Last week, Chemical Watch reported that the U.S. EPA and Environment Canada are developing a joint process that will allow “companies planning to introduce a new substance in both countries to approach both governments simultaneously.” The joint consultation process, called the North American Notification Consultation (Nan-C), was described by an Environment Canada official on October 8 at a conference in Mississauga, Canada. Although it is still in an early stage of development, the official described it as based on the OECD’s “Parallel Process” standard operating procedures for new substance notifications. One company is already participating in the Nan-C process, and other companies interested in trying it are encouraged to contact Environment Canada through their substances management information line.
The idea for the process reportedly emerged from a nanotechnology workshop held earlier this year by the US-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council. However, Environment Canada representatives stressed that Nan-C is not meant to replace the OECD parallel process, but is simply a more streamlined and bilateral version specific to the U.S. and Canada. Nan-C is also not a wholly new process, since bilateral consultation is already an option – instead, it is a response to a perceived need among stakeholders for a more formalized version of a pre-existing mechanism.
A committee of the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council has released a proposal on decision-making in conducting alternatives assessments. The report, titled A Framework to Guide Selection of Chemical Alternatives and authored by the Committee on the Design and Evaluation of Safer Chemical Substitutions, also presents evaluations of existing frameworks and recommendations for implementation and future research. Suggested audiences and users of the report include regulatory agencies at every level, industry, organizations working for the adoption of safer chemicals, and developers of chemicals and chemical processes.
The recommended framework is 13 steps, with some steps and sub-steps treated as optional, and is designed for flexibility such that “certain steps are completed sequentially, in parallel, or iteratively, providing an opportunity for fit-for-purpose decision making.” The framework is summarized as follows (asterisks indicate optional activities):
- Step 1: Identify Chemical of Concern
- Step 2: Scoping and Problem Formulation
- Step 3: Identify Potential Alternatives
- Step 4: Initial Screening of Identified Alternatives
- Step 5: Assess Physicochemical Properties
- Step 6-1:Assess Human Health Hazards
- Step 6-2: Assess Ecotoxicity
- Step 6-3: Conduct Comparative Exposure Assessment
- Step 7: Integration of Information to Identify Safer Alternatives
- Step 8: Life Cycle Thinking
- Step 9-1: Additional Life Cycle Assessment*
- Step 9-2: Performance assessment*
- Step 9-3: Economic assessment*
- Step 10: Integrate Data and Identify Acceptable Alternatives
- Step 11: Compare Alternatives*
- Step 12: Implement Alternatives
- Step 13: Research and Innovation*
The committee highlighted the following as the framework’s [Read the full article...]
Yesterday, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) made a series of announcements related to the Safer Consumer Products program. DTSC is extending the comments period for the Safer Consumer Products draft Priority Products Work Plan, and will now accept comments on the draft Plan until October 21.
DTSC also announced that its Candidate Chemicals database and downloadable list have been updated. The update reflects changes made in authoritative lists, such as the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) carcinogens monographs.
In addition, DTSC invites the public to attend the next meeting of the Green Ribbon Science Panel. The Panel will convene on October 20-21 in Sacramento to “discuss and advise DTSC on evaluating Product Categories identified” in the draft Work Plan as well as alternative analysis topics. DTSC has posted the meeting’s agenda [PDF] and supporting documents including discussion topics for the draft Plan [PDF] and an Alternatives Analysis Guidance Document Synopsis [PDF].
Yesterday, EPA announced updates to ChemView, its public online tool for accessing information about chemicals regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The updates include enhanced data functions as well as updated, more comprehensive information.
The improved data functions include:
- Improving the display and content for the Chemical Data Reporting information;
- Adding a new link that displays the pollution prevention information generated as part of the Toxics Release Inventory program; and
- Launching an administrative tool that will save EPA resources by streamlining the loading of future information.
ChemView’s databases were updated with the following new information:
- 244 consent orders;
- An additional 1,205 Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) for new and existing chemicals;
- 16 additional chemicals with test rule data, and
- Updates to the Safer Chemicals Ingredient List (part of the agency’s Design for Environment program).
In EPA’s press release, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Jim Jones explained that the agency was acting since Congress’ attempts to reform TSCA have so far been unsuccessful: “In the absence of TSCA reform, EPA is moving ahead to improve access to chemical health and safety information, and increase the dialogue to help the public choose safer ingredients used in everyday products.”
With the updates, ChemView now covers 10,000 chemicals and includes for the first time consent orders and new chemical SNURs. ChemView was first launched in 2013 to improve the [Read the full article...]
California, Maryland, and New York are the latest states with new laws regulating flame retardant chemicals in products.
On September 30, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a bill requiring manufacturers to disclose on labels whether furniture contains flame retardant chemicals. The requirement goes into effect on January 1, 2015.
Maryland’s HB 229, which bans child care products containing flame retardant chemicals, went into effect on October 1. Products intended for children under the age of three, like crib mattresses, car seats, and toys containing more than 0.01% by mass of tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl)phosphate (TDCPP) or tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate (TCEP), may no longer be imported, sold, or offered for sale in Maryland.
In September, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a law that would also ban TDCPP-containing child care products.
Meanwhile on the federal level, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced a bill in the Senate that would ban the sale, manufacture, distribution, and import of children’s products and upholstered furniture containing the ten “most noxious” flame retardant chemicals, including TDCPP and TCEP. The legislation also directs the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to study the health effects of other flame retardants and then extend the ban to any chemicals identified via this review that may cause substantial personal injury or illness.
Ten global chemical companies and stakeholders have released guidance for the chemical sector on communicating a product’s environmental footprint using life cycle assessment (LCA) methods. Collaborating as a working group of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), the members developed the guidance document – titled Life Cycle Metrics for Chemical Products – with the objective of facilitating “improved sustainability across value chains” by communicating reliable information using a “common language.” The guidance is based on ISO 14040:2006 and 14044:2006 and sets out requirements covering topics including:
- Footprint system boundaries: Product footprint studies should be cradle-to-grave, except for business-to-business products, which may use cradle-to-gate studies. Cradle-to-gate studies must include end-of-life impacts for all waste generated in production.
- Defining the functional unit and reference flow: The functional unit must be consistent with the goal and scope of the study, and the duration of the functional unit must be specified for cradle-to-grave studies. Compared solutions shall be assessed on main functionality, technical quality (stability, durability, ease of maintenance), and additional functions rendered during use and disposal.
- Impact categories, energy, and other flows: The guidance names certain models to use in characterizing impacts ranging from global warming to marine eutrophication to human toxicity and ecotoxicity. Energy flows, including cumulative energy demand, renewable energy consumption, and non-renewable energy consumption, must also be assessed and reported.
- Data source requirements and quality management: Primary data (from specific operations in the studied product’s [Read the full article...]
Trade groups representing the U.S. chemical industry are urging EPA not to adopt rules requiring the disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemicals and mixtures. The Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA) and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) both filed comments in September responding to EPA’s May 19, 2014 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. That notice announced that the agency was “initiating a public participation process to seek comment on the information that should be reported or disclosed for hydraulic fracturing chemical substances and mixtures and the mechanism for obtaining this information.” EPA’s filing was made in response to a section 21 citizen petition under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and suggested that the contemplated reporting mechanism could be authorized under TSCA §§ 8(a) or 8(d), voluntary, or a combination of both, and “could include best management practices, third-party certification and collection, and incentives for disclosure.”
Both groups argue that mandating disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemicals and mixtures could reveal trade secrets. In its comments, the ACC wrote that EPA should first finalize its ongoing hydraulic fracturing study, and that voluntary programs “have worked well in the past” and state level regulation is more appropriate than federal. SOCMA proposed “the use of structurally descriptive generic names if a specific name would potentially reveal a trade secret” along with better information collection via EPA’s enhanced Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) in combination with the industry’s voluntary [Read the full article...]
Yesterday, EPA released a pre-publication version of its proposed Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) targeting nonylphenols (NPs) and nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs). NPEs are a type of nonionic surfactant used in a wide variety of industrial processes and applications, including detergents, dry cleaning, cosmetics, adhesives, and paints and coatings; NPs are primarily used as an intermediate in producing NPEs. Under the SNUR, any person intending to manufacture, import, or process NPs or NPEs for the identified significant new uses must notify EPA before beginning any such activity, so that the agency may have the opportunity to evaluate each intended use and impose any appropriate controls.
The proposed SNUR [PDF] applies to 15 chemical substances; for 13 of these, any use is considered a significant new use, while “any use other than use as an intermediate or use as an epoxy cure catalyst” constitutes a significant new use for 4-nonylphenol, branched and 2-nonylphenol, branched. In discussing the environmental effects of NPs and NPEs, EPA cited the chemicals’ persistence, high toxicity to aquatic life and wide usage that can lead to “widespread releases to the aquatic environment.”
NPs and NPEs were also the subject of an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2009, following EPA’s settlement of a citizens petition to initiate rulemaking brought by several environmental groups and other NGOs. The release of the proposed SNUR is in line with EPA’s 2010 [Read the full article...]
EPA finalized Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 36 substances on September 2, including several nanoengineered carbon compounds. The SNURs were first proposed in February 2013, and include several substances subject to § 5(e) consent orders. EPA is not finalizing the proposed SNUR for one substance, premanufacture notice (PMN) number P-11-155, in response to a comment from the PMN submitter urging the SNUR’s withdrawal while the agency’s recommended environmental toxicity testing is ongoing. Other changes in the final SNURs are mostly minor and involve ensuring consistency with existing consent orders and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. In response to comments on the hierarchy of engineering and administrative controls and collaboration with OSHA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), EPA noted that it is “currently in the process of developing revisions to existing SNUR regulations that will serve as a template for future SNURs and SNURs already issued” and will consult with OSHA and NIOSH.
In July, we reported that EPA released two sets of SNURs by direct final rule. Earlier this month, EPA withdrew six of those SNURs after receiving notices of intent to submit adverse comment. The agency withdrew rules for the substances identified generically and by PMN number as follows:
- 1,1′- methylenebis[isocyanatobenzene], polymer with polycarboxylic acids in alkane polyols;
- aromatic dibenzoate (P-14-60);
- propylene glycol, alpha isocyanate, omega silane (P-13-270);
- aromatic [Read the full article...]
Yesterday, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, released her “counterproposal” to the bipartisan Chemical Safety Improvement Act (“CSIA”) to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”). The counterproposal, called the “Boxer Toxic Substances Control Act,” takes the form of a “redline” or amended version of a July 31 draft of the CSIA from Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM). Changes in the Boxer proposal include:
- Strengthens testing requirements for chemical prioritization;
- Specifies storage near drinking water sources as a factor in determining prioritization;
- Authorizes EPA to regulate chemicals in mixtures and articles;
- Removes state preemption provisions; and
- Adds a fee system based on the number of chemicals EPA reviews.
The release of Boxer’s legislation this late in the Congressional session suggests that TSCA reform is unlikely to pass in the current Congress. Sen. Vitter criticized Sen. Boxer for releasing the latest CSIA draft to the press without his consent as “not a good faith effort to reach consensus but a press stunt/temper tantrum.” Sen. Boxer introduced her proposal along with a pointed “critique” [PDF] of the CSIA, finding fault with the CSIA’s long timetables for reviewing high-priority chemicals; “ambiguous and weak” standards for low-priority chemicals; preemption of state laws; failure to “ensure that chemical disposal and unintended releases, like the one in West Virginia, are covered by EPA reviews and regulations”; and lack of a [Read the full article...]