Dr. Emily Monosson is a toxicologist with a B.S. from Union College, and an M.S. and Ph.D. from Cornell University. She works part-time as a consultant, writer, teacher and researcher while navigating the ups and downs of balancing a career in science and caring for her two children.

• Toxicity
• Toxicology
• Arsenic
• Dose
• Risk assessment
• Interaction of chemicals in the body

• Reach: High Hazard Chemicals
• Biomonitoring must play strong role in TSCA reform, panel says
• EU draws up toxic chemicals law
• Hazardous and Toxic Substances
• White House aims to boost chemical risk assessment, science research
• Toxic releases decrease nationwide
• EPA to reform toxic chemical regulations

• Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
• Food quality protection act
• Arsenic in Drinking water
• The Water Quality-Based Approach To Pollution Control
• WHole effluent toxicity
• Chemical Regulation: Options for Enhancing the Effectiveness of the Toxic Substances Control Act
• Science and the politics of toxic chemical regulations: US and European contrasts

Introduction
The need for government attention to and regulation of chemicals increased as the chemical and Industrial Revolution progressed, and as the human-chemical relationship intensified. As will become clear in this article, the great majority of chemical control laws, from limits on pesticide residues (up until very recently) to ‘allowable’ concentrations of chemicals in surface or drinking waters, have focused on control of individual chemicals. Several of the chemical control laws are reviewed below (Figure 1).

Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act
Prior to the late 19th-early 20th centuries in the United States, there were virtually no controls on food additives, drug efficacy, or the safety of either. One of the earliest laws concerning chemical or drug use and development was the Drug Importation Act of 1848. Apparently short-lived, this early law was enacted to protect the public from impure, degraded, or ineffective drugs that were produced elsewhere in the world and exported to the U.S. (Figure 1). With the development and sale of unregulated ‘remedies’ and all sorts of food preservation schemes (refrigerators as we know them were not developed until the last quarter of the 19th century), it soon became clear that some kind of regulation was necessary for consistent consumer protection. Concerns about adulteration, including use of preservatives in foods, spurred some of the early human studies on the health effects of adulterants. Under the direction of Dr. Harvey Wiley, the second chief chemist of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Division of Chemistry, preservatives were tested by his now infamous “poison squad,” a group of USDA employees who apparently volunteered to ingest to test the toxicity of several commonly used food preservatives of the day (formaldehyde and sulphites, for example, were amongst the first to be explored). These studies resulted in the creation of such early food and drug control laws as the Food and Drug Act of 1906. Our current Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) authorizes assessments of the safety of new drugs, food additives, and colors; and it specifies tolerance levels for pesticides and other chemicals that may occur in foods.

Not surprisingly, from the earliest tests conducted by Wiley to many current toxicity tests required of new food additives, chemicals are tested and regulated on a single-chemical basis. Pesticide tolerances for a particular fruit or vegetable, for example, include consideration of the reference dose (RfD) for the pesticide (as an individual chemical), and consumption rates, maximum pesticide residues found during experimental exposures, and other uses and residue levels on other crops. Concern for multiple or mixed, pesticide residues in foods, however, has prompted the FFDCA recently to act in concert with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address the issue of chemical mixture exposure in foods.

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
Prior to the 1970’s the early Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) under the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) was geared essentially towards protecting consumers from ineffective products. It really was not until amendments to the law in the 1970s that FIFRA was re-directed to consider the environmental fate and toxic effects of these chemicals and to protecting consumers and the environment from these products. The changes in FIFRA gave a boost to the newly emerging field of environmental toxicology. Nonetheless, fulfilling the regulatory requirements to evaluate adverse environmental effects of individual pesticides, and building upon the existing body of toxicology, environmental toxicologists focused, once again, on the evaluation of single chemicals.

Recent amendments made to both FIFRA and the FFDCA by the way of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), have been hailed as groundbreaking approaches to pesticide regulation, for their departure from regulation based upon single chemicals. The FQPA is changing the way pesticide residues are regulated by setting ‘health-based’ standards for ALL pesticides in foods. ‘All’ in this case means combined residues from several different pesticides, or, chemical mixtures. The importance of this amendment, with respect to chemical mixtures should not be underestimated. This is one of the first attempts to regulate the permitting of individual chemicals based on their potential for combined toxicity. It will require development of innovative and reliable techniques to address combined toxicity. Although we will discuss the methodology used to determine new pesticide limits later, we should point out that this combined approach for now is limited to similarly acting pesticides. Currently, the FQPA does not address pesticide mixtures that act through different mechanisms. For example, several different organophosphate pesticides may occur in combination along with arsenic. The mixtures assessment will consider the combination of organophosphates, but nonetheless will assess arsenic separately. The rational for only extending combined toxicity to similarly acting pesticides should become clear as we discuss the toxicological tools available for such work.

Read more >>

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.

• Renewable energy
• Photovoltaics
• Wind farm
• Coal
• Greenhouse gas
• Electric Consumers Protection Act

• High tech greens the internet: net neutrality and the smart grid
• Electricity to power ’smart grid’
• Are smart meters really smart?
• SmartGridNews.com
• Obama: $3.4B for ’smart’ power grid
• $425B infrastructure investment would create 10M jobs — report
• We’re plugging in to the smart grid: interactive meters allow for control of energy
• Energy conservation helps stymie a major transmission line

• Department of Energy: Great Resources to learn more about Smart Grids
• An Introduction to The Smart Grid
• How to modernize the grid
• Smart Grid Solutions
• FAQs (blog)
• The platforms structure
• Grid 2030 (PDF)

Introduction
The term Smart Grid refers to an electricity distribution system that allows for flow of information from a customer’s meter in two directions: both inside the house to thermostats and appliances and other devices, and back to the utility. This could allow appliances to be turned off during periods of high electrical demand and cost, and give customers real-time information on constantly changing electric rates. Efforts are being made in both industry and government to modernize electric distribution to improve communications between utilities and the ultimate consumer. The goal is to use advanced, information-based technologies to increase power grid efficiency, reliability, and flexibility, and reduce the rate at which additional electric utility infrastructure needs to be built.

Both regulatory and technological barriers have limited the implementation of Smart Grid technology. At issue is whether a distinction for cost allocation purposes can be made between the impact of Smart Grid technology on the wholesale transmission system and its impact on the retail distribution system. Another issue limiting the deployment of this technology is the lack of consistent standards and protocols. There currently are no standards for these technologies in the United States. This limits the interoperability of Smart Grid technologies and limits future choices for companies that choose to install any particular type of technology.

Overview
The U.S. electric power system has historically operated at such a high level of reliability that any major outage, either caused by sabotage, weather, or operational errors, makes news headlines. As the August 14, 2003, Midwest and Northeast blackout demonstrated, a loss of electric power is very expensive and can entail considerable disruption to business, travel, government services, and daily life.

The electric utility industry operates as an integrated system of generation, transmission, and distribution facilities to deliver power to consumers. The electric power system in the United States consists of over 9,200 electric generating units with more than 950,000 megawatts of generating capacity connected to more than 300,000 miles of transmission lines; more than 210,000 miles of the transmission lines are rated at 230 kilovolts (kV) or higher (Figure 1).[1] In addition, approximately 150 control centers manage the flow of electricity through the system under normal operating conditions.

Most electricity in the United States is generated at power plants that use fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal), nuclear fission, or renewable energy (hydropower, geothermal, solar, wind, biomass). At the power plant, energy is converted into a set of three alternating electric currents, called three-phase power.[2] After power is generated, the first step in delivering electricity to the consumer is to transform the power from medium voltage (15-50 kilovolt (kV)) to high voltage (138-765 kV) alternating current (Figure 2).[3] This initial step-up of voltage occurs in a transformer located at transmission substations at the generating facilities. High voltages allow power to be moved long distances with the greatest efficiency, i.e. transmission line losses are minimized.[4] The three phases of power are carried over three wires that are connected to large transmission towers.[5] Close to the ultimate consumer, the power is stepped-down at another substation to lower voltages, typically less than 10 kV. At this point, the power is considered to have left the transmission system and entered the distribution system.

The transmission system continues to become more congested, and siting of transmission lines continues to be difficult. To try to maximize operation of existing infrastructure, efforts are being made in both industry and government to modernize electric distribution equipment to improve communications between utilities and the ultimate consumer. The goal is to use advanced, information-based technologies to increase power grid efficiency, reliability, and flexibility, and reduce the rate at which additional electric utility infrastructure needs to be built. Some utilities have been using smart metering: meters that can be read remotely, primarily for billing purposes. However, these meters do not provide communication back to the utility with information on voltage, current levels, and specific usage. Similarly, these meters have very limited ability to allow the consumer the ability to either automatically or selectively change their usage patterns based on information provided by the utility.

Read more >>