The proposal is an effort by fireplace makers to blunt the threat of regulation by the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission. And it comes amid a string of lawsuits over burns from the scorching glass panes of gas fireplaces, which commonly reach temperatures above 400 degrees. The change would come through a revision to the current voluntary industry standard.

According to a federal estimate, since 1999 more than 2,000 children ages five and under have been injured through contact with the unprotected glass, with some suffering 3rd degree burns.  Some burn specialists believe the true number is much higher.

On Tuesday, officials of the Hearth, Patio, and Barbecue Association., a trade group for fireplace makers, are scheduled to brief commissioners and CPSC staff about their plans. Under the revision, manufacturers would provide a safety screen or barrier with each new fireplace. The current voluntary standard, certified by the American National Standards Institute, provides for warnings in owners manuals but does not include a barrier to prevent contact with the superheated glass.

The warnings have been ineffective in part because the parents of victims may not see them. Often, the buyer of the fireplace is a building contractor or a commercial establishment, while the end user is a renter, a second owner of the home, or a hotel guest who does not realize that the glass gets dangerously hot.

Industry representatives had previously considered a more limited change: requiring manufacturers to offer barriers to fit each fireplace, but only as a separate purchase.

The new proposal “is the prudent thing to do,” said Leslie Wheeler, director of communications for the hearth and patio association. “We’re very supportive of it.”

Consumer advocates say the proposal, recommended last month by an industry panel, is a positive step but does not go far enough. They said the wording should make clear that the screen must come attached to the fireplace to make buyers aware of its importance for safety.

“We would feel much more comfortable if the units were sold with the barrier affixed,” said Daniel Dillard, chairman of the prevention committee of the American Burn Assn. Consumers who don’t want the barrier “would have to take the initiative to remove it,” Dillard said.

“You can’t make somebody be safe,” but attaching the screen tells the buyer “this manufacturer must think this [the screen] needs to be here,” said Carol Pollack-Nelson, a psychologist and former member of the commission staff.

However, Wheeler of the hearth association said the intent of the proposal, as written, is to make sure the screen is attached when the fireplace is installed, in order “to protect the manufacturer and the retailer himself, as well as the homeowner.”

Following a comment period and further technical review, the revised standard could become final by July.

Consumer advocates last spring petitioned the commission to adopt government safety rules.  The industry briefings Tuesday are part of an effort to convince the agency that the companies should be allowed to continue regulating themselves.

Under federal law, the agency is supposed to defer to voluntary standards unless it’s clear they aren’t effective in preventing injuries or deaths. To manage a heavy workload, the commission also prefers to rely on voluntary standards rather than go through the laborious rule-making process.

“Preventing child burn injuries from incidents involving fireplaces is an important safety issue,” said commission spokesman Scott Wolfson, adding that agency staffers are reviewing public comments.

Gas fireplaces once were mainly ornamental, and many consumers aren’t aware of the danger of modern hearths, which are designed to serve as heating appliances. Fireplace makers generally have failed to actively warn of the dangers or push the use of safety screens, fearing they would limit the aesthetic appeal and scare away buyers.

However, two leading manufacturers already provide screens at no extra cost. For safety reasons, Hearth & Home Technologies of Lakeville, Minn., includes a permanently attached mesh screen with all of its gas fireplaces. Another top manufacturer, Lennox Hearth Products of Nashville, Tenn., last year began offering a free attachable screen with each fireplace as part of the settlement of a class action lawsuit.

Related Posts:
Toddlers Suffer Severe Burns From Broiling Fireplace Glass, as Businesses Write Their Own Safety Rules
Burn Cases Turn Up the Heat on Fireplace Makers
Industry Seeks to Stave Off Regulation Over Toddler Burns

Surprise: I got my wish, in the form of new Environmental Protection Agency standards on mercury and air toxics for power plants. These rules are long overdue: we were supposed to start regulating mercury more than 20 years ago. But the rules are finally here, and will deliver huge benefits at only modest cost.

Read the rest of the commentary here.

Wind farm near Palm Springs, Calif. (iStockphoto)

Wind power is riding a strong breeze. In the last five years, generating capacity in the U.S. has nearly quadrupled. Clusters of tubular wind towers, rising up to 300 feet above ridgelines and gusty plains, are an increasingly familiar sight.

But in the scramble to expand clean energy and green jobs, the wind industry has fallen short on worker safety.

Thousands of the giant wind machines violate a federal requirement to give technicians who work inside the towers enough maneuvering space to get up and down their ladders safely. The standard says the space near the ladder should be free of permanent obstructions that could cause serious head or back injuries if a climber slips or is moving fast.

There are about 36,000 of the wind towers in the U.S., and more are being added all the time. Most are produced overseas to meet international codes. For reasons they won’t explain, the manufacturers either ignored the U.S. standard, or thought it wouldn’t apply to them.

The companies “evidently didn’t look into U.S. codes and standards, especially safety standards, in doing their designs,” said Patrick Bell, a senior safety engineer with the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, or Cal-OSHA, and a member of a federal OSHA wind energy task force.

OSHA officials say they’re not aware of any serious injuries so far. Still, the violations are so widespread that they have flummoxed safety regulators, who are trying to figure out the extent of the hazard and what to do about it.

“We could conceivably issue citations,” said Bell of Cal-OSHA, “but we might end up taking all of our compliance officers off other industries to run from one wind farm to the next.”

“We are trying to work with the industry,” he said, “because it’s a huge industry with all the wind towers going up.”

Emily Chow for FairWarning.

The manufacturers have been reluctant to talk about the problem. Officials with Vestas Americas, part of Vestas Wind Systems A/S of Denmark, the world’s biggest turbine supplier, declined to be interviewed and would not respond to written questions. GE Energy, the top U.S. wind turbine maker, took the same stance. Both companies referred inquiries to the American Wind Energy Assn., a trade group.

Michele M. Mihelic, the association’s manager of labor, health and safety policy, said in an email to FairWarning that the group “cannot make a blanket statement that all wind turbines comply or not.”

“Each wind turbine make and model is different,” she said.

The OSHA standard dates to the 1970s, and applies to the use of fixed ladders at work sites generally, not to wind towers specifically. It requires a clearance of 30 inches from the ladder so workers can safely move up and down. If there are permanent obstructions within the climbing space, they must be shielded so workers can squeeze past without getting hurt.

The main issue with tower designs is the use of heavy steel bolts and rims known as flanges to join their long, tubular sections. In the two or three spots where the sections are fastened, the bolts and flanges intrude at least several inches into the safety space.

Two field technicians have sought to draw attention to the issue, saying they were stunned by the prevalence of the problem.

“Between my friends and I … we’ve been in thousands of wind turbines and haven’t found one that’s compliant with this issue,” said Ed Oliver, 47, of Dana Point, Calif.

“We can’t believe this exists everywhere we go,” said Nick Nichols, 45, of Zephyr Cove, Nev. “The regulations are there for a reason.”

The men said they have seen nothing worse than bruised tailbones and minor scrapes from encounters with the flanges. But they said it’s only a matter of time before there are serious injuries. They pointed to the growing use of “climb assists” that use motors and pulleys to support part of the weight of technicians, allowing them to climb faster and basically rappel downward in the descent.

Oliver and Nichols have complained to OSHA. They also took the unusual step of offering the industry their own version of a safety device, called a deflector. The website for their company, Pinnacle Wind USA, shows what looks like a short section of a playground slide covering a flange. “Developed BY tower climbers, FOR tower climbers,” it says.

Their efforts haven’t brought any love from the wind industry. In August, they were stunned by an email to Nichols from Mihelic of the wind association.

“You should…be aware that there are people posing as OSHA compliance officers and/or OSHA consultants and are threatening people in the industry with citations if they don’t buy your product,” the email said.

Mihelic added that OSHA had been told about the scheme and “has requested that if any of our members are approached in this manner to please report it to them so they can investigate.”

The two men immediately suspected it was a bogus claim designed to discredit them. Soon after, Nichols enlisted the help of U.S. Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., to see what OSHA knew about it.

David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for Occupational Safety and Health, responded Oct. 11 with a letter to Heller that seemed to contradict Mihelic. OSHA officials were unaware of “any reported cases of OSHA impersonators threatening companies to purchase Pinnacle Wind USA products,” the letter said.

Mihelic told FairWarning she stood by her email to Nichols.

Meanwhile, the ladder issue remains up in the air.

OSHA has not yet issued citations for violations of the standard. Brian Sturtecky, OSHA’s area director in Jacksonville, Fla., and chairman of its wind energy task force, said the agency is preparing a “Letter of Interpretation” to clarify how the standard will be applied.

The result could be a mandate for the industry to retrofit thousands of towers. Or, the industry could get a pass if the agency decides the hazard can be controlled by other measures, such as training.

The task force is examining other safety issues in the industry in the wake of some serious accidents.

In August, 2007, a worker was killed and another injured in the collapse of a tower at a wind farm near Wasco, Ore. Also, OSHA fined Outland Energy Services $378,000 for safety violations after an employee suffered serious electrical burns at an Illinois wind farm in October, 2010.

A molecular model of Bisphenol A or BPA. (iStockphoto)

The controversial chemical bisphenol A was not on my radar screen back in 2008, when I ordered a polycarbonate electric food steamer from Target.com. I thought I had purchased a nifty appliance, which offered a clever and fun way to cook dinner.

Not so fun were the news stories I started reading soon after. These articles reported research questioning the safety of polycarbonate in food applications, because that plastic contains BPA. It seemed each week a new study came out, implicating the widely used chemical in potential health problems, including neurological damage, diabetes and cancer.

Determined to get the chemical out of my kitchen, I stopped buying canned foods, because most had an epoxy resin lining containing BPA. I took a closer look at my cooking tools and didn’t like what I saw. Especially worrisome were the polycarbonate ones employing heat, because high temperatures can cause BPA to leach out.

Five months after buying the steamer, I tried unsuccessfully to return it to Target, where customer service would not override the standard 90-day return window, even though I explained my worries about BPA. Target suggested I contact the manufacturer, West Bend.

But I also struck out with West Bend, because the steamer was not under recall and the product materials were FDA approved.

I stashed the steamer in our garage, where it remained until last month when I tripped over the box. This got me wondering if West Bend and Target had changed their policies. After all, a lot has happened in the world of bisphenol A since 2008. “BPA Free” now is a rallying cry on many store shelves, including Target. Several food manufacturers have started using alternative linings in their canned foods, and some stores are eliminating thermal-paper cash register receipts coated with BPA. Eleven states have passed laws banning the chemical in bottles and cups for infants.

Even the American Chemistry Council, which has vigorously fought bans of the chemical, recently took the paradoxical position of asking federal regulators to make sure BPA is not used in baby bottles and sippy cups. (The industry group pointed out that the six leading manufacturers of baby bottles have not used BPA in those products since 2009.)

On its website the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services warns that “BPA levels rise in food when containers/products made with the chemical are heated and come in contact with the food.”

Given all that, I was surprised to get a blast from the past when I called West Bend: they still would not take back the steamer because there is no recall of the product and its components are FDA approved. I made clear my intent was not to get a refund. I simply was curious if the company had any kind of policy regarding polycarbonate appliances, in light of all the new evidence about BPA.

Not only is there no such policy, the steamer continues to be manufactured and sold at Target and other retailers. With all the headlines about BPA, you have to wonder – why the heck is anyone still making and selling polycarbonate cooking tools?

Asked to comment, a West Bend spokesperson emailed:

“When products are conceived and designed, we consider all material options for the application and are sensitive as well to environmental and social factors. Coupled with FDA guidelines and mandates, we choose materials we feel will best support the product and ultimately the customer.”

A Target spokesperson emailed: “Target does offer a variety of BPA-free products. Guests may return products only if the product is either part of a recall or if the product falls within our normal return policy.”

A cynic might say, oh well, we’re surrounded by dangerous chemicals. Even if a plastic product is BPA-free, it might leach some other compound when heated. But many scientists insist that very low-dose BPA exposure is linked to health problems. So it would seem wise for consumers and manufacturers to eliminate exposure when they can.

But if we want to rid our kitchens of BPA, what are we supposed to do with these polycarbonate appliances? Taking apart the steamer and putting it in my community’s recycling program is not a responsible option, because this would just put BPA deeper into the environment. (In fact, recycled paper products have been contaminated with BPA, traced to cash register receipts coated with the chemical, which were put into recycling bins.)

“BPA will likely continue to find its way into other consumer products and the environment via recycling and disposal, which is why we need to phase it out of consumer products as soon as possible,” said Mike Schade of  the advocacy group Center for Health, Environment and Justice.

For now, I have placed the steamer back in the garage. Hopefully, by the next time I trip over the box, companies will have stopped making, and retailers will no longer sell, polycarbonate kitchen tools. And maybe someone will have figured out what we should do with all the unwanted products containing BPA.

Emily Dwass is a contributor to FairWarning.

As the Los Angeles Times reports, the new clean air regulatory proposal is expected to be completed by the agency today and officially announced on Monday. It has been more than 20 years in the making, fighting long-running opposition from coal-burning utilities over the cost of installing pollution control equipment.

The new rule, based on a draft version that came out in March, would give companies three years to reduce emissions of mercury and about 70 other toxic substances, although utilities could stretch out the process with appeals. Much of industry has argued that the deadline is too tight and could lead to power blackouts.

Air pollution politics figures to be a major challenge for President Obama in his 2012 re-election campaign. As Bloomberg reports,  the coal industry already has launched a huge lobbying and advertising campaign to thwart his administration’s efforts to reduce mercury emissions from coal.

At the same time, the president and the EPA will have supporters. The American Lung Association — with the backing of Chesapeake Energy Corp., a big natural gas drilling company and coal competitor — is bringing out ads in favor of the new air-quality proposal.

Also, as Politico reports, the EPA will enlist former pro football great Jerome Bettis to knock down the opposition. The one-time Pittsburgh Steelers running back, known as “the Bus,” was in Washington on Thursday to meet with EPA head Lisa Jackson and to film a public service announcement pointing out power plant pollution hazards. Politico said Bettis, who was diagnosed with asthma at age 15, has long championed improved air quality.

The EPA estimates that its new air quality requirements for power plants would prevent up to 11,000 heart attacks, 17,000 premature deaths and 120,000 cases of childhood asthma annually.

STUART SILVERSTEIN

Related Posts:
Power Industry Blowing Smoke About Air Pollution Rules, Report Says
Politics, Bureaucratic Dawdling Take Wind Out of Effort to Curb Air Pollution
Environmentalists Sue Over EPA’s Retreat on Ozone Rules

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, in issuing its widely followed top safety pick selections, said in a news release that 18 models for 2012 were added to the category. They joined 97 vehicles that are repeat selections.

Honda accounted for 10 of the 18 additions to the list. That included the midsize Accord sedan, which fell off the roster during the 2010 model year after the institute toughened its criteria by adding a test to assess roof strength in a rollover crash.

“Honda/Acura deserves credit for most-improved status,” said Adrian Lund, president of the insurance industry-funded institute. “The automaker buckled down and upgraded roofs on 10 models that missed winning last year because of rollover protection.

The institute’s evaluations also assess how well people are protected in front, side and and rear crashes.

The Toyota Camry earned its first top safety rating this year. Subaru was the only automaker that won a top safety pick designation for every model line that it produces.

As USA Today pointed out, there was at least one anomaly on the list. The Fiat 500 was rated by the insurance institute as a top safety pick, but it recently failed to qualify for the top category in the federal government’s ratings, which are provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

STUART SILVERSTEIN

Related Posts:
Riders in Cars with ‘Poor’ Side-Impact Ratings Far More Likely to Die in Crashes
Auto Safety Complaints Accelerate in 2010
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Releases Top Safety Picks for 2010 Cars
Industries Get Quiet Protection From Lawsuits