Here is some food for thought as we get ready to gobble down some turkey this Thanksgiving: A new $25 million plant under construction in North Carolina will convert turkey waste into energy. Prestage AgEnergy will use 55,000 tons of turkey litter a year to produce the equivalent of 95 million kilowatt hours of electricity and feed that renewable electricity back to the grid.
North Carolina has a lot of turkey waste on hand – it ranks second in the nation behind Minnesota in turkey production. In light of its prolific turkey farming, in 2007, the state passed an energy policy mandate that requires utilities to use a small amount of poultry waste-generated power. This will not be the first turkey-waste energy plant – Minnesota currently has a 55-megawat power plant designed to burn poultry waste as its primary fuel. However, the new North Carolina plant will reportedly be the first facility designed to run on 100-percent turkey waste.
Lynn Grayson and Steven Siros Publish Article on U.S. Legal and Regulatory Developments in Nanotechnology
Lynn Grayson and Steven Siros have published an article in the most recent issue of DRI’s Toxic Tort and Environmental Law Newsletter titled Nanotechnology: U.S. Legal and Regulatory Developments. In the article, Ms. Grayson and Mr. Siros discuss how nanotechnology affects every sector of the U.S. economy and impacts our lives in a myriad of ways through the 1,600 nanotechnology-based consumer goods and products we use on a daily basis. The article provides an overview of how nanotechnology is defined, insights on the regulatory framework and recent developments, possible concerns about nanomaterial use, and risk management considerations for U.S. businesses utilizing nanotechnology.
The full article is available here.
IARC’s Classification of Red Meat and Processed Meats as Carcinogenic Exposes Food Manufacturers, Distributers, and Retailers to Proposition 65 Liability
The Internet was buzzing yesterday with news that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) has classified red meat as a Group 2A carcinogen (“probably carcinogenic to humans”) and processed meat as a Group 1 carcinogen (“carcinogenic to humans”). In general, IARC evaluates the environmental causes of cancer in humans, including chemicals (e.g., formaldehyde), complex mixtures (e.g., air pollution), physical agents (e.g., solar radiation), biological agents (e.g., hepatitis B virus), and personal habits (e.g., tobacco smoking). IARC has long played a role as a source of scientific information that carries weight in federal and state regulation of potentially harmful substances and toxic tort lawsuits involving such substances.
California is the ninth state to ban microbeads with passage of an aggressive new law prohibiting the tiny plastics beads by 2020. As the largest state to ban microbeads, this new California legislation appears to make it a virtual certainty that microbeads will be phased out across the country and possibly even through federal legislation.
Unlike bans enacted in Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, and Wisconsin, A.B. 888 provides no exemptions for biodegradable plastic or a process to win approval for such an exemption. Both Michigan and Washington also are considering microbead bans.
Many personal care product manufacturers already have agreed to phase out the use of microbeads in their products over the next few years. Industry representatives agree there are alternatives and other options to replace the sector’s reliance upon microbeads. A new study concludes that 8 trillion bits of plastic enter oceans and lakes from the U.S. every day. The study also provides further support for the ban on microbeads to improve marine, environmental and public health.
The District of Columbia (D.C.) is the latest to propose a ban on microbeads starting January 1, 2018. The proposed ban, part of D.C.’s omnibus fisheries and wildlife bill aimed at ensuring marine areas and waterways remain pollutant-free, is one of the more aggressive approaches prohibiting the supply, manufacture, or import of personal care products containing microbeads. Fines up to $37,500 may be imposed for failure to comply with the ban.
Eight states, including Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, and Wisconsin, as well as Erie County, New York, have laws banning the manufacture of personal care products containing microbeads starting as early as January 1, 2017.
The Canadian government recently took action to ban microbeads, very small particles found in a variety of consumer and personal care products that may pose adverse environmental impacts in rivers, lakes, and oceans after they are washed down the drain.
Specifically, the Canadian government proposes to designate microbeads as toxic substances and to develop regulations that would prohibit the manufacture, import, and sale of consumer and personal care products containing microbeads.
A thorough scientific review that included an analysis of over 140 scientific papers, as well as consultations with experts, revealed that the presence of microbeads in the environment may have long-term effects on biological diversity and ecosystems. A summary of key findings include:
EPA’s Safer Choice program (formerly Design for the Environment) recognizes products that meet stringent ingredient and product level criteria. Safer Choice products do not contain carcinogens or reproductive or developmental toxins. The program helps consumers and commercial buyers identify and select products with safer chemical ingredients without sacrificing quality or performance.
According to EPA, there are over 2,000 products that currently qualify for the Safer Choice label. This summer, EPA’s new Safer Choice labels began appearing on consumer products such as household soaps and cleaners. To qualify for the Safer Choice label, a product must meet stringent human and environmental health criteria.
In the first year of the Safer Choice Partner of the Year awards, the Chicago/Region V area has more winners than any other part of the country. Local award winners include: AkzoNobel/Chicago; ISSA, The Worldwide Cleaning Industry Association/Northbrook; Jelmar, LLC/Skokie; Loyola University Chicago, Institute of Environmental Sustainability/Chicago; and Stepan Company/Northfield. Nationwide, 21 entities won EPA Safer Choice Partner of the Year awards. EPA confirms there are nearly 500 formulator-manufacturer partners that make more than 2,000 products for retail and institutional customers.
More information about the Safer Choice program is available at http://www2.epa.gov/saferchoice.
A new EPA report, Climate Change in the United States: Benefits of Global Action, estimates the physical and monetary benefits to the U.S. of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. The report summarizes results from the Climate Change Impacts and Risks Analysis (CIRA) project, a peer-reviewed study comparing impacts in a future with significant global action on climate change to a future in which current greenhouse gas emissions to continue to rise.
The report shows that global action on climate change will significantly benefit Americans by saving lives and avoiding costly damages across the U.S. economy. The report and its finding perhaps foreshadow the U.S. participation in the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference to be held in Paris, France later this year, from November 30 through December 11. This will be the 21st yearly session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 21) to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 11th session of the Meeting of the Parties (CMP 11) to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Once again, the conference objective is to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate from all of the nations of the world.
Below is a video developed by EPA discussing the report and its findings.
In honor of the fifth anniversary of our entry into the blogosphere, we are excited to announce a major revamp of the Corporate Environmental Lawyer’s design. In addition to the blog’s sophisticated new look, our readers will enjoy:
- Mobile and tablet responsive technology
- A trending-categories cloud list
- Easy-to-use social sharing buttons
Streamlined navigation menus
- Access to all five years of posts
In the five years since our Environmental and Workplace Health & Safety (EHS) practice created the Corporate Environmental Lawyer, we have written more than 500 posts, provided critical updates and insights on issues across the EHS legal sectors, and been ranked among LexisNexis’s top 50 blogs. As we wish to continue to grow the blog and provide our readers with the information they want to know, Corporate Environmental Lawyer editors, Steven M. Siros and Genevieve J. Essig, encourage you to participate by suggesting new topics. We look forward to continuing to provide content covering the issues that are driving changes in environmental law.
EPA has denied the January 14, 2010 petition submitted by the Food & Water Watch and Beyond Pesticides to ban the antimicrobial pesticide triclosan. The petition requested that EPA take the following regulatory actions:
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA): (1) reopen the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED); (2) issue a notice of cancellation of the registrations of all products containing triclosan; and (3) concurrently issue an emergency order to immediately suspend the existing triclosan registrations.
Clean Water Act (CWA): (1) impose technology-based effluent limitations; (2) establish healthbased toxic pollutant water quality pretreatment requirements; and (3) impose biosolids regulation for triclosan.
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): conduct a comprehensive assessment of the appropriateness of regulating triclosan under SDWA.
Endangered Species Act (ESA): (1) conduct a biological assessment; and (2) engage in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce.
Tiny microbeads are introduced everyday into waterways from many personal care products and over the counter drugs. The plastic microbeads (often made of polyethylene or polypropylene) are recent additions in facial scrubs, soaps, toothpastes and other personal care products as abrasives or exfoliants. A single product may contain as many as 350,000 of these nanoparticles. Last week, EPA’s Janet Goodwin, Chief of the EPA Office of Wastewater’s Technology and Statistics, confirmed again that EPA lacks regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate consumer use of plastic microbeads entering wastewaters, despite growing concern over impacts to the environment.
According to Ms. Goodwin, most of the plastic microbeads that are found in wastewater effluent come from consumer use. The EPA only has authority to regulate plastic microbeads that enter wastewater from industry, either through effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards.
Minnesota House and Senate Each Pass Bills Banning The Sale and Manufacture of Products Containing Plastic Microbeads
"Microbeads" are synthetic microspheres widely used in cosmetics, skin care and personal care products, which are added as exfoliating agents. Public interest groups have expressed concern that, because wastewater systems may be unable to filter microbeads from effluent released into public waterways, microbeads are entering the marine food chain. This week, the Minnesota House and Senate each passed bills that would ban the manufacture and sale of products containing plastic microbeads.
Both bills contain the same phased timeline:
- Effective December 31, 2018, no one can sell personal care products containing synthetic plastic microbeads, but persons can continue selling over-the-counter drugs containing synthetic plastic microbeads. However, that same day, no one can manufacture for sale over-the-counter drugs that contains synthetic plastic microbeads.
- Effective December 31, 2019, no one can sell over-the-counter drugs containing synthetic plastic microbeads.
EPA has proposed one-time reporting and record keeping requirements on nanoscale chemical substances in the marketplace. The proposed rule contains a 90-day public comment period. After the comment period, EPA will review and consider those comments before issuing any final rule. EPA also anticipates a public meeting during the comment period to obtain additional public input.
Specifically, EPA proposed requiring companies that manufacture or process (or intend to manufacture or process) chemical substances in the nanoscale range to electronically report information, including the specific chemical identity, production volume, methods of manufacture, processing, use, exposure and release information, and available health and safety data. The proposed rule would apply to chemical substances that have unique properties related to their size. The proposed rule contains exclusions for chemical substances in the nanoscale range that would not be subject to the rule. In addition to this proposed one-time reporting on chemical substances manufactured or processed as nanoscale materials already in commerce, EPA currently reviews new chemical substances manufactured or processed as nanomaterials prior to introduction into the marketplace to ensure that they are safe.
Chemical substances that have structures with dimensions at the nanoscale -- approximately 1-100 nanometers (nm) -- are commonly referred to as nanoscale materials or nanoscale substances. A human hair is approximately 80,000-100,000 nanometers wide. These chemical substances may have properties different than the same chemical substances with structures at a larger scale, such as greater strength, lighter weight, and greater chemical reactivity. These enhanced or different properties give nanoscale materials a range of potentially beneficial public and commercial applications; however, the same special properties may cause some of these chemical substances to behave differently than conventional chemicals under specific conditions.
EPA is proposing this new requirement under TSCA Section 8(a) to determine if further action, including additional information collection, is needed.
More information about the proposed rule, including the Federal Register notice, EPA fact sheet and press release, are available at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/nano/.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is seeking $7M to establish a nanotechnology center and proposes to create a five year interagency agreement with the National Science Foundation and a learning center or university to house the center. The proposed "Center for Consumer Product Applications and Safety Implications of Nanotechnology" would be a consortium of scientists tasked with researching methods to quantify and characterize the presence, release and mechanisms of consumer exposure to nanomaterials from consumer products.
Nanotechnology is the manipulation of matter on an atomic, molecular and supramolecular scale. While there is some controversy over the correct definition, nanomaterials generally are characterized by their tiny size, measured in nanometers. A nanometer is one millionth of a millimeter—approximately 100,000 times smaller than the diameter of a human hair. While nano-sized particles exist in nature, there is growing concern over the increased use of and impacts from engineered nanomaterials present in many commercial, industrial and consumer products—most nanoscale materials are too small to be seen with the naked eye or even with conventional lab microscopes, according to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
According to the CPSC, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars issued a 2008 report evaluating the CPSC's role in nanotechnology. The report concluded that nanotechnology is used in all of the categories that CPSC regulates including toys and baby products, sports and fitness equipment, home improvement and garden equipment, clothing, appliances, computers and other electronic devices. The Wilson Center has established a Consumer Products Inventory identifying over 1,800 consumer products that contain nanomaterials.
Even though the CPSC is attempting to take a more proactive approach to nanotechnology, it is believed by many that the CPSC is behind the curve in analyzing the impacts of nanomaterials in consumer goods, particularly those associated with children's products. All agree the launch of the new nanotechnology center would be an important step for the CPSC assuming the necessary funding can be secured.
The CPSC has been active in developing agreements with other agencies to address issues related to nanotechnology and is a member of the National Nanotechnology Initiative—a group of 25 government agencies that have committed resources for the completion of nanotechnology research to assess environmental, health and safety concerns and related data gaps.
On January 12, 2015, California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA") proposed modifications to California's controversial Proposition 65 regulations. As any company that does business in California should know, Proposition 65 requires that a warning be provided for any product that contains one of hundreds of chemicals identified on the Proposition 65 list if there is any risk of a person being exposed to the listed chemical above a specified threshold. As a result, one is bombarded with Proposition 65 warnings from the point one disembarks onto the jet bridge until the time one arrives at his/her hotel and orders room service. OEHHA's proposed amendments to Proposition 65 appear to do little to ease the regulatory burden on companies that do business in California and/or minimize the burden of having to read all of the Proposition 65 warnings.
Overview of Proposed Changes
Warnings Must Now Identify Specific Chemicals: OEHHA has listed the following 12 chemicals which must be identified by name in any Proposition 65 warning: Acrylamide; Arsenic; Benzene; Cadmium; Carbon Monoxide; Chlorinated Tris; Formaldehyde; Hexavalent Chromium; Lead; Mercury; Methylene Chloride; and Phthalates.
Modified "Safe Harbor" Language: In order to avail oneself of the "safe harbor" warning, the warning must state that a product "can expose you" to a chemical or chemicals as opposed to the old "safe harbor" language that merely required that the warning state that the product "contains a chemical" that is known to the State to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. In addition, for the following consumer products and services, specific warnings would be required: food and dietary supplements; alcoholic beverages; restaurant foods and non-alcoholic beverages; prescription drugs; dental care; furniture; diesel engine exhaust; parking facilities; amusement parks; designated smoking areas; petroleum products; service station and vehicle repair facilities.
New Lead Agency Website: The proposed regulations would also create a new section on the OEHHA website that would provide detailed information on products and exposures. OEHHA would also have the authority to request that businesses provide more detailed information, including estimated levels of exposure for listed chemicals.
Limited Responsibility for Retailers: Retailers would be relieved from Proposition 65 liability in most circumstances and the responsibility for providing the requisite Proposition 65 warning would fall squarely on the manufacturer, distributer, producer and/or packager.
OEHHA will be accepting written comments on the proposed changes until April 8, 2015. Not surprisingly, OEHHA's proposed regulations have not been warmly received by industry and it is expected that affected businesses and trade associations will be submitting comments in opposition to these proposed amendments. Please click here and here to see the text of the proposed amendments.