the safety and health of America's workforce," EPA says OSHA's limits are not intended to protect sensitive workers and may fail to incorporate recent toxicological data because they are outdated.
In a footnote to a section on occupational exposures, EPA's guidance says that most OSHA PELs were adopted in 1971. While OSHA has issued some new PELs since, EPA says scientific data "clearly indicate" that in many cases, those limits also fail to adequately protect workers.
"For these and other reasons, EPA does not recommend using OSHA's PELs . . . for purposes of assessing human health risk to workers" through vapor intrusion in non-residential buildings, EPA says.
Vapor Guidance
EPA struggled for years to craft the vapor intrusion guidance that cleanup experts say will be a game changer at thousands of sites around the country. The guidance consists of two separate documents, including a primary guide for assessing vapor risk from chlorinated solvents, such as trichloroethylene, which EPA says poses a risk of cardiac birth defects from short-term exposures. A supplemental guide focuses on assessing risks from petroleum contamination at leaking underground storage tank sites.
An April 2013 draft of the guidance released for public comment failed to sufficiently clarify EPA and OSHA's overlapping authority over indoor air at occupational sites, sparking critical comments from industry and other federal agencies.
The American Chemistry Council backed use of OSHA limits at workplaces and said EPA's draft guidance suggested overlapping authority between two federal agencies, imposing inconsistent requirements on companies in violation of OMB guidelines.
DOD's push in April 2013 comments was narrower, arguing that standards derived from EPA risk levels are inappropriate for assessing "manufacturing/industrial locations and associated office spaces that use the chemicals being assessed for [vapor intrusion]." The difference, DOD says, is that when workers use a chemical on site they are adequately trained about its hazards.
In June 2013 comments, NASA cited "significant global concern over EPA's usurping key OSHA responsibilities."
The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control urged EPA to take the opposite approach and clarify that risk assessors should rely on the EPA guidance rather than OSHA PELs when assessing risk from vapor intrusion.
EPA's 2002 draft vapor intrusion guidance included a statement saying that OSHA limits, rather than EPA standards, should apply to "primarily occupational" facilities, but that language was not included in the April 2013 draft.
In the 2002 version, EPA also noted vapor intrusion can occur in workplaces due to chemicals that are no longer or were never used in a particular workplace, so regional or state authorities should notify the facility of the potential for this exposure pathway to cause a hazard. The 2002 draft was the first time EPA said it would oversee workplace exposures that stem from environmental contamination.
-
(ACC Mentioned) California Lists Ethylene Glycol as Reproductive Toxicant
Jun 19, 2015 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has added ethylene glycol to the Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity (CW 15 April 2014).
The listing takes effect 19 June and is based on a National Toxicology Program (NTP) Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR) report in 2004 that identified reproductive toxicity concerns with high oral doses of the chemical.
The substance is used in the synthesis of polyester compounds and is present in a variety of consumer products, including ballpoint pens, automotive antifreeze, paints and plastics.
The proposed listing received seven sets of comments from industry groups, including:the American Chemistry Council Ethylene Glycols Panel (ACC-EGP);the PET Resin Association (Petra);the Writing Instrument Manufacturers Association (Wima); andthe Art and Creative Materials Institute (ACMI).
The ACC-EGP submitted 11 peer-reviewed studies after the NTP's findings (CW 9 July 2014). Following the OEHHA's consideration of these reports, it found that the data was consistent with the NTP's evidence of developmental toxicity in rodents, and that the data failed to establish that developmental toxicity from high oral exposures to ethylene glycol is not biologically plausible in humans.
-
Actress Jessica Alba Spotted on 14th Street Hanging with Friends
Jun 19, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Helena Andrews
Hey isn’t that… actress Jessica Alba, star of “Dark Angel,” “Sin City” and Tay Tay’s “Bad Blood” video, dining out with friends at 14 Street’s always-packed Pearl Dive on Wednesday night?
The 34-year-old mom of two is in town to lobby Congress in partnership with the American Sustainable Business Council. They’re meeting with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), among others, to try to get comprehensive TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) reform.
Sound like heavy stuff for a Hollywood starlet? Wait, did you miss Alba on the cover of business Bible Forbes Magazine?
The Honest Company, the non-toxic household products empire the actress co-founded less than five years ago, was recently valued at $1 billion. Alba herself is worth $200 million.
“People just saw me as this girl in a bikini in movies kicking butt — maybe not the brightest bulb,” said Alba at Forbes’ third annual Women’s Summit this month. “It took three and a half years of condescending nods and pats on the back of ‘good luck’, or ‘go back to endorsing things or go do a perfume,’ ” she said.
One billion bucks sure smells pretty good to us but Alba added that it “feels like a small number for the opportunity of what’s possible.”
-
Why Jessica Alba is So Worried About Toxic Chemicals
Jun 19, 2015 | ABC News
By Ali Weinberg
Jessica Alba is worried about chemicals.
So much so that the actress created her own business, The Honest Company, which provides what they say are safe, non-toxic products for children, above and beyond any safety regulations.
But her now billion-dollar company can only serve so many customers, so on Thursday, she was up on Capitol Hill, knocking on senators’ doors just like anyone else lobbying a lawmaker, seeking even more change.
She was there along with a few other business owners to express concerns over a federal law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), that she and many others believe is severely outdated.
“It's a human health issue,” Alba said in an interview with ABC between Senate meetings. “I don't want to raise my children in a world where I have to be concerned about their safety and their health. I don't want them to be guinea pigs any more, with certain chemicals being used on them, and we'll just see if they get sick.”
Two senators introduced bipartisan legislation in March that would update TSCA, which according to the Environmental Defense Fund hasn’t been significantly amended since its adoption in 1976. The bill would mandate safety reviews for all chemicals in active commerce and require any new chemicals be certified as safe before they hit the market.
“This type of legislation will create lots of innovation because they'll be better transparency, there will be better testing and we'll know more about those chemicals,” said Jeffrey Hollender, the founder of all-natural product company Seventh Generation.
Hollender is a co-founder of the American Sustainable Business Council, with whom Alba and Hollender were visiting the Senate Thursday.
Alba said she had been happy with the reception she and her colleagues received from the staffers and senators they met with, including Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey and California Sen.Barbara Boxer, both Democrats.
“The reception has been great. Everyone wants to live a safer and healthier life. Especially when you have grand-kids, a lot of the senators have grand-kids, or children of their own. They want them to live their best life and they want to protect them,” Alba said.
-
Is Your Sofa Toxic? Ask the EPA
Jun 19, 2015 | Bloomberg View
From the formaldehyde in your floorboards to the phthalates in your nail polish to the flame retardants in your upholstery, substances that can be toxic to humans are in countless everyday products. Are they safe when used in these ways?
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is supposed to ensure that they are, but its hands are largely tied: The 1976 law that governs chemical regulation sets the bar for action too high. Before limiting the use of any substance, the agency must show that its restriction is less burdensome than possible alternatives and that the financial benefits outweigh the costs -- a standard that's been hard to prove in court. The EPA hasn't issued any new restrictions on chemicals since 1990.
Many states have rushed in to fill the vacuum, but this isn't ideal, either. If a chemical is proved to be dangerous to you or your children, protection from it shouldn't depend on what state you live in. (Conversely, if a chemical is proved to be safe, access to it shouldn't depend on where you live, either.) Meanwhile, manufacturers are left trying to follow sometimes contradictory regulations.
A better fix is to update federal law to give the EPA the authority and resources it needs to investigate -- and when necessary, restrict or ban -- chemicals used in commercial and industrial products. Bipartisanlegislation in Congress would move in this direction by making it easier for the EPA to impose restrictions on chemicals it deems unsafe and requiring the agency to review at least 25 chemicals every five years.
The bill isn't perfect, though. It would also prevent states from putting restrictions on any chemicals that the EPA says it plans to examine -- a process that can take years. And it would enable the EPA to approve vaguely defined "low-priority" chemicals without a full-scale review. So if for some reason the EPA were to lose interest in such regulation, state efforts could be blocked without much to replace them. Congress could address this concern by amending the bill to let states decide whether to apply their own restrictions on a chemical until the EPA has finished its review.
Then the bill would go a long way toward fixing a system that serves neither consumers nor industry particularly well. And it would ease any concerns that the stuff in your living room or medicine cabinet is going to kill you.
-
Jun 19, 2015 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Sophie Wunderlich
Father’s Day is almost here! When we think about Father’s Day, it’s natural for us to just think back to our childhoods: making our dads breakfast, attending family picnics, or drawing elaborate cards with our cherished 100-pack of crayons. Personally, my family used to go fruit picking and then my dad and I would make a pie for everyone to eat for dessert! Every family has their own unique Father’s Day traditions.
This Father’s Day, I’d like to recognize and honor all that our fathers have done for us—and that includes bringing us into this world! The ability to create a child is one cherished by parents, and we must ensure that young boys have the opportunity to have a child in the future if they so choose. The health and safety of young boys, our future fathers, is a paramount concern for all families.
That’s why I’m so concerned about a group of chemicals called phthalates. They’re “plasticizers”, meaning they provide flexibility and durability to various products with plastic in them. They come in a range of shapes and sizes, with complex formulas. Examples include DEHP, DBP, BBP, DiBP, DiDP, DiNP and DnOP. They’re ubiquitous in the modern world: in our clothes, perfumes, food packaging, children’s toys, and in our vinyl flooring (Psst: Tell Menards to get phthalates out of vinyl flooring they sell). Phthalates may be common, but their harmful effects are still something we have to be worried about. That’s because exposure to phthalates can damage young boys’ ability to have children by disrupting their hormones.
When young boys are exposed to phthalates—usually through breast milk, retail cow’s milk, infant formula, or plastic in their toys or food containers—it begins to affect their endocrine system. Phthalates are a form of hazardous chemical called an endocrine disruptor, meaning the chemicals block or change the body’s ability to secrete the hormones that help us grow. The immature male reproductive tract is the most sensitive system to phthalate exposure. Studies have found that phthalates have far-reaching effects on young boys’ reproductive systems: decreased testosterone, undescended testes, decreased sperm count, decreased anogenital distance (distance between the anus and the base of the penis), and delayed puberty. All of these symptoms can combine to make it extremely difficult for boys to have children in the future.
We encounter different phthalates every day, and they combine in our bodies at low doses to produce significant harm, as if we had been exposed to just one phthalate at high levels! But, it’s not a hopeless crusade to keep children protected from this harmful chemical. They’re the most likely to have health problems from exposure to phthalates, but there are some relatively easy ways to reduce their exposure.How you can reduce exposureChildren are mainly exposed to phthalates through their diet. When a parent heats up food or drink for their child in a plastic container, phthalates can leach in. I’d recommend not reusing or microwaving carryout or frozen meal containers. When heating up a meal, it’s best to place microwave-safe plastic wrap loosely over the food so steam can escape, making sure the plastic does not touch the food. If you’d prefer not to use plastic at all, wax paper or paper towels can also be used to prevent splatter in the microwave.Try to only purchase toys that don’t contain phthalates. Children aged 3-12 months are at the highest risk for exposure from mouthing plastic toys. It’s best to stay away from plastic toys altogether if possible because specific quantities and types of phthalates may not be public information and often are not listed on product labels. Experiment with alternatives to classic children’s products! For your baby, try carrot or celery sticks instead of plastic teethers. Have your child play with wooden blocks rather than Legos.Be aware of how you’re serving your family’s food. If they’re old enough, have children drink from a glass instead of a plastic cup. Cook frozen snacks on ceramic plates. Be mindful of what you’re packing their lunches in; perhaps send them with paper or ceramic reusable plates and utensils instead of plastics. Wrap sandwiches in recycled wax paper or aluminum foil. Stainless steel water bottles and bento box-style containers can avoid waste and phthalates.Join with Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families to improve federal regulation of phthalates. We’re working on #RealReform for the health and safety of families across America— Click here to take action.
It’s always important to be aware of the unsafe chemicals we encounter in our daily lives. Together, let’s spread awareness about the dangers of phthalates and ensure that our young boys can, one day, become our country’s future fathers.Happy Father’s Day, and many more Father’s Days to come from Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families!
-
Toxic Chemicals In Your Child’s Car Seat
Jun 19, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Megan Boyle
Originally published on Healthy Child Healthy World by Megan Boyle.
Parents do a lot of research before they buy a car seat.
They want to know, how does the seat perform in crash tests? What’s its safety record? How will it protect my child in case of collision?
They can usually find plenty of answers to these questions. But they may know far less about the potentially toxic chemicals in the seat itself.
A new report issued by the Ecology Center sheds some light on this important topic in car seat safety. The Michigan-based nonprofit, which has tested 377 car seats since 2006, recently screened 15 car seats sold under 12 brands last year.
Every single seat was found to contain some amount of fire retardant chemicals and 73 percent of them contained halogenated fire retardants, which are especially toxic.
The study ranked Britax and Clek as the best car seats for chemical hazards and Graco, the worst. Visit healthystuff.org to see the full results of the study and how individual car seats ranked.
For your child’s safety and protection, make sure you use a car seat and install it properly, regardless of the chemicals it may contain.
Manufacturers add chemical fire retardants to the material inside motor vehicles to prevent car fires, particularly those caused by cigarettes or matches. But kids’ car seats? Children inhale, touch and—after sticking little hands in little mouths— consume these chemicals.
Read the full story here.
-
Congress: Ask Yourself, Not the EPA, About the Clean Air Act
Jun 19, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Tom Ewing
In the last week, the House Energy & Commerce Committee held two hearings on EPA’s proposal to lower the air quality standard for ground level ozone. This possible change is always contentious. Environmentalists side with EPA. Business and economic interests oppose.
Ozone regs affect everything from how cities are shaped to automobile fuels to consumer products to the national parks. Because of this impact, you might have hoped that the House focus would provide some much-needed insight. Unfortunately, for many reasons, the hearings were unsophisticated and misdirected; really, just a sideshow to an EPA juggernaut that, for all intents and purposes, runs itself.
At both hearings, lawmakers played out predictable roles. On June 12, for example, the Dems pitched softballs to EPA’s Janet McCabe, acting administrator for Air and Radiation, asking questions that just let her recite the well-worn cant about teamwork and children with asthma and moms in the ER and what the American people want, etc. The Republicans seemed unprepared – their questions largely weak and distracted.
It seems to me that a committee has a chance to act as a team, to focus on critical issues, to seek answers that can set directions for decisions and, maybe, new policies. Of course that takes leadership. These hearings were just a chance to let the Republicans spout off about big government and for the Democrats to go on and on about how they’re helping the children.
When faced with Congressional challenges, EPA has the ozone libretto perfected. EPA can answer any question with an official sounding buzz-word answer. This is an art, and EPA is lissome and facile, and gets more so at every hearing.
Which raises a fundamental question: why does Congress ask the EPA about the Clean Air Act? No matter the questions, the answers never change, never will. Congress, which wrote the Act, needs to question itself. Congress needs to ask: Is the EPA’s empire, its thicket of rules and regulations, its vast and endless prose and advisories, its teams of apparatchiks that create philosophical enigmas out of ozone readings, is this gigantic empire out of control? Is it serving the American people – businesses, environmentalists, regular citizens? If it is – how and why? This isn’t a heretical assignment. EPA is critical to America’s fabric. So is the Clean Air Act. But is each perfect and untouchable?
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to reevaluate the ozone standard every five years. A timetable is a good model. Congress could, if it wanted to, set a parallel, concurrent review, of the agency itself, focused on the Clean Air Act. What is EPA’s mission? Is there another agency – or maybe even a new one – that could take over the Clean Air Act, or parts of it? Maybe EPA is too self-consumed with clean air issues. It’s hard to tell whether the Agency is critical to the Clean Air Act or if things are reversed: the Clean Air Act is critical to the Agency and its seemingly endless expansion. In five years this clamor will repeat. Maybe with a different approach we could get some helpful answers.
Ewing is a freelance writer in Cincinnati who has focused on Clean Air Act issues, particularly pertaining to ozone, for many years. He can be reached at tfewing1@yahoo.com."
-
Hypocritical Attack on EPA and Supporters of Water Rule
Jun 19, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Whit Fosburgh
A June 17 opinion piece from Will Coggin of the Environmental Policy Alliance attacks the EPA’s recently released final rule to clarify protections of the Clean Water Act. Coggin also attempts to disparage the honesty and integrity of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP) and other sportsmen’s groups who support the clean water rule, which will help stem the tide of wetlands loss and definitively restore water quality protections to trout habitat and salmon spawning waters.
These attacks are disingenuous and blatantly hypocritical. The folks behind the Environmental Policy Alliance are lobbyists and PR spinmeisters who are paid by industry to roll back conservation, yet they presume to tell Beltway readers who the real sportsmen are and what we should support. Character assassination is easy. Working on complex policy solutions—that seek to balance the needs of fish and wildlife, and in turn America’s hunters and anglers, with the many other demands on our nation’s natural resources—is difficult.
The TRCP is beholden to no funder. The only litmus test we ever apply is what science indicates is good for fish and wildlife and, therefore, what is good for America’s sportsmen. And that is why I joined Collin O’Mara, CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, and Chris Wood, CEO of Trout Unlimited, in writing to The Hill in support of the clean water rule on June 5. Our community has celebrated the rulemaking process, which allowed sportsmen, farmers, businesses, and other stakeholders to provide feedback on initial drafts of the rule, and the EPA’s move to release more than half America’s streams and 20 million acres of wetlands from legal limbo. This process worked, and we’re pleased with the results—protection of the waters and wetlands that are the backbone of our sporting traditions and outdoor economy.
When sportsmen work together, sportsmen win. But this is something Coggin clearly does not want to see happen. I urge your readers to see through these attacks and question why he so desperately wants to weaken the voice of hunters and fishermen in Washington.
Fosburgh is the president and CEO of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.
-
Administration’s Climate Services for Resilient Development a Smart Move
Jun 19, 2015 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Daniel Speckhard
News of the Pope’s encyclical on climate change only reinforces what those of us working to alleviate extreme poverty already know – that there is a moral issue at play, with the poorest and most vulnerable at the greatest risk. Millions are already feeling the effects in their everyday lives; many more face an increased vulnerability to natural disasters and climate-driven natural resource degradation, threatening food security and income stability.
That’s why the administration’s announcement of a new initiative, Climate Services for Resilient Development, is so welcome. The initiative includes $34 million to help developing countries better plan for and mitigate climate risks, including providing greater access to information and planning for a more coordinated response to climate-related disasters
Information is power. As we’ve seen time and again, some of those most at risk of the negative effects of climate change and associated disaster lack access to the very information they need to prepare for, combat or otherwise mitigate those risks. And when we can get this information into the hands of local communities, using technologies widely available like mobile phones, it can have dramatic results.
In Central America, one of the focus areas for this new White House initiative, two years of poor harvests due to a combination of rainfall irregularity, drought and leaf rust – a devastating coffee plant fungus – have already resulted in significant crop loss. This affects not only those in the region but increases the threat of myriad security issues, including unrest and migration.
Working with farmers on the ground throughout Central America, and in countries across the globe, we at Lutheran World Relief, and throughout the international development community, have seen how access to even basic weather information and education on climate smart agriculture and crop diversification greatly improve people’s ability to plan for and resist shocks. An ounce of prevention in this case has been worth pounds of crops – and saved livelihoods.
This move by the White House is a step in the right direction and supports what some in the international development community have been working hard to address for many years now. Harnessing the new power of information technology as part of our foreign assistance strategy is a great move, and allocating funding for it is critical to empowering local communities to address problems that can affect all of us.
The worsening effects of climate change and its threats to millions is something we cannot afford to ignore.
Speckhard is president and CEO of Lutheran World Relief and a nonresident senior fellow with the Global Development and Economy program at the Brookings Institution.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time
Add recipients
Suggested