TSCA Consulting & Information

EPA Stops the Importation of Short-Chain Chlorinated Paraffins

2012-09-05T08:46:00.000-04:00

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a settlement with INEOS Chlor Americas, Inc., based in Wilmington, Del., to resolve violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). INEOS allegedly imported various chain-length chlorinated paraffins into the United States without providing the required notice to EPA. Under this settlement INEOS has ended the importation of short-chained chlorinated paraffins into the United States.

“EPA’s short-chained chlorinated paraffin action plan, part of the Administrator’s priority for Assuring the Safety of Chemicals, identified significant environmental risks for these chemicals,” said Cynthia Giles assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “With this settlement we have removed all known major sources of this chemical from the marketplace. We will continue to coordinate with US Customs and Border Protection to prevent future illegal importation of these chemicals.”

Short-chained chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs), used as lubricants and coolants for metal working and as plasticizers and flame retardants in plastics, are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic to aquatic life. Even relatively small releases of these chemicals from individual manufacturing, processing, or waste management facilities have the potential to accumulate over time to higher levels and have been detected in wildlife and humans.

INEOS has also agreed to provide the notices required by TSCA Section 5 to the EPA for any medium or long-chain chlorinated paraffin it wishes to import after the date of lodging of the decree. Submission of these notices by INEOS will enable EPA to identify and evaluate the health and environmental effects, exposures, releases, and risks posed by these chemical substances. If appropriate, EPA will initiate an action under TSCA section 5 to address any unreasonable risks posed by the chlorinated paraffins.

INEOS will pay a $175,000 civil penalty.

The proposed settlement, lodged in the U.S. District Court for Delaware, is subject to a 30-day public comment period and final court approval.

More information about the settlement click HERE.

From EPA August 21, 2012

EPA Webinars - Free

2012-09-03T11:09:00.000-04:00

See the information below for EPA's webinar schedule and past webinars.

Upcoming Webinars

Webinars listed on the following link are hosted or sponsored by EPA on topics relating to environmental protection, regulations, and sustainability. All webinars are free and open to everyone.

EPA UPCOMING WEBINAR LINK

Past Webinars

The following link is an archive of past webinars on topics relating to environmental protection, regulations, and sustainability. You can find videos (audio + slides), transcripts, speaker bios, and other information about past webinars under each topic below.

EPA PAST WEBINAR LINK

What is a webinar?

A "webinar" is a Web seminar. It's an online, real-time, interactive forum where individual participants can see materials the presenter is showing real-time on screen and hear the discussion. (A webinar is not just a presentation you read online by yourself.)

EPA Administrator Comments on TSCA Reform

2012-08-20T10:19:00.002-04:00

EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson comments on the current TSCA reform effort for a Huffington Post article.

In 1976, Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act -- or TSCA -- to protect our health from the increasing number of chemicals in our products and our environment. In the four decades since its passage, many laws have changed to better protect our safety, yet TSCA has not.

In fact, despite calls from industry, policy makers, health and environmental groups, the EPA and others, TSCA has not been updated in 36 years. While EPA has worked to raise awareness about green chemistry alternatives and address threats from chemicals of concern, we need a law that keeps up with today's needs.

Yesterday, we heard some good news on that front. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works voted to approve the Safe Chemicals Act, which updates many of the key provisions of TSCA. The bill provides manufacturers with more certainty than the current, inconsistent patchwork of state laws. It also includes necessary steps to ensure EPA is in a position to safeguard Americans from the health risks posed by new or existing man-made chemicals.

While the committee vote fell along party lines, it is our hope to see, as the bill moves ahead, strong bipartisan support for keeping our kids and families safe from chemicals. Updating TSCA to ensure our health has brought together thousands of Americans, from industry to parents groups to environmentalists, in a call for action. Congress has an opportunity now to answer that call, and forge a broad coalition that will make our country -- and especially our children -- healthier and safer.

This is a positive step. We have a lot of work to do to modernize our chemical safety laws -- which means there is no better time to start than now.

From Huffington Post

For more information on Lisa Jackson go to her official EPA webpage.

$362,113 in Fines for Failure to Report Chemical Data

2012-08-08T12:11:00.000-04:00

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued complaints seeking civil penalties against three companies for alleged violations of the reporting and recordkeeping requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The alleged violations involved the companies’ failure to comply with EPA’s TSCA section 8 Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) regulations, which require companies to submit accurate data about the production and use of chemical substances manufactured or imported during a calendar year. Under TSCA, penalties can be assessed up to $37,500 per day, per violation.

The three most recent cases are against Chemtura Corporation, Bethlehem Apparatus Company, and Haldor Topsoe, Inc., and resulted in penalties totaling $362,113.

Formerly known as the IUR, the TSCA Chemical Data Reporting Rule requires the collection of information about existing chemicals on the market by requiring periodic reports about the production and use of chemicals to help understand the risks they may pose to human health and the environment. The data collected by EPA is the most comprehensive source of information for chemicals currently in commerce in the U.S.

The reporting deadline for the 2006 IUR rule ended in March of 2007. EPA’s enforcement efforts have led to 43 civil enforcement actions and approximately $2.3 million dollars in civil penalties against companies that failed to report required chemical data information. The reporting deadline for the 2012 submission period of the Chemical Data Reporting Rule is August 15, 2012.

The Chemtura Corporation is headquartered in Philadelphia, Pa. and has a facility located in El Dorado, Ark. In a May 31, 2012 complaint, EPA alleged that the facility failed to report two chemicals pursuant to the 2006 IUR rule and assessed a penalty of $55,901. The company corrected the violations, paid the penalty and a final order was issued by the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) on June 25, 2012.

During an inspection of the Bethlehem Apparatus Company, located in Hellertown, Pa., EPA found that the facility was in violation of the 2006 IUR Rule for one chemical substance. EPA also determined during the inspection that the company had failed to comply with the export notification requirements as required under TSCA section 12(b) and the import certification requirements as required under TSCA section 13 on a number of occasions for the same chemical substance. The company corrected the violations and paid a $103,433 penalty proposed in a May 31, 2012 complaint.

Haldor Topsoe, Inc., headquartered in Houston, Texas, is subject to a TSCA complaint that was filed on June 20, 2012. The complaint alleged that that the company had violated the 2006 IUR rule for 13 chemical substances. The complaint assessed a proposed penalty of $202,779, which the company paid on July 2, 2012.

For more information click HERE.

From EPA Press Release; July 23, 2012

Safe Chemicals Act Passes Committee

2012-07-26T10:22:00.002-04:00

For the first time in thirty-six years, a Congressional committee voted to update the outdated chemical safety laws. Below is information on the hearing and a summary.

For more details on the Full and Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health joint hearing including majority and minority statements see the following information and links.

"Oversight of EPA Authorities and Actions to Control Exposures to Toxic Chemicals." Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Webcast of the proceeding

This is a major milestone to update a regulation which has not received a major overhaul since its inception. The goal is to "modernize" TSCA to increase the regulation's ability to protect people and the environment.

The Safe Chemicals Act would¹:

Ensure EPA has information on the health risks of all chemicals.
Require EPA to prioritize chemicals based on risk.
Expedite action to reduce risk from chemicals of highest concern.
Further evaluate chemicals that could pose unacceptable risk.
Provide broad public, market and worker access to reliable chemical information.
Promotes innovation, green chemistry, and safer alternatives to chemicals of concern.

While it is possible that the Senate will vote on this bill this year, it is unlikely that the House will discuss this bill in the current year. While the vote in the committee was along party lines (Democrats in favor) it is not expected to be a bipartisan issue.

The complete Safe Chemicals Act can be found HERE.

Perfluorochemicals (PFCs) in Carpets to be Banned by EPA?

2012-07-16T14:58:00.000-04:00

EPA is launching a new rulemaking to restrict the use of so-called long-chain perfluorochemicals (PFCs) in carpets, recognizing growing concerns over the chemicals' toxicity and their widespread presence in the environment by preventing industry from re-introducing the voluntarily phased-out substances, sources say.

EPA, in an April Action Initiation List (AIL) released June 22, says it plans to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking within the next 12 months to announce an upcoming significant new use rule (SNUR) for perfluoroalkyl sulfonates (PFAS) and long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylates (PFAC) for use in carpets. The SNUR, to be issued under Toxic Substances Control Act section 5(a)(2), would “require persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture, import, or processing of [PFAS] and long-chain [PFAC] for use as part of carpets.

“The required notification would provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs,” EPA says.

The SNUR, which EPA plans to issue within the next year, is expected to be what is known as a “dead chemical SNUR.” According to EPA's website, the agency relies on dead chemical SNURs to ensure that once a chemical has been phased out for certain uses, “no company will be able to resume manufacturing or processing the chemical for that use without prior notice to the agency.” Issuing a dead chemical SNUR “can prevent older chemical substances that we now know to be dangerous from returning to the market after responsible companies have replaced them with safer substances.”

Long-chain PFCs are bioaccumulative and persistent chemicals widely found in the environment, and are commonly found in wildlife and humans, EPA says on its website. They have been found to be toxic to laboratory animals and wildlife, causing reproductive, developmental and systemic effects in lab tests, it says.

Currently, long-chain PFCs are generally not used in carpets, either domestically or in imports, in large part due to industry's agreement with EPA to phase out perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and related chemicals, one source says. Under EPA's 2010/2015 PFOA Stewardship Program, eight major U.S. manufacturers of PFCs class reached an agreement with EPA in 2006 to phase out the chemicals. These companies developed alternatives to long-chain PFCs, which are now used in domestic carpets.

Sources say the planned move is an attempt to level the playing field for manufacturers, similar to EPA's SNUR for flame retardants known as polybrominated diphenyl ether. It would reward the domestic manufacturers that are participating in the PFOA voluntary Stewardship Program and have phased out these chemicals and limit any benefits to off-shore manufacturers that could still bring in these products, one legal expert on TSCA says, noting that SNURs also create commercial stigmas for chemicals, discouraging the commercialization of chemicals EPA wants to eliminate.

Through the upcoming SNUR, EPA is recognizing the toxicity of some PFCs and their widespread presence in the environment, and is trying to limit further background exposures to the general public, one toxicologist says.

But EPA and other regulators are increasingly finding widespread legacy contamination from PFCs, prompting fears of extensive cleanup requirements in Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Minnesota, Alabama and other states where the chemicals were produced.

A spokeswoman for DuPont, one of the parties to EPA's PFOA Stewardship Program, is welcoming EPA's proposed action outlined in the AIL. “DuPont supports the direction EPA is taking to establish a regulatory framework for long-chain perfluorinated compounds. We and other members of industry are making strong progress in transitioning to alternatives to long-chain perfluorinated compounds,” she said in a written statement.

EPA has previously issued SNURs for certain uses of PFCs, issuing SNURs in 2000 and 2002 to restrict the return of 88 PFOS-related chemicals phased out by the chemical company 3M in the U.S. market, and issuing a final SNUR in 2007 for 183 PFAS chemicals, allowing a small set of continued excluded uses.

From InsideEPA.com

2403943

Lautenberg Leads TSCA Reform

2012-07-16T14:49:00.000-04:00

Monday, July 09, 2012

WASHINGTON, DC—U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) and 25 of his Senate colleagues sent a letter today calling on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to finalize its proposed actions regarding a class of toxic flame retardant chemicals. The letter also acknowledges that the EPA has limited authority to fully protect the public from these toxic chemicals under the current Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and calls for reforms to the law to adequately protect American families from dangerous chemicals.

The letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is signed by Senators Lautenberg, Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Susan Collins (R-ME), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Al Franken (D-MN), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Jon Tester (D-MT), Jack Reed (D-RI), Tom Udall (D-NM), John Kerry (D-MA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Daniel Akaka (D-HI), and Michael Bennet (D-CO).

Lautenberg, who chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health, introduced the “Safe Chemicals Act of 2011” last year to modernizeTSCA. The bill gives the EPA the tools it needs to require health and safety testing of toxic chemicals and places the burden on industry to prove that chemicals are safe.

Under current law, the EPA can only call for safety testing after evidence surfaces demonstrating a chemical is dangerous. As a result, EPA has been able to require testing for just 200 of the more than 80,000 chemicals currently registered in the United States, and has been able to regulate only five dangerous substances. The new legislation will give EPA more power to regulate the use of dangerous chemicals and require manufacturers to submit information proving the safety of every chemical in production and any new chemical seeking to enter the market.

The letter text is copied below:

July 9, 2012

Dear Administrator Jackson:

We are writing to express our support for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) actions to address a class of flame retardant chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). These flame retardant chemicals are found in a number of everyday consumer products, including furniture, plastics, and even baby products. According to the EPA, these toxic chemicals are suspected to cause cancer and have been linked to serious neurological and reproductive diseases. We urge the agency to move forward as quickly as possible with its current efforts to protect American families from the toxic effects of PBDEs.

PBDEs are mixed into a number of household products in order to raise the temperature at which they burn, purportedly making the products more flame resistant. However, the Consumer Product Safety Commission found that these chemicals do not provide any significant protection against the risk of fires. Instead, it has become clear that PBDEs can increase human health risks and that the chemicals easily spread and accumulate in the environment and living organisms, including people.

We are deeply alarmed that peer-reviewed research has found that a typical American baby is born with the highest recorded concentrations of flame retardants among infants in the world. This is a serious threat to our children’s health because PBDEs interfere with the body’s hormone systems, and studies in animals suggest they can cause cancerous tumors, birth defects, and other developmental disorders. Researchers have found that children’s exposure comes primarily through household dust, making babies and toddlers particularly vulnerable since they spend a significant amount of time playing on the floor.

Despite the danger to public health, a recent investigative report by the Chicago Tribune revealed that flame retardant manufacturers may have misled the public for decades regarding both the risks and efficacy of these chemicals. Due to industry opposition to common sense reforms at both the federal and state level that would limit the use of these chemicals, PBDEs and other flame retardants continue to be used in a significant number of everyday products.

In response, EPA has adopted an action plan for PBDEs using its existing authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This plan reflects the agency’s assessment that PBDEs are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic to both humans and the environment. Currently, the agency is accepting public comment on two paired rulemakings related to PBDEs. The first action would amend the current Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) to require any manufacturer, importer, or processor of seven different PBDEs, or articles containing them, to submit a notification to EPA at least 90 days before beginning new activities involving these chemicals. The second rulemaking would require those insisting on continuing to use these chemicals to develop the data EPA would need to fully evaluate the health and safety effects of this class of toxic chemicals. We support these efforts and urge EPA to finalize and implement these rulemakings as quickly as possible following the public comment period.

While we commend the EPA for taking steps to address PBDEs, it is concerning that the agency must undertake lengthy rulemaking processes merely to secure additional health and safety data on a chemical of concern and to receive notifications regarding expansions of its uses. Further, EPA is not evaluating steps to actually restrict existing unsafe production and uses of these toxic flame retardants. This reinforces why there is broad agreement that TSCA must be reformed to protect American families from dangerous chemicals in a cost-effective way and we urge you to continue to work with Congress to enact consensus reforms.

Americans deserve to know that the chemicals used in everyday consumer products are safe. EPA’s current action to address the health risks of PBDEs is an important first step towards protecting Americans from the risks posed by these pervasive chemicals and look forward to working with you to enact these reforms.

From Lautenberg Press Office, 202-224-3224

New PMNs and NOCs

2012-07-16T14:37:00.001-04:00

US EPA publishes list of new substances covered by TSCA Section 5

July 9, 2012

As required by Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published the list of 34 premanufacturing notices (PMN), and 22 notices of commencement to manufacture (NOCs) received between 1 May and 25 May 2012. Of the PMNs, 19 have their manufacturer or importer protected as confidential business information. Comments on these notices are due to EPA by 6 August 2012.

From Chemicalwatch.com

SNUR Withdraw - Vegetable Oil

2012-07-16T14:23:00.001-04:00

On June 22, 2012 EPA withdrew a significant new use rule (SNUR) for the chemical substances identified generically as Vegetable oil, modified products; Vegetable oil, modified products, esters; Olefins; and Fatty acid methyl esters. These chemical substances were the subject of the premanufacture notices (PMNs) P–10–548, P–10–550, P–10–551, P–10–552, P–10–553, P–10–554, and P–10–555.

From EPA

CDR Extended by EPA - 6 Weeks

2012-06-12T12:04:00.000-04:00

EPA is extending the CDR reporting period by six weeks to August 13, 2012, from the original due date of June 30, 2012. See the pre-publication copy of the FRN for details.

Free CDR Electronic Reporting Webinar

2012-06-08T10:16:00.000-04:00

EPA presented a webinar on the use of the CDR electronic reporting tool on May 8, 2012. The webinar was a reminder on how to access the eCDRweb application and a walk-through of the application tool itself. Time was allotted for questions related to the reporting tool. Questions related to specific reporting requirements were not covered during the webinar.

The slides are available HERE.

The audio is available HERE.

Free EPA Webinar CDX Registration

2012-04-30T10:17:00.002-04:00

On April 24, 2012, EPA conducted a Webinar demonstrating CDX registration and the 8(e) electronic reporting tool. The webinar provided a quick demonstration of the CDX registration process and 8(e) reporting tool. Click HERE to download the slides and click HERE to download the audio file from the Webinar.

The Central Data Exchange (CDX) enables fast, efficient and more accurate environmental data submissions from state and local governments, industry and tribes to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and participating program offices.

EPA's CDX is the point of entry on the Environmental Information Exchange Network (Exchange Network) for environmental data submissions to the Agency. CDX works with both EPA program offices looking for a way to better manage incoming data, and stakeholders looking for a way to reduce time and money spent to meet EPA reporting requirements.

Please contact me if the links do not work.

EPA Proposes New SNURs for PBDE, Benzidine, Chlorinated Parafins, HBCD, DnPP

2012-03-22T09:18:00.002-04:00

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed that companies be required to report to EPA all new uses, including in domestic or imported products, of five groups of potentially harmful chemicals. Over the years, these chemicals have been used in a range of consumer products and industrial applications, including paints, printing inks, pigments and dyes in textiles, flame retardants in flexible foams, and plasticizers. This action is part of EPA’s work to ensure chemical safety in order to protect Americans’ health and the environment.

The five chemicals EPA is targeting are:

The agency is also proposing additional testing on the health and environmental effects of PBDEs.

“Although a number of these chemicals are no longer manufactured or used in the U.S. they can still be imported in consumer goods or for use in products. Today’s proposed actions will ensure that EPA has an opportunity to review new uses of the chemicals, whether they are domestically produced or imported, and if warranted, take action to prohibit or limit the activity before human health or environmental effects can occur,” said Jim Jones, EPA’s acting assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “These actions also signal EPA’s ongoing commitment to the American people that the agency is taking significant steps to make sure that the chemicals manufactured and used in this country are safe.”

The proposed regulatory actions are known as significant new use rules (SNUR) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The proposed rules would require that anyone who intends to manufacture, import, or process any of the chemicals for an activity that is designated as a significant new use to submit a notification to EPA at least 90 days before beginning the activity. This notification means EPA can evaluate the intended new use and take action to prohibit or limit that activity, if warranted. For PBDEs, the agency will also issue simultaneously a proposed test rule under section 4(a) of TSCA that would require manufacturers or processors to conduct testing on health and environmental effects of PBDEs.

The proposed SNURs were identified in action plans the agency issued on these and other chemicals during the last two years. Information on these chemical-specific rules and the agency’s action plans, including additional actions under consideration or development, can be found at www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/.

From: EPA press Release 3/20/2012

TSCA Work Plan Chemicals Identified

2012-03-06T15:17:00.000-05:00

As part of EPA’s continuing comprehensive approach to enhance the Agency’s existing chemicals management program, in March 2012, EPA identified a work plan of 83 chemicals for further assessment under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). EPA identified seven of these chemicals for risk assessment in 2012. EPA intends to use the TSCA Work Plan Chemicals to help focus and direct the activities of the Existing Chemicals Program over the next several years.

Detailed below:

How Were the TSCA Workplan Chemicals Selected?
What Chemicals Will EPA Assess First?
Will EPA Consider Chemicals not on the Work Plan?

How Were the TSCA Work Plan Chemicals Selected?

EPA conducted an online discussion forum and webinar in 2011 to gather stakeholder input on proposed criteria and data sources to be used for identifying chemicals for further assessment.
The process EPA adopted emphasized focusing on chemicals that meet one or more of the following factors:

Potentially of concern to children’s health (for example, because of reproductive or developmental effects)
Neurotoxic effects
Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT)
Probable or known carcinogens
Used in children’s products
Detected in biomonitoring programs

Using this process, EPA identified 83 chemicals in the TSCA Work Plan as candidates for risk assessment in the next several years, as they all scored high in this screening process based on their combined hazard, exposure, and persistence and bioaccumulation characteristics. In identifying a smaller set of chemicals for work in any given year, EPA considers a number of factors:

Whether the chemical was identified as a “High” ranking chemical.
Whether the chemical reflects more than one of the factors identified in Step 1 (for example, chemicals that were identified as a potential concern for children’s health and also were persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic) and whether each of the factors was covered by the set of chemicals. These factors included health and environmental hazards, children’s health, use in consumer products and dispersive uses, persistence and bioaccumulation, and detection in biomonitoring and environmental monitoring.
Whether certain chemicals, or groups of chemicals, would benefit from some preliminary work to assure that risk assessments are targeted and scoped appropriately, and therefore would best be addressed in an out year.
Whether certain chemicals, or groups of chemicals, have previously been assessed and addressed by the Agency, so that risk assessment in later years may be more appropriate than in the earlier years of the work plan.
Agency work load considerations, including scope and timing of work needed on specific chemicals, and existing commitments for assessment.

Read the TSCA Work Plan Chemicals Methods Document for a detailed explanation of the approach the Agency used to identify these chemicals.
Access Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0516 to read a summary of the webinar discussion and all unedited online comments.

What Chemicals Will EPA Assess in 2012?

EPA identified an initial group of seven of the 83 work plan chemicals for risk assessment in 2012. EPA will complete some of these assessments this year and initiate new assessments from the work plan in the coming years. The chemicals currently being assessed are:

Antimony and Antimony Compounds
HHCB (1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8,-hexamethylcyclopenta[g]-2-benzopyran)
Long-Chain Chlorinated Paraffins
Medium-Chain Chlorinated Paraffins
Methylene Chloride
N-Methylpyrrolidone
Trichloroethylene

In conducting risk assessments on these seven chemicals, EPA will use information available through the data sources cited in the TSCA Work Plan Chemicals Methods Document, as well as other sources. EPA would welcome the submission of additional relevant information on these chemicals, such as unpublished studies not already available through the existing literature. To meet the schedule for the completion of risk assessments this year, any relevant information should be submitted to the Agency on or before March 30, 2012 to be included in the review process. Information can be submitted to the docket for this activity, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0516, online through Regulations.gov. The chemical name or CAS number involved should appear in the title of any submission to the docket.
This spring, the Agency plans to identify specific chemicals for which it plans to conduct risk assessment in 2013 and 2014.
EPA anticipates issuing draft risk assessments for public review and comment as they are completed. If an assessment indicates significant risk, EPA will evaluate and pursue appropriate risk reduction actions, as warranted. If an assessment indicates no significant risk, EPA will conclude its current work on that chemical. Over time, additional chemicals will be added to the work plan as more data are developed and more chemicals screened.

Will EPA Consider Chemicals Not on the Work Plan?

Identification of chemicals as Work Plan Chemicals does not mean that EPA would not consider other chemicals for risk assessment and potential risk management action under TSCA and other statutes. EPA will consider other chemicals if warranted by available information.
EPA will also continue to use its TSCA information collection, testing, and subpoena authorities, including sections 4, 8, and 11(c) of TSCA, to develop needed information on additional chemicals that currently have less robust hazard or exposure data.

Original EPA notice found HERE.

PCB Building Waste - Planned Reinterpretation

2012-03-02T15:21:00.000-05:00

EPA is proposing a reinterpretation of its position regarding Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) contaminated building materials. The reinterpretation is specifically addressing the definitions of bulk product waste (e.g., PCB contaminated caulk or paint) and remediation waste (e.g., PCB contaminated masonry or concrete). This distinction is important as it determines the appropriate cleanup requirements and disposal options. The reinterpretation being proposed in this notice would allow building material (i.e., substrate) “coated or serviced” with PCB bulk product waste (e.g., caulk, paint, mastics, sealants) at the time of disposal to be managed as a PCB bulk product waste, even if the PCBs have migrated from the overlying bulk product waste into the substrate. The below diagram highlights these proposed changes to the definitions.

The reinterpretation will impact the highlighted segments of the following documents:

To learn more about the proposed reinterpretation, see the Federal Register Notice – PCBs Bulk Product v. Remediation Waste – (February 29, 2012).

This is a request for comment on a reinterpretation of guidance, not as part of a rule making. The comment period is from February 29, 2012 to March 30, 2012.

You can submit your comments by emailing either:

EPA docket (Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0847)
Email address: ORCRPCBs@epa.gov

See Federal Register notice for additional submission options.

Original posting from EPA found HERE.

OSHA’s GHS Adoption Clears OMB

2012-02-24T08:54:00.000-05:00

According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) website, OMB concluded its review of the revised Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) on February 21, 2012 with a ruling that OSHA’s rule was “consistent with change.” (To see the complete rule click HERE.) "Consistent with change" means that OMB agrees with the intent of the rule, but wants to see a “substantive” change before it is published. Once the change is made, it may be published in the Federal Register. OMB approval was the last major hurdle before OSHA could publish the final rule on GHS in the Federal Register. OSHA is expected to move quickly to address the change(s).

Aligning the Hazard Communication Standard with GHS (also known as the Globally Harmonized System) will affect over 5 million U.S. workplaces and over 40 million U.S. workers with exposure to hazardous chemicals.

“With this latest development, it is time for businesses to get serious about transitioning to GHS,” said Glenn Trout, president and CEO of MSDSonline. “The three main tasks for most businesses are employee training, managing the safety data sheet churn, and making sure the workplace labeling is compliant with GHS.”

Trout added, “Employers would do well to look to cloud technology for readymade solutions for all three critical GHS transition tasks.

Adapted from: MSDSOnline

The complete original article can be found HERE.

For OSHA's website on GHS click HERE.
For EPA's website on GHS click HERE.

Tris Carbamoyl Triazine Significant New Use

2012-02-20T08:49:00.001-05:00

EPA is finalizing an amendment to the significant new use rule (SNUR) under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for the chemical substance identified generically as tris carbamoyl triazine, which was the subject to premanufacture notice (PMN) P-95- 1098. This action requires persons who intend to manufacture, import, or process the chemical substance for a use that is designated as a significant new use by this final rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. EPA believes that this action is necessary because new uses of the chemical substance may be hazardous to human health. The required notification would provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs.
Effective Date.
This final rule is effective March 9, 2012

Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, import, process, or use the chemical substance identified generically as tris carbamoyl triazine (PMN P–95–1098).

More information

For a pdf file of Federal Register Volume 77, Issue 26 (February 8, 2012) click HERE.

For the complete regulation see 40 CFR 721.9719 - Tris Carbamoyl Triazine.

$1.4 Million Violation - Dover Chemicals

2012-02-13T10:19:00.003-05:00

doverchem.com

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Justice announced that Dover Chemical Corporation has agreed to pay $1.4 million in civil penalties for the unauthorized manufacture of chemical substances at facilities in Dover, Ohio and Hammond, Ind. The settlement resolves violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) premanufacture notice obligations for its production of various chlorinated paraffins.
Dover Chemical produces the vast majority of the chlorinated products sold in the United States. As part of the settlement, Dover Chemical has ceased manufacturing short-chain chlorinated paraffins, which have persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) characteristics. PBTs pose a number of health risks, particularly for children, including genetic impacts, effects on the nervous system, and cancer. Dover Chemical will also submit premanufacture notices to EPA for various medium-chain and long-chain chlorinated paraffin products.

Overview of Company

Dover is headquartered in Dover, Ohio, with manufacturing facilities there and in Hammond, Indiana. In 2010, Dunn and Bradstreet estimated that Dover had 220 employees combined at both facilities. Dover has the last remaining domestic chlorinated paraffin manufacturing facilities. Dover manufactured chlorinated paraffins without providing notice to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 90 days before commencing manufacture.

Violations

Dover violated section 5(a)(l) of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 15 U.S.C. § 2604(a)(l), and 40 C.F.R. Part 720 by manufacturing short-chained, medium-chained and long-chained chlorinated paraffins without first submitting a pre-manufacture notice (PMN) to the Administrator of EPA at least 90 days before manufacturing such substance.

Injunctive Relief

The consent decree requires Dover to:

cease manufacture of short-chained chlorinated paraffins
provide proper pre-manufacture notices to the EPA for any other chlorinated paraffin it wishes to manufacture after the date of lodging of the Decree.

Pollutant Impacts

This settlement will end the manufacture of short-chained chlorinated paraffins in facilities in the United States.

Health Effects and Environmental Benefits

Short-chained chlorinated paraffins are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic to aquatic organisms at low concentrations. They can remain in the environment for a significant amount of time and can bioaccumulate in animal tissues, increasing the probability and duration of exposure. Even relatively small releases of these chemicals from individual manufacturing, processing, or waste management facilities have the potential to accumulate over time to higher levels and cause significant adverse impacts to the environment. Short-chained chlorinated paraffins have been measured in a variety of environmental media including air, sediment, surface waters, and wastewater. Short-chained chlorinated paraffins have also been measured in a variety of biota, including freshwater aquatic species, marine mammals, and avian and terrestrial wildlife. In addition, short-chained chlorinated paraffins have been detected in samples of human breast milk from Canada and the United Kingdom, as well as in a variety of food items from Japan and various regions of Europe.

Submission of pre-manufacture notices by Dover to EPA for medium- and long-chained chlorinated paraffins will enable the Agency to identify and evaluate the health and environmental effects, exposures and releases, and risks posed by these chemical substances. If appropriate, EPA will initiate action under TSCA section 5 to address any unreasonable risks posed by the medium- and long- chained chlorinated paraffins.

Civil Penalty

As part of the settlement, Dover has agreed to pay a $1.4 million civil penalty.

From: EPA

For more information

EPA Press release avaialable HERE.

The Consent Decree available HERE.

Required TSCA CDR Rule Starts

2012-01-30T13:04:00.000-05:00

Important: Wednesday February 1st starts TSCA's Chemical Data Reporting Rule (CDR). The Form U submission deadline is June 30th 2012.
Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Rule Changed to the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Rule.

Do you need help with the CDR reporting process? Do you have to report under the CDR? Are you confused about the CDR process?

Contact me (ccalvert@fando.com) for help!

If you manufactured, imported, generated as a byproduct, or produced a chemical substance for commercial purposes in quantities greater than 25,000 lbs during the calendar year of 2011 you may be required to report under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Rule. The CDR replaces the Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Rule that was used for prior reporting years. (details below)

2012 CDR Overview

• Who

− Manufacturers, importers, and producers of TSCA Inventory-listed (listed) chemical substances.

− Manufactured, imported, or processed listed chemicals for commercial purposes.

− With a 2011 production volume of 25,000 lb or greater at a site.

− Unless otherwise exempted.

• What

− Manufacturers (including importers) are required to report full manufacturing data for calendar year 2011 and production volume only for calendar year 2010 for all reportable chemical substances when 2011 site-specific production volume equals or exceeds 25,000 lb.

− Manufacturers, (including importers) are required to report processing and use data for calendar year 2011, for all reportable chemical substances, when 2011 site-specific production volume equals or exceeds 100,000 lb.

− Inorganic chemicals are no longer exempt.

• When

− The submission period is February 1, 2012 through June 30, 2012.

• How

− Submitters are required to use e-CDR web, the CDR reporting tool, and EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) to create and submit Form U electronically.

− Form U is used to submit the required CDR information.

− EPA will no longer accept paper submissions or electronic media, such as diskettes or CD-Roms.

− Submitters must first register with CDX to access e-CDR web.

Background

EPA has amended the reporting requirements of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule and changed the name to the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule. The CDR rule requires manufacturers of certain chemical substances listed on the TSCA Chemical Substances Inventory to report information about the manufacturing, importing, processing, and use of those chemical substances. The amendments were made to improve information so EPA can better identify and take steps to manage risks associated with chemical substances.

SNURs for 17 Chemicals & Carbon Nanotubes

2012-01-05T09:17:00.001-05:00

EPA is proposing significant new use rules (SNURs) under section 5(a)(2) of TSCA for rutile, tin zinc, calcium-doped and rutile, tin zinc, sodium-doped, and carbon nanotubes (CNTs). The proposed SNURs would designate as a significant new use the absence of the protective measures required in EPA issued consent orders.

Substances Subject to Proposed Rule EPA is proposing to establish significant new use and recordkeeping requirements for 17 chemical substances in 40 CFR part 721, subpart E.

This proposed rule includes 7 Premanufacture Notice (PMN) substances whose reported chemical names include the term "carbon nanotube" or "CNT". Because of a lack of established nomenclature for carbon nanotubes, the TSCA Inventory names for carbon nanotubes are currently in generic form, e.g., carbon nanotube (CNT), multi-walled carbon nanotube (MWCNT), double-walled carbon nanotube (DWCNT), or single-walled carbon nanotube (SWCNT). EPA uses the specific structural characteristics provided by the PMN submitter to more specifically characterize the inventory listing for an individual CNT. All submitters of new chemical notices for CNTs have claimed those specific structural characteristics as CBI. EPA is publishing the generic chemical name along with the PMN number to identify that a distinct chemical substance was the subject of the PMN without revealing the confidential chemical identity of the PMN substance.

Confidentiality claims preclude a more detailed description of the identity of these CNTs. If an intended manufacturer, importer, or processor of CNTs is unsure of whether its CNTs are subject to this proposed SNUR or any other SNUR, the company can either contact EPA or obtain a written determination from EPA pursuant to the bona fide procedures at §721.11. EPA is using the specific structural characteristics, for all CNTs submitted as new chemical substances under TSCA, to help develop standard nomenclature for placing these chemical substances on the TSCA Inventory. EPA has compiled a generic list of those structural characteristics entitled "Material Characterization of Carbon Nanotubes for Molecular Identity (MI) Determination & Nomenclature." If EPA develops a more specific generic chemical name for these materials, that name will be made publicly available.

This action would require persons who intend to manufacture, import, or process either of the chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this proposed rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. The required notification would provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit the activity before it occurs.

For the complete proposed new rule click HERE.
For a pdf version of the proposed rule click HERE.

Lautenberg TSCA Reform Interview

2011-12-20T10:26:00.000-05:00

Despite two hearings, several private stakeholders meetings and plenty of bluster, the effort to reform how chemicals are regulated remains largely where it was a year ago as Congress prepares to conclude its work for 2011. To be sure, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and his staff have worked tirelessly to attract industry and Republican support for his "Safe Chemicals Act" (S. 847), which would reform the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). But after a fiery recent hearing, industry appears hesitant to lend its support and it looks as if Lautenberg won't meet his goal of holding a markup on the bill before the end of the year.

And with 2012 being an election year, many observers are skeptical about the chances of a bill that would expand U.S. EPA's regulatory authority -- something that thus far has been a political nonstarter on the campaign trail. Further, getting floor votes on any legislation during an election year is typically difficult since Congress' schedule is cut short for campaigning.

Lautenberg, however, remains undeterred. He would not rule out a hearing before the end of the year but said he does not think he will be able to squeeze it in. But Lautenberg also tried to turn conventional wisdom on its head when asked if it would be tougher to pass the bill next year. "I don't think so," he told E&E Daily with a laugh. "I think it should get easier. I think it's fair to say that our friends on the other side of the aisle are getting skittish about just saying 'no.'"

Progress Made
Lautenberg has made significant strides in his quest for TSCA reform, a legacy issue for the 87-year-old Democrat. He introduced the bill, which shifts the burden to chemical manufacturers to prove their substances are safe before they go on the market, and presided over two hearings on the topic. Perhaps most importantly, Lautenberg also initiated a series of stakeholder meetings with Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.). The meetings marked the first time a Republican has come to the table to discuss TSCA reform.

Moreover, participants in the dialogues, which included prominent public health advocates as well as industry representatives, all said the meetings were a success and a step forward for the bill (E&E Daily, Nov. 4). Meetings between green groups and industry -- both on the Hill and off -- have led backers of the bill to remain optimistic. "The opportunity is riper than it's ever been," said Andy Igrejas of the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families campaign, a broad coalition of groups that support the bill. "The various forms of dialogue have convinced me that we could come to an agreement." Igrejas added: "The opportunity both substantively and politically is staring us in the face."

Hurdles on the Horizon
That progress hit a speed bump, however, at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing last month. Democrats on the panel got into a heated exchange with American Chemistry Council (ACC) President Cal Dooley -- a former Democrat2ic congressman from California's Central Valley -- after accusing him of seeking to undermine the bill by refusing to submit alternative legislative language for the sections to which ACC objects (Greenwire, Nov. 17). The exchange has led to a stand-off between ACC and the Democrats on the panel, which could make it difficult for Lautenberg to pick up industry or GOP support for the bill.

In an interview, Dooley said ACC has "spent an incredible amount of time" on TSCA reform and has developed concrete proposals it has shared with the committee. But Lautenberg's bill, he said, remains unchanged. "We know there is a pathway for a bipartisan approach, but we haven't seen any activity or anything that's manifested itself in legislation that's been offered by Senator Lautenberg that can attract bipartisan support," Dooley said. "Unless there is a clear demonstration that people are serious about trying to find bipartisan support, I think it's unlikely you'll see legislation enacted in 2012."
That sentiment was echoed by Dan Newton of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates. "The bill is so unworkable that I really think we'd probably be better off with a complete rewrite," Newton said. Still, proponents of the bill note that industry is not monolithic and some trade groups -- such as the Consumer Specialty Products Association -- and some individual companies are more receptive of Lautenberg's bill.

Another problem is that the abundance of environmental issues currently on Congress' agenda may be pushing TSCA reform to the back of the line. "Looking ahead, there are so many things we are going to be talking about before TSCA and they are all on fire," Inhofe, who has not signed on to Lautenberg's bill, told E&E Daily. "Really, nothing has changed in my mind about TSCA."

Action in 2012?
Lautenberg and his staff remain optimistic that they can and will move forward with the bill. The Democrat has repeatedly said he will go it alone with a markup, meaning even if he does not have Republican support. The key issue now appears to be whether any sort of reconciliation can be reached with ACC. Democratic staffers working on the bill say they have repeatedly shown they are willing to be flexible on specific legislation language in hopes of garnering industry support. And before the markup, Lautenberg will seek to work out specific areas of the bill with industry representatives still at the negotiating table to show the process is moving forward.

"This reform is obviously essential," Lautenberg said. "To not be able to get something like this through is evidence of the resistance of the other side to anything that has a positive outcome." Jason Rano of the Environmental Working Group added that despite the tough road ahead, Lautenberg will remain persistent.
"To folks who think this issue will go away," Rano said, "Guys like Senator Lautenberg don't give up very easily."

From: Jeremy P. Jacobs, E&E reporter, E&E Daily

The original article can be accessed HERE.

Legislative Hearing on TSCA Reform

2011-12-06T08:26:00.001-05:00

Full and Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health joint hearing entitled, "Legislative Hearing on the Safe Chemicals Act."

Thursday, November 17, 2011 10:00 AM
EST EPW Hearing Room - 406 Dirksen

Majority Statements
Barbara Boxer
Frank R. Lautenberg

Minority Statement
James M. Inhofe

Opening Remarks
Panel 1
Mr. Ted Sturdevant
Director, Department of Ecology State of Washington

Ms. Charlotte Brody
Director of Chemicals, Public Health and Green Chemistry BlueGreen Alliance

Mr. Cal Dooley
President and CEO American Chemistry Council

Mr. Robert Matthews
McKenna Long & Aldridge

Dr. Richard Denison, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist Environmental Defense Fund

EPA CDR Webinars

2011-11-28T09:42:00.001-05:00

EPA now refers to the Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule as the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Rule. This change was effective with the publication of the Inventory Update Reporting Modifications, Chemical Data Reporting Final Rule, in August 2011. EPA has hosted webinars to assist industry stakeholders with the changes to the reporting process for the 2012 CDR rule.

These presentations and other important information can be found on EPA's CDR website.

Webinar to Assist Industry in Reporting for 2012 CDR Rule
EPA hosted a webinar to assist industry with the reporting process for the 2012 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule on Wednesday, November 16, 2011. The webinar was intended for industry stakeholders who will be reporting in response to the CDR requirements. The webinar included an overview of the 2012 reporting requirements, a discussion of joint reporting, a discussion of considerations related to the reporting of by-products and updated information about registering for electronic reporting and for using the electronic reporting tool. At the conclusion of the presentation participants were able to phone in with questions concerning the rule.

Reporting Electronically
EPA hosted a webinar to demonstrate the e-CDR web tool on Friday September 23, 2011. The webinar introduced Industry stakeholders to e-CDRweb in preparation for the preview period. NOTE: the opportunity to test the reporting tool is now closed but EPA will post the recorded webinar and associated questions and answers to this website in the near future.

When is Reporting Required?

The next submission period is from February 1, 2012, to June 30, 2012. Manufacturers, including importers, are required to report information on chemicals manufactured (including imported) in volumes of 25,000 lb or more at their site during calendar year 2011.

Regulatory Actions for Unsponsored Chemicals

2011-10-31T10:47:00.000-04:00

EPA issued several actions under TSCA addressing 60 high production volume (HPV) chemicals.

1. A final rule that requires manufacturers to test the health and environmental effects of 15 high production volume (HPV) chemicals.
2. A proposal that would require manufacturers to test the health and environmental effects of 23 HPV chemicals
3. A proposal that would require companies to notify EPA prior to new uses of an additional 22 chemicals that are widely used in commerce.

Under the High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program, companies were "challenged" to make health and environmental effects data publicly available on chemicals produced or imported in the United States in the greatest quantities. HPV chemicals are classified as those chemicals produced or imported in the United States in quantities of 1 million pounds or more per year. As of June 2007, companies sponsored more than 2,200 HPV chemicals, with approximately 1,400 chemicals sponsored directly through the HPV Challenge Program and over 860 chemicals sponsored indirectly through international efforts.

Access to HPV chemical information enables the public to participate in environmental decision-making at all levels – federal, state, and local. With the scheduled submission of data under the HPV Challenge Program now complete, the focus has shifted to data use, both by the public and by EPA in its mission to protect human health and the environment.

From: EPA

October 21, 2011

More information on the recent actions can be found HERE.

States Lead on Chemical Regulations

2011-09-23T12:09:00.004-04:00

Despite well-funded opposition from the chemical industry, 9 states passed legislation to protect the public from toxic chemicals this year. Four states took administrative action to regulate dangerous chemicals in products often consumed by children, including bisphenol A (BPA), cadmium, formaldehyde, and chlorinated tris.

On the state level, there's been bipartisan support for protecting children's health and the environment from dangerous chemicals. 99% of Democrats and 86% of Republicans supported the policies listed below. 18 states have passed over 80 chemical safety laws in the last nine years by an overwhelming margin with broad bipartisan support.

With federal action uncertain, if not impossible, state governments are expected to continue introducing and passing laws to curb toxic chemicals in 2012.

"This is not Republican legislation or Democratic legislation; this is common sense legislation. This is about giving our children a healthy future and our businesses the security of selling safer products that can help lower health costs for everyone," says Representative Dana Dow, (R-ME), a leader on Maine's kid-safe product policy." Many of our federal chemical standards are outdated and ineffective. We have a moral and ethical responsibility to follow the best science and get unnecessary dangerous chemicals out of everyday products."

Meanwhile, Congress has yet to pass pending legislation to overhaul the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). In April, Senator Frank Lautenberg introduced the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 (S.847) which would increase chemical safety, protect vulnerable sub-populations such as pregnant women and children, and create incentives for new, safer chemicals.

The bill would reform TSCA, which has proven ineffective in identifying and reducing the use of toxic chemicals. Scientific research links toxic chemical exposures in early life to some of the most serious public health threats of our time, such as breast and prostate cancer, infertility, and learning and developmental disabilities.

"Parents around the country are tired of worrying if every product they purchase could contain toxic chemicals harmful for their child," says Sarah Doll, National Director of SAFER States. "Fortunately state governments across the country have recognized the need to replace harmful chemicals with safe alternatives. It's time for the federal government to step up and join the efforts of state leaders to protect public health."

Last year, two national health-based coalitions, SAFER States and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, released a report, Healthy States: Protecting Families from Toxic Chemicals While Congress Lags Behind, demonstrating the overwhelming political support for this issue.

Highlights of 2011 State Progress

California and Illinois passed resolutions urging Congress to update TSCA. The state resolutions highlight important state and federal priorities.
Connecticut is the first state in the nation to ban BPA in thermal receipt paper.
Delaware and Massachusetts banned BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups.
Maine strengthened the Kids Safe Products Act and banned BPA in baby bottles, sippy cups and reusable food and beverage containers. By January 2012, Maine's Chemicals of Concern list will be updated; up to 70 chemicals will be included as Chemicals of High Concern based upon likely exposure to children or fetuses.
Maryland banned BPA in infant formula containers and cadmium in children's jewelry, adding to the 2010 ban on BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups.
California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland and Minnesota restricted cadmium in jewelry for children under 13.
Washington is the first state to require manufacturers of children's products to report the toxic chemicals in their products. The rule targets chemicals linked to cancer, hormone disruption, and reproductive abnormalities in a wide range of children's products, including toys, clothes, and shampoos.
Massachusetts, under the Toxics Use Reduction Act, determined formaldehyde and hexavalent chromium to be high-risk chemicals. Companies now have to report and carefully plan their use of these chemicals.
Minnesota published a list of nine Priority Chemicals of High Concern that are found in the human body, the environment, household dust, water or children's products. The list includes three phthalates (BBP, DBP, DEHP); two halogenated flame retardants (deca and HBCD); as well as lead, cadmium, formaldehyde and BPA. This list is a subset of the list of 1,756 Chemicals of High Concern that are persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic that was published by MN in July 2010.
New York is the first state to ban products for kids and babies containing the toxic tris flame retardant TCEP, a chemical linked to cancer. Also the NY State Interagency Committee on Procurement voted to approve policy requiring all state agencies to consider avoiding 85 toxic chemicals in products, services and technologies purchased by the state.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation began enforcing a decades-old law requiring companies that manufacture household cleaning products to disclose their ingredients. This will be the first time in the U.S. that companies will be required to disclose a complete picture of chemicals used in cleaning products.

"Every year states around the nation will chip away at our federal chemicals policy until products on store shelves - especially those intended for children - are safe," says Anne Hulick, registered nurse and coordinator with the Coalition for a Safe and Healthy Connecticut. "Mounting research on the health impacts of toxic chemicals, lack of Congressional action, and continued consumer concern will continue to move state governments to protect their citizens from harmful chemicals."

From: SustainableBusiness.com

Original article can be found HERE.

States Lead on Toxic Chemical Reform - Report

2011-09-23T11:46:00.003-04:00

A first-ever analysis of votes on state laws aimed at protecting the public from toxic chemicals found that 18 states have passed 71 chemical safety laws in the last eight years by an overwhelming margin with broad bipartisan support.

According to the report released on Nov 2010, of more than 9,000 votes cast by state legislators, 73% of Republicans and 99% of Democrats favored stronger protection of children's health and the environment from dangerous chemicals, with equal support from governors of each party. The report found that the pace of state policymaking on chemicals has more than tripled in eight years.

Two national health-based coalitions, SAFER States and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, released the report, "Healthy States: Protecting Families from Toxic Chemicals While Congress Lags Behind."

"The states are driven by the growing evidence of chemical harm, strong public outcry and the failure of Congress to act," said Mike Belliveau, report author and Executive Director of Environmental Health Strategy Center, which campaigned to pass nine chemical laws in the State of Maine, including a first-in-the-nation reform to broadly regulate chemicals in consumer products at the state level. "More states will pass more laws to restrict toxic chemicals until Congress fixes our broken federal safety system."

"The next Congress should recognize the urgent need and bipartisan support for chemical policy reform," said Andy Igrejas, Campaign Director of the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families coalition. "If the chemical industry wants a more predictable regulatory environment and restored consumer confidence, they should come to the table in support of meaningful, commonsense federal reform."

A growing body of new scientific research links toxic chemical exposures in early life to some of the most serious public health threats of our time, such as increased risks of breast and prostate cancer, infertility, and learning and developmental disabilities.

A recent poll conducted by The Mellman Group found that 78% of Americans are seriously concerned about the threat to children's health from toxic chemicals in day-to-day life. Heeding the aggressive opposition of chemical industry lobbyists rather than the support of the American electorate, Congress failed to pass TSCA reform legislation three times in last six years.

Highlights of Findings from the Healthy States Report:

Increasingly, the states have passed new laws to phase out chemicals that threaten children's health and restrict toxic chemicals in consumer products. In the last eight years, both the number of state chemical laws and the number of states passing toxic chemical reforms have tripled.
State lawmakers passed tough laws on toxic chemicals with an overwhelming margin of support. More than 8,000 (or 89%) of the more than 9,000 roll-call votes cast by state legislators favored tighter toxic chemical regulation, a margin of support greater than 8-1.
Tough state laws on toxic chemicals also received broad bipartisan support. Of the votes cast, about 99% of Democrats and 73% of Republicans favored stronger protections of children's health and the environment from dangerous chemicals, with equal support from governors of each party.
State laws targeting specific chemicals and products that threaten children's health received the greatest attention and support. Sixty-six laws banned bisphenol A (BPA) in baby and toddler products (with 98% support), phased out toxic flame retardants (PBDEs) in home products (93%), reduced children's exposure from common products containing lead (88%) and cadmium (86%), and promoted green cleaning (88%).
State legislators strongly supported recent state laws that create new programs for broad regulation of toxic chemicals. Five comprehensive chemical policy reform laws passed in four states in the last three years - with the support of 84% of all votes cast, including a majority of Republicans (57%) - and were signed by governors from both parties in California, Maine, Minnesota, and Washington State.
The policy actions taken by the states advance many of the same chemical policy reforms proposed in Congress. Both the new state chemical laws and proposed federal legislation (H.R. 5820 and S. 3209) require manufacturers to provide information on chemicals, mandate quick action on the most dangerous chemicals, and promote safer alternatives and greener chemistry.

From: SustainableBusiness.com

The full report is available HERE.

Original article can be found HERE.

EPA TSCA CDR / IUR Presentation

2011-09-12T08:59:00.000-04:00

As part of EPA’s comprehensive approach to enhance the Agency’s current chemicals management program, EPA plans to use a two-step process to identify priority chemical substances for review and assessment under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). EPA’s goal is to identify priority chemicals for near-term evaluation, not to screen and prioritize the entire TSCA Inventory of approximately 84,000 chemicals. EPA held a webinar and is hosting an online discussion forum to get public input on the prioritization factors and data sources the Agency is planning to use in this process.

To help structure public input, EPA has posted a discussion guide describing the two-step process EPA plans to use to identify priority chemicals for review and requesting input on the prioritization factors and data sources to be used for this purpose. View the discussion guide HERE. EPA conducted a webinar on September 7, 2011 to present the process and discuss the prioritization factors and data sources. View the webinar slides HERE.

EPA has also opened a discussion forum on the EPA website to allow people to share their thoughts online. The discussion forum will remain open for input through 5:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time on September 14, 2011, and all information posted to the forum will remain accessible for reading after posts are no longer being accepted.

After the discussion forum closes, a summary of the discussion at the webinar and copies of all posts made through the online discussion forum will be placed in the docket for this activity, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0516, which will be available at http://www.regulations.gov.

from: EPA

TSCA New IUR CDR Rule Officially Released

2011-08-22T08:32:00.004-04:00

Form U submission will be electronic. Electronic reporting for the 2012 CDR is not yet available. EPA will make the CDR electronic reporting tool, e-CDRweb, available through the Agency's CDX. e-CDRweb is a free, web-based reporting tool for completion of Form U for the 2012 CDR.

EPA Final CDR Rule - Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations - available HERE.

Environmental Working Group Skeptical on TSCA IUR Reform

2011-08-08T10:13:00.004-04:00

The chemical industry has no trouble compiling production and sales information to give to investors on a quarterly basis. When human health or the environment are on the line, however, providing similar information to the Environmental Protection Agency is apparently too much of a burden.

Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency has now said it agrees.

The agency released (on Aug. 1, 2011) its new Chemical Data Reporting rule to update the Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule that requires industry to provide the government with specified information on what chemicals are produced, used and imported in the United States. Environmental Working Group’s analysis indicates that the agency has done a great deal to increase transparency of the chemical industry, but it caved to the industry on two key points, failing to adopt stricter requirements that would better protect the public.

EPA had proposed requiring companies to report vital production and use information for any chemical manufactured in quantities of 10,000 pounds a year or more at any one location, as was done until the threshold was raised to 25,000 pounds in 2000. In its comments on the proposed rule change, EWG argued that even the 10,000-pound threshold was too high and should be lowered to 2,000 pounds. The final CDR rule keeps the production threshold at 25,000 pounds, leaving the EPA and the public in the dark about substances manufactured in smaller amounts.
Although chemical companies have no problem collecting and forwarding information on their production and sales to investors every three months, as federal law requires, the new EPA rule only requires that production and intended use data be collected and made available to the public every four years. EWG believes that the public and EPA should have access to information that could impact public health and environment on an annual basis. Although the information provided to investors does not include the specific details required by the EPA, companies would be unable to supply the required information to investors unless they continuously track and record these details on production and use.

EPA did make some improvements to the rule in order to aid the agency in managing the risks from chemical substances. These changes include requiring that companies:

Report their chemical production and use information every four years (as was done before the recent change to every five years);
Collect and provide data for every year between reporting years;
Collect more detailed processing and use information for all chemicals;
Provide data on chemicals subject to EPA rule-making at a lower threshold of 2,500 pounds;
Substantiate upfront their confidentiality (trade secret) claims;
Collect and provide data to EPA in electronic, not paper, form.

EWG supported these proposed changes in its comments to EPA and suggested further modifications that would strengthen EPA’s ability to safeguard public health.

Industry trade groups and individual corporations, meanwhile, actively lobbied and submitted comments to EPA opposing stronger and more frequent reporting requirements.

Managing human health and environmental risks from industrial chemicals is nearly impossible without knowing what chemicals are manufactured or imported, the quantities involved and what products or processes they are used in. It requires an understanding of how hazardous each chemical is and how much exposure there is for workers, children and the environment. Under the limited authority granted by the outdated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA has failed to adequately collect both hazard and exposure information for the vast majority of chemicals.

Currently, EPA does not even know how many chemicals are actively used in commerce. There are more than 80,000 chemicals approved for use in the United States, most with little or no safety testing, but EPA does not know how many of these 80,000+ substances are actually produced or imported in any given year. It is important for EPA and the public to have timely and accurate information about what chemicals are being used.

Even as it called for EPA to collect less information, the chemical industry trade association, the American Chemistry Council, agreed that EPA should have the authority to determine the safety of chemicals by evaluating “hazard, use and exposure information” (ACC 2011). This is basic information that EPA must have to be able to evaluate what chemicals may pose the greatest threat, and yet it is information that the industry is strenuously seeking to limit.

Comments submitted by a number of corporations show widespread agreement that industry would be overburdened by having to provide this basic information more than once every four years. Yet this is information that industry must have in hand to supply investors with quarterly “10Q” filings on sales volume, inventory and production, as required by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. As the examples below illustrate, it is difficult to see why assembling and forwarding this information to the EPA on a yearly basis would be burdensome.

With the slightly greater frequency required by the newly adopted rule changes, the information available to EPA would hardly be timely.

The new rule changes the reporting frequency to every four years, meaning that production and use information for 2012 would not be collected until mid- to late 2016. EPA then will have to review the data before making it public. In the last reporting cycle, this review took an additional two years – information for calendar year 2005 was not published until December 2008. The mandatory use of electronic reporting in the new rule will hopefully shorten this review time, but EPA and the public will most likely have no way to know how much BPA, phthalates, or other industrial chemicals are being produced next year until 2017 or 2018.

On a positive note, however, this would be the first time that off-year production information would be available at all; under the previous (IUR) rule, companies were only required to provide production information every five years, and then only for the previous 12 months.

In its submission, the American Chemistry Council said that it “believes the reporting frequency of five years is appropriate, but is willing to support EPA’s proposal to change to a four-year cycle. ACC does not believe that shorter intervals are necessary, particularly with the proposed reporting of production volumes for in-between years. Annual reporting would present challenges to both EPA and industry, and the processing and use information does not change much over time” (ACC 2010).

Similarly, the American Coatings Association – “representing some 350 manufacturers of paints, coatings, adhesives, sealants and caulks, raw materials suppliers to the industry, and product distributors,” wrote that “requiring reporting under the proposed IUR rule be done every four years is a problematic commitment for both the agency and the regulated community” (ACA 2010).

Yet in its 10Q filing to investors for the second quarter of 2011, association member Sherwin-Williams was able to report:

“Total paint sales volume percentage decreases were in the middle to low single digits for the quarter and first six months as compared to the second quarter and first six months last year. Sales of non-paint products increased by 4.0 percent over last year’s second quarter and increased by 5.4 percent over last year’s first six months” (Sherwin-Williams 2011).

Similarly:

Dow Chemicals told EPA:

“Dow supports the return to the 4-year reporting interval and since it is expected that the processing and use information will not have significant changes over time, more frequent reporting of this information would not warrant the increased burden on industry” (Dow 2010).

Dow Chemicals’ 10Q for the first quarter 2011:

“Excluding the impact of this divestiture, volume was up 2 percent compared with 2010, as a volume increase of more than 50 percent in Epoxy and a 6 percent increase in volume in Polyglycols, Surfactants, and Fluids were partially offset by declines in the other businesses in the segment” (Dow 2011).

DuPont Inc. told EPA:

“DuPont Supports the EPA’s Proposal to Increase Reporting Frequency from Every Five Years to Every Four Years” (DuPont 2010)… Transitioning to a more frequent or annual reporting would not meet the Agency’s goal and the costs would far outweigh the benefits derived.”

DuPont’s 10Q for the first quarter of 2011:

“Net sales for the first quarter 2011 were $10.0 billion versus $8.5 billion in the prior year, an increase of 18 percent, reflecting 9 percent higher sales volume, an 8 percent increase in local selling prices and a 1 percent net increase from portfolio changes. Local selling prices principally reflect higher prices for titanium dioxide, seeds, fluoroproducts and pass-through of significantly higher precious metals costs. Sales volume was higher across all segments with volume improving 5 percent in the United States and 12 percent outside the United States.“ (DuPont 2011).

Proctor & Gamble told EPA:

“P&G recommends providing annual volume information of manufactured and imported chemicals on a periodic basis in the primary reporting year” (Proctor & Gamble 2010).

Proctor & Gamble’s 10Q for the first quarter of 2011:

“Net sales increased 5% to $20.2 billion on 5% unit volume growth. Volume growth was broad based with growth in all major geographic regions. Volume increased high single digits in developing regions and low single digits in developed regions. All six of the business segments grew volume, led by high single-digit growth in the Baby Care and Family Care, and Snacks and Pet Care segments. Volume was up mid-single digits in the Fabric Care and Home Care, Beauty, and Health Care segments, and increased low single digits in the Grooming segment” (Proctor & Gamble 2011).

The dynamics of industrial chemicals and production volume

Industry’s comments to EPA consistently claimed that more frequent reporting was unnecessary because production volume does not change quickly. EWG’s analysis shows this is not the case, however. Comparing reporting cycles over the years shows that there are frequent and large changes in annual production volume as well as large numbers of new medium- and high-production chemicals entering and exiting the marketplace.

Production volume information has been collected six times since 1986 on more than 14,500 chemicals. Of the total, 2,250 were reportedly produced and reported in one reporting year, not reported as produced in a subsequent reporting year, and then reported once again in a later reporting year. For nearly half, reported production volume was greater than 500,000 pounds in one year, but no production at all was reported the year before or after.

Just as production volume changes greatly between reporting cycles, so too has the list of chemicals changed. Submissions to the IUR have covered approximately 6,200-8,500 chemicals per reporting period, yet since the program started in 1986, EPA has collected information on more than 14,500 chemicals. EWG calculated from previous IUR production information that approximately 210 new chemicals are produced every year in amounts greater than 25,000 pounds, and a similar number of chemicals fall below that threshold.

Chemical policy based on ignorance is a threat to human health, the environment and our children. Making scientifically sound decisions on chemical risk management requires that the EPA have complete data on chemical hazards as well as timely information on production, use, and exposures.

By: David Andrews, PhD

To read the original article click HERE.

American Chemistry Council Welcomes TSCA IUR/CDR Changes

2011-08-08T09:52:00.000-04:00

Improvements Suggested by Industry Reflected in Final Rule

WASHINGTON, D.C. (August 2, 2011) – The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced important changes to how the agency will collect information on the chemicals in commerce under the new Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule.

American Chemistry Council (ACC) Vice President of Regulatory & Technical Affairs Mike Walls issued the following statement welcoming the improvements EPA made in the new rule:

“The American Chemistry Council and our members support EPA’s effort to improve the agency’s understanding of how chemicals are manufactured and used in commerce.

The chemical industry filed constructive comments welcoming many of the substantive changes that were in the proposed rule, and the final rule reflects improvements that ACC suggested to the agency to ensure that companies are given the time needed to provide high quality information.

“The new CDR will help ensure EPA receives accurate use and exposure information, which is essential to meet EPA’s regulatory and policy needs and to improve the American public’s understanding of chemicals in commerce.

“When used with hazard information, the data submitted by industry through the CDR will also help EPA screen and prioritize chemicals for further review. The enhancements made in the CDR and other improvements that ACC has recommended for the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) will improve the quality of the agency’s chemical safety decisions and the public’s confidence in them.”

View the original posting HERE.

Learn more about American Chemistry Council's views on TSCA HERE.

EPA Publishes CDR Rule to Improve Chemical IUR Reporting

2011-08-02T17:03:00.004-04:00

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is increasing the type and amount of information it collects on commercial chemicals from chemical manufacturers, allowing the Agency to better identify and manage potential risks to Americans’ health and the environment. The improved rule, known as the chemical data reporting Rule (CDR), also requires that companies submit the information electronically to EPA, rather than on paper, and limits confidentiality claims by companies. The changes are part of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s commitment to strengthen the agency’s chemical management program and increase the transparency of critical information on chemicals.

“Collecting this critical information on widely used chemicals will enable EPA to more effectively identify and address potential chemical risks,” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “The new electronic reporting requirement and limits on confidentiality claims also will bring EPA’s data collection effort into the 21st Century and give the American people greater access to a wider range of information on chemicals to which their children and families are exposed every day.”

The CDR Rule, which falls under the Toxic Substances Control Act Inventory Update Rule (IUR), requires more frequent reporting of critical information on chemicals and requires the submission of new and updated information relating to potential chemical exposures, current production volume, manufacturing site-related data, and processing and use-related data for a larger number of chemicals. The improved information will allow EPA to better identify and manage risks associated with chemicals.

EPA is requiring companies to submit the information through the Internet, using EPA’s electronic reporting tool. On-line reporting will improve both data quality and EPA’s ability to use the data, as well as make it more accessible to the public.

Companies will be required to start following the new reporting requirements in the next data submission period, which will occur February 1, 2012 to June 30, 2012.

from: EPA Newsroom

IUR Changes to CDR - Chemical Data Reporting Rule

2011-08-02T11:02:00.002-04:00

EPA issued the final TSCA Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Rule previously referred to as the Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Modifications Rule. The final CDR Rule, issued under the Toxic Substance Control Act, requires new and updated exposure information and increases public access to a wide range of information on every day chemicals and limits confidentiality claims by chemical manufacturers. EPA provided a fact sheet outlining details.

The purpose of this program is to collect quality screening-level, exposure-related information on chemical substances, and to make that information available for use by EPA and, to the extent possible, due to data confidentiality claims, to the public. The CDR data are used to support risk screening, assessment, priority setting and management activities and constitute the most comprehensive source of basic screening-level, exposure-related information on chemicals available to EPA.

Who Is Required To Report?
You may be affected by this action if you manufacture (including manufacture as a byproduct or import) for commercial purposes chemical substances listed on the TSCA Inventory and produced in volumes of 25,000 lb or more during the principal reporting year (i.e., calendar year 2011). Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

Chemical substance manufacturers and importers (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 325 and 324110; e.g., chemical substance manufacturing and processing and petroleum refineries).
Chemical substance users and processors who may manufacture a byproduct chemical substance (NAICS codes 22, 322, 331, and 3344; e.g., utilities, paper manufacturing, primary metal manufacturing, and semiconductor and other electronic component manufacturing).

When Is Reporting Required?
The 2012 submission period, during which 2011 manufacturing, processing and use and 2010 production volume information would be reported, is scheduled to occur February 1, 2012 to June 30, 2012. Subsequent recurring submission periods are from June 1 to September 30 at 4–year intervals, beginning in 2016.

For more information on EPA's CDR program click HERE.

Nanoparticles a Risk in Food?

2011-07-25T08:50:00.004-04:00

A new study reveals that nanoparticles are being used in everything from beer to baby drinks despite a lack of safety information

Plastic imbued with clay nanoparticles helps make Miller Brewing Co. beer bottles less likely to break as well as improves how long the brew lasts in storage. Simply H's Toddler Health nutritional drink mix includes 300-nanometer (300 billionths of a meter) iron particles. And a wide range of cooking and cleaning items now employ nanosize silver particles to kill microbes.

Yet, the Washington, D.C.–based environmental group Friends of the Earth (FoE) reports that none of the more than 100 food or food-related products it identified that contain nanoparticles—puny particles between 100 and one nanometers—bears a warning label or has undergone safety testing by government agencies.

"Products created using nanotechnology have entered the food chain," says report author Ian Illuminato, FoE's health and environment lobbyist. "Preliminary studies indicate there is a serious risk…. We should know that it's safe before we put it in our food."

The report builds on several studies in recent years that have shown that some nanoparticles may cause harm. A 2005 study in Environmental Science & Technology showed that zinc oxide nanoparticles were toxic to human lung cells in lab tests even at low concentrations. Other studies have shown that tiny silver particles (15 nanometers) killed liver and brain cells from rats. "They are more chemically reactive and more bioactive," Illuminato says, because of their size, which allows them to easily penetrate organs and cells. "Products should be at least labeled so consumers can choose whether they want to be part of this experiment."

FoE says it is probably underestimating the number of foods and food products containing the miniscule particles, because they depended on self-reporting by companies and a list of 600 nanotechnology products compiled by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (a think thank created by Congress in 1968 to foster links between scholars and politicians) as part of its project to study the implications of nanotechnology.

The environmental group charged that the federal government has failed to protect consumers from the potential dangers of nanoparticles and called for a ban on their use in food and food-related products until they have been thoroughly tested to rule out health risks.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) currently does not specifically require nanoparticles to be proved safe but does require manufacturers to provide tests showing that the food goods employing them—be it beer or baby products—are not harmful. "Industry would bear the burden of demonstrating the safety of the material under its intended conditions of use," says FDA spokesperson Christopher Kelly. "Nanoparticle versions of [FDA-approved] materials may well be new materials" that would trigger new investigations, "and this is considered on a case-by-case basis."

To date, there are few published industry, government or scientific studies on the health and environmental impacts of nanoparticles. Further complicating the matter is the fact that nanoparticles have been in the food supply for years. "Nanoparticles have been in food products for decades, we just never realized they were there," says physicist Andrew Maynard, chief science advisor to the Wilson Center project. "We need to better understand how nano can be benign in foods, but [also] where the dangers are."

For example, it remains unclear whether nanoparticles used in food packaging might migrate or leach into food or beverages. And it is completely unknown what impact a wide variety of these nanoparticles might have on human health.

A wide variety of government agencies, including the FDA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), have taken an interest in nanotechnology. The federal government spent more than $1.4 billion on nanotechnology research last year as part of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, a joint effort of 25 federal agencies investigating the promise and potential perils of the emerging technology. Of that, roughly $40 million was devoted to health and safety research (an amount set to nearly double to $76 million in the fiscal year 2009 proposed budget).

The FDA could not provide figures on how much it spends on assessing the safety of nanoparticles.

The EPA received $8.6 million of that $40 million, some $3 million of which went directly to labs to research potential health and environmental risks, according to Jim Willis, director of the EPA's Chemical Control Division.

The EPA and its counterparts in Canada, Europe, Asia and Australia also began in February a three-year study into the effects of 14 nanomaterials—including silver, iron and other elemental nanoparticles as well as carbon nanotubes and nanoballs. "Once we get the results of phase one, we'll look at moving into more in-depth testing on some of those or maybe some other nanomaterials," Willis says, adding that any new chemical submitted for approval that contains 10 percent or more nanosize elements receives special attention from EPA reviewers. "We've seen about 30 or so in the past three years," he says.

In 2006 the EPA began to regulate nanosilver as a pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. As a result, companies employing such nanosilver particles (as an antimicrobial in a wide array of merchandise from computers to cooking pans) are required to register them as pesticides. Last week, the agency fined computer equipment maker IOGEAR of Irvine, Calif., $200,000 for failing to register the antimicrobial nanosilver in some of its wireless computer keyboards and mouses.

In January the agency also asked companies that use nanoparticles to begin voluntarily providing the results of any health and safety studies they had conducted. Willis says that the EPA will review company response to determine whether voluntary compliance is enough this summer.

Friends of the Earth insists that such reporting should be mandatory, given the potential risks. The lobby also says the definition of what constitutes a nanosize particle should include anything 300 nanometers or smaller. But the Wilson Center's Maynard notes it is the effect rather than the size that is significant.

"It all comes down to the need for more research. We can't fly blind here. We need to know what's going on," Maynard says. "There is no hard evidence that nanomaterials in products on the market will harm humans or the environment, but there is enough evidence to say that we need to reexamine.''

By: David Biello

Glyme(Dimethoxyethane) Proposed Significant New Use Rule (SNUR)

2011-07-18T11:14:00.001-04:00

EPA proposed a significant new use rule (SNUR) on July 11, 2011, for 14 glymes or dimethoxyethane. Issued under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the SNUR would require persons who intend to manufacture, import, or process these chemicals for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by the proposed rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. This notification would provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs.
The public can comment on the proposed rule by September 9, 2011, by submitting comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009–0767.

This SNUR is a follow-up action resulting from the Risk Based Prioritization (RBP) documents on monoglyme and diglyme published on March 18, 2008. EPA is concerned about the reproductive and/or developmental toxicity of three glymes: monoglyme, diglyme, and ethylglyme, and believes that individuals could suffer adverse effects from their use.

Of the 14 glymes, 12 have industrial or consumer uses of some kind and two have no current uses. EPA has preliminarily determined that the manufacture, import, or processing of 12 of the glymes for “any use in a consumer product” is a significant new use, although some ongoing uses are excluded from the SNUR. In addition, EPA has primarily determined that the manufacture, import, or processing of the remaining two glymes for “any use” is a significant new use.

from: EPA Newsroom

Continued EPA Transparency: Confidentiality Removed for 150+ Chemicals

2011-07-05T10:24:00.001-04:00

WASHINGTON – In order to ensure the public has as much information as possible about the health and the environmental impacts of chemicals, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has made public the identities of more than 150 chemicals contained in 104 health and safety studies that had been claimed confidential by industry. Today’s announcement is another in a series of unprecedented actions that EPA is taking to provide the public with greater access to information on the chemicals that are manufactured and used in the United States.

For these 104 studies, the chemical identity will no longer be redacted, or kept from view. The chemicals involved are used in dispersant formulations and consumer products such as air fresheners, non-stick and stain resistant materials, fire resistant materials, nonylphenol compounds, perfluorinated compounds, and lead.

“This action to disclose the identity of more than 150 chemicals is an important step in EPA’s commitment to give the American people access to critical information about chemicals that their children and families may be exposed to,” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “A health and safety study with the chemical name kept secret is completely useless to the public.”

from: EPA Newsroom

Complete article available HERE.

New Nano Titanium Dioxide Exposure Limit - NIOSH

2011-06-13T09:43:00.001-04:00

A recently released NIOSH guidance document (NIOSH, 2011) on handling titanium dioxide (TiO2) powders in the workplace generated a high level of interest as it put forward an innovative approach that might have implications beyond TiO2. Specifically it may be the first document to recommend separate occupational exposure limits for the same material based on particle size.
This document signifies increasing attention to evaluating and mitigating risks of emerging hazards in the workplace before adverse health effects occur in workers and could proactively be used for how other poorly soluble, low toxicity (PSLT) particles are controlled in the workplace.

NIOSH also has a draft Current Intelligence Bulletin,"Occupational Exposure to Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers" - NIOSH Docket Number: NIOSH 161-A. This draft bulletin summarizes the adverse respiratory health effects that have been observed in laboratory animal studies with single-walled carbon nanotubes, multi-walled carbon nanotubes and CNF and provides recommendations for the safe handling of these materials.

These documents are indicating that are going in the direction of separate regulation based on size. Whether TSCA adopts this view is yet to be seen.

Safe Chemicals Act of 2011

2011-05-31T10:19:00.005-04:00

TSCA reform is still continuing even as the IUR regulations are being evaluated. Below are links and information on the Safe Chemicals Act (SCA) introduced by Sen. Frank Lautenberg including highlights from Senator Lautenberg's website.

Highlights of the Safe Chemicals Act
• Provides EPA with sufficient information to judge a chemical’s safety.
• Prioritizes chemicals based on risk.
• Takes fast action to address highest risk chemicals.
• Ensures safety threshold is met for all chemicals on the market.
• Creates open access to reliable chemical information.
• Promotes innovation and development of green chemistry.

More Information:

Video of Sen Lautenberg introducing The Safe Chemicals Act

EDF Comparison of TSCA Now and After SCA
Safe Chemicals Act of 2011-Summary
Complete Bill S. 847
Track the Bill's Progress
2010 vs. 2011 Bill

Proposed Revocation of the Significant New Use Rule on Ethoxyethylamine Phosphonate

2011-05-23T14:25:00.001-04:00

May 11, 2011 -- On top of the recent IUR suspension, EPA is proposing to revoke a significant new use rule (SNUR) promulgated under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for a chemical substance identified generically as substituted ethoxyethylamine phosphonate, which was the subject of premanufacture notice (PMN) P-95-1950. EPA issued a “non-5(e)” SNUR (i.e. SNUR on a substance that is not subject to a TSCA section 5(e) consent order), designating certain activities as significant new uses based on the concern criteria. EPA has received and reviewed new information and test data for the chemical substance and proposes to revoke the SNUR.

The comment period that ends in on June 10, 2011.

IMPORTANT: IUR Suspended for 2011

2011-05-17T09:03:00.004-04:00

EPA will temporarily suspend the TSCA Inventory Update Rule (IUR) submission period for 2011. Click HERE for full Federal Register announcement.

"EPA is amending the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 8(a) Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) regulations by suspending the next IUR submission period. The IUR requires manufacturers (including importers) of certain chemical substances included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory) to report current data on the manufacturing, processing, and use of the chemical substances. In the Federal Register of August 13, 2010, EPA published proposed modifications to the IUR regulations. EPA is suspending the next submission period to allow additional time to finalize the proposed modifications to the IUR regulations, and to avoid finalizing changes to the reporting requirements in the midst of the 2011 submission period. EPA expects to finalize, in the near future, changes to the IUR reporting requirements which will supersede this action." Environmental Protection Agency on 05/11/2011

The proposed modifications are available HERE.

Letter from Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy stating that the current IUR amendments failed to meet the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act and President Obama's Executive Order 13563 available HERE.

Comments on the IUR revisions from Environmental Defense Fund available HERE.

Inventory Update Rule (IUR) Information Session - CANCELED

2011-05-10T09:24:00.005-04:00

EPA SUSPENDS IUR SUBMISSION PERIOD FOR 2011.
TSCA Inventory Update is due September 30, 2011. EPA is proposing to amend the reporting requirements of the Toxic Substances Control Act Inventory Update Reporting rule. You may be affected by this action resulting in changes to the way you submit and when you report. (see below for more info on IUR Update)

If you will be in the Hartford CT area, join us for an informational session (breakfast included) to learn about what is involved in completing your submission; and what the possible ramifications are if the new requirements are not met.

Currently EPA defines the following as "Who Would Be Required to Report" from EPA's IUR Modifications Rule:

You may be affected by this action if you manufacture (including import) chemical substances and mixtures listed on the TSCA Inventory in volumes of 25,000 lb. or more during the principal reporting year (i.e., calendar year 2010). Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

Chemical manufacturers and importers (NAICS code 325 and 324110; e.g., chemical manufacturing and processing and petroleum refineries)
Chemical users and processors who may manufacture a byproduct chemical substance (NAICS codes 22, 322, 331, and 3344; e.g., utilities, paper manufacturing, primary metal manufacturing, and semiconductor and other electronic component manufacturing)

Safe Chemicals Act 2011 Legislation

2011-04-18T13:42:00.000-04:00

U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced legislation to follow-up on last year's regualtions to update the “Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976” (TSCA). This regulation looks to protect Americans from exposure to dangerous chemicals. Lautenberg, the chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health, wants to start requiring chemical manufacturers to demonstrate the safety of industrial chemicals used in common household products.

Below By: Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families

The Act responds to increasingly forceful warnings from scientific and medical experts -- including the President's Cancer Panel -- that current policies have failed to curtail common chemicals linked to diseases such as cancer, learning disabilities, infertility, and more. The Senate's Safe Chemicals Act builds on momentum from 18 states that have passed laws to address health hazards from chemicals; and numerous corporate policies of major American companies restricting toxic chemicals, including Staples, SC Johnson, Wal-Mart and Kaiser Permanente.

"The whole world has woken up to the ragged holes in our federal safety net for chemicals," said Andy Igrejas, Director of Safer Chemicals, Health Families, a coalition of 280 health, environmental and business groups. "We need a new law to put commonsense limits on toxic chemicals both to protect American families, and to give a leg up to American firms in a world market that increasingly demands safer products."

The Safe Chemicals Act would overhaul the 35-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which is widely perceived to have failed to protect public health and the environment. Specifically the Act would:

Require EPA to identify and restrict the "worst of the worst" chemicals, those that persist and build up in the food chain;
Require basic health and safety information for all chemicals as a condition for entering or remaining on the market;
Reduce the burden of toxic chemical exposures on people of color and low-income and indigenous communities;
Upgrade scientific methods for testing and evaluating chemicals to reflect best practices called for by the National Academy of Sciences; and
Generally provide EPA with the tools and resources it needs to identify and address chemicals posing health and environmental concerns.

"Under current law, EPA is powerless to act against even the most notorious chemicals," said Richard Denison, Ph.D., Senior Scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund and a leading expert on TSCA. "The Safe Chemicals Act would provide EPA with the authority it needs to protect public health; the marketplace with the information companies need to innovate safe products; and consumers with the comfort in knowing that their families are being protected," he concluded.

Passed in 1976, TSCA's presumption that chemicals should be considered innocent until proven guilty was a sharp departure from the approach taken with pharmaceuticals and pesticides. Since then, an overwhelming body of science has shown that presumption to be unfounded. Published studies in peer-reviewed journals have shown many common chemicals can cause chronic diseases and can be toxic even at low doses.

Once thought to pose little likelihood of exposure, we now know many chemicals migrate from the materials and products in which they're used - including furniture, plastics and food cans - into our bodies. The federal Centers for Disease Control has found that the blood or tissues of almost every American carry hundreds of these chemicals, some present even before birth. Yet under TSCA, EPA cannot restrict even the most dangerous of these chemicals and lacks the information it needs to evaluate how this complex mixture of chemicals affects our health. EPA has been able to require testing of only a few hundred of the 62,000 chemicals that have been on the market since TSCA was passed 35 years ago, a number that has increased to 85,000 chemicals today.

"The science on the links between chemicals and cancer is clear and more widely accepted than ever before," said Nancy Buermeyer of the Breast Cancer Fund, a national advocacy organization that focuses on prevention. "Still, every day millions of families are coping with the devastation of cancer diagnoses. We must protect the public's health from dangerous or untested chemicals, and there's no time to wait. Congress should act now on chemical policy reform."

"This proposed TSCA reform would enable EPA to swiftly address chemicals that we know can harm babies' developing brains, and require testing of chemicals for safety before they go into products," said Maureen Swanson of the Learning Disabilities Association. At a time when we face increasing rates of autism and ADHD, parents and expectant parents shouldn't have to worry that the products they buy might contain chemicals that can interfere with brain development and learning."

Advocates predict action in this Congress despite the partisan divide. They point to support from many businesses for reform of TSCA, including major chemical and consumer product companies such as Dow, BASF, and Procter & Gamble. They also point to the strong bipartisan support for chemical safety legislation at the state level, and public opinion research that consistently shows overwhelming bipartisan support for reform.

"The Safe Chemicals Act is a win for both public health and the economy. Smart businesses want to help make reform happen because it's in their financial interest to make safer, healthier products," said Igrejas.

2011 Inventory Update Rule (IUR) Update-SUSPENDED

2011-04-04T08:42:00.003-04:00

EPA Promises Industry 'Adequate' Time To Report Chemical Volume Data

BALTIMORE – A top EPA toxics office official says the agency will provide the chemical industry with “adequate” time to comply with the agency's expanded new chemical production and use reporting rules, though the official stopped short of saying how much time industry will have to comply with the upcoming Inventory Update Rule (IUR).

"I know there is a lot of concern about about [the] timing for the IUR. We will provide [an] adequate period of time for for you to submit . . . your reports," Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, director of EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention &; Toxics, told the GlobalChem industry conference here March 22.

Her comments appear aimed at addressing concerns that industry will not have enough time to comply with the upcoming IUR, a requirement of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). A proposed version of the rule issued last year expands the time period for reporting, increases the frequency of reporting, eliminates upper thresholds for reporting, and rejects more confidential business information claims, among other changes EPA says are designed to improve chemicals reporting.

A final version of the rule is currently under review at the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) and is expected to be released before July. Industry must report their data between June 1 and Sept. 30.

The rule is one of several TSCA measures EPA is developing. In her slide presentation here, Cleland-Hamnett said the agency is also developing a new rule identifying “chemicals of concern” for potential future regulation -- an earlier version of which has drawn strong industry criticism -- and several additional measures requiring industry to test the toxicity and provide data on chemicals.

But the upcoming IUR is a special concern for industry. At a March 21 session here, several industry representatives raised concerns that their companies will not have enough time to comply with the requirements.

Robert Kiefer, director of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council, said that given the changes to what information will need to be collected and the agency's new online reporting system, companies would likely need an additional nine to 12 months to collect all the data needed and enter it into the system. “There needs to be time to make this work for everyone,” Kiefer said.

And Imogene Treble, product and regulatory leader for Dow Chemical, said companies not only need the rule to be released, but also subsequent guidance. Treble said she had put together information on two chemicals as outlined in the draft rule and found “it's a lot of work, it's a lot more work than I was expecting.”

Companies keep their chemical information in a format consistent with prior reporting rules, Treble said, but the new standard has several changes, including asking for more information on mixtures of chemicals and inorganic chemicals, which were exempt in the last reporting cycle in 2006, and must now be taken in to account, among other changes.

Even the way information must be entered into EPA's new online submission system is different from prior reporting cycles, meaning that companies have a lot of work left to do, she said. “I don't know how we are going to get all of this information changed over,” Treble said. “How long is it going to take? Hours for each chemical, that's for sure.”

But EPA's Cleland-Hamnett said that the expanded reporting requirements are necessary. "We have found that without annual reporting [volumes], we're missing a lot of information that can be informative regarding trends," she said, such as for those chemicals that are produced periodically.

Similarly, she said lower reporting thresholds also help capture important additional data. "Current thresholds excludes lots of chemicals that may be important, even high production volume because of facility-specific levels." Even with the proposed change in reporting levels, EPA will still only be capturing data on less than 10 percent of the chemicals in commerce, she said.

And, she added, the agency needs the data to prioritize regulatory and other efforts and to do risk assessments. “We believe that the changes we've proposed will allow us to do that, especially the changes with respect to processing and use,” she said.

March 22

insideEPA.com

For the original story click HERE.

TSCA Reform Continuing?

2011-03-21T08:46:00.004-04:00

Below are several efforts showing that TSCA reform is still a topic of discussion.

Shimkus Open To Piecemeal TSCA Reform But Rejects Democrats' Efforts

http://environmentalnewsstand.com/

Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee's environment panel, says there may be sections of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that his subcommittee will consider reforming, but is rejecting outright using Democrats' TSCA reform legislation from the 111th Congress as a starting point in the debate.

Senate Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Assessing the Effectiveness of U.S. Chemical Safety Laws

Thursday, February 3, 2011

Source: Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

On February 3, 2011, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics, and Environmental Health held a hearing entitled 'Assessing the Effectiveness of U.S. Chemical Safety Laws.' Subcommittee Chair Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) last year introduced the Safe Chemicals Act of 2010, a bill that would have reformed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by shifting the burden of proof to industry to show chemicals are safe, rather than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proving that they pose a risk.

American Chemistry Council (ACC) endorses cumulative impact assessment for all TSCA regulations!

By: Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
Environmental Defense on 03/14/2011

In what seemed a startling move, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) last week gave testimony at a Congressional hearing that included a full-throated endorsement of mandating that EPA be required to assess cumulative impacts when developing regulations addressing chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

REACH Progress: Model for TSCA Reform?

2011-03-14T12:12:00.003-04:00

Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) is a European Union (EU) Regulation that was adopted December 18, 2006. This is the European equivalent of TSCA and is viewed by some as the direction that TSCA reform is headed. However, the November 2010 chemical registration evaluation process is revealing major problems for compliance by companies. Whether these are growing pains or a learning curve on the industry side or poor regulations is yet to be seen. Below is a brief summary and excerpts from the 40+ page report released by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

_____________________________

Report Overview

Evaluation is the E in REACH. It is a fundamental part of the EU legislative framework that ensures the protection of human health and the environment from the potentially harmful effects of chemicals. The safe use of substances starts under REACH with high quality registration dossiers that are industry’s responsibility. The REACH Regulation is relatively new and both ECHA and individual companies are learning to apply it for the first time.

The report gives a sense of ECHA’s experience of evaluation and, crucially, feedback on the quality of the initial dossiers registered and evaluated. It also makes recommendations for registrants on how to improve their dossiers and help ensure a successful registration. The adequacy of the registered data and the quality of dossiers was evaluated in three ways:

Compliance check of at least 5 % of the dossiers received by ECHA per tonnage
Examination of testing proposals
Substance evaluation checks whether use of a substance may cause a serious risk to human health or the environment

Statistics

In 2010, ECHA completed 70 compliance checks; another 21 were in the decision-making phase at year end; and the evaluation of 60 dossiers continued into 2011.

12 resulted in an ECHA decision asking the registrant to provide further information
33 cases, data was not missing but recommendations were given for the registrants on how to improve their dossier quality
25 cases, no action was needed.

ECHA screened 303 dossiers for on-site and transported intermediates to check if the registrations fulfilled the requirements to be considered as intermediates, or whether they should have been a normal registration.
Eleven dossiers for transported isolated intermediates were compliance checked and in all cases, letters were sent to the registrants requesting further information.
ECHA started the examination of 123 testing proposals, adopted four final decisions and issued another eleven draft decisions. In three of the final decisions, the tests were requested as proposed by the registrant while in one decision the tests proposed by the registrant were modified.
Substance evaluation will formally start in 2012 and the criteria for prioritising substances for the Community Rolling Action Plan (CoRAP) and the timelines and processes leading to the first CoRAP have been agreed upon.

Quality

Many of the dossiers evaluated had quality problems. These dossiers were the very first to be submitted and represent only the tip of the iceberg in terms of numbers. The most significant recommendations were:

The identity of the registered substance needs to be clearly described;
Any adaptation to the standard testing regime must meet the conditions set out in Annex XI or in column 2 of Annexes VII – X of the REACH Regulation; and a clear justification for any adaptation must be provided;
The robust study summaries should contain enough detail to allow an independent assessment of the information provided;
Classification and labelling should be in line with the hazards identified or with the harmonized classification and labelling of the substance;
A proposal to do testing must be submitted first (for tests under Annex IX and X) before the test is done. Doing a test before getting ECHA’s decision may lead to legal action;
Registrants have an obligation to share data resulting from animal tests and to share the costs before submitting the dossier.

The full report can be found HERE.

Nano Educational Series Podcasts

2011-03-14T11:20:00.001-04:00

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) has developed a series of nanotechnology related educational podcasts. These podcasts are meant to improve technical literacy and provide information that will assist your career planning and skills development. While none of them cover TSCA, the general information should be useful to those dealing with TSCA and nano issues.

The podcasts are easily accessible on the website and can be downloaded for viewing on your phone while waiting for a meeting or in travel. These podcasts are only a few minutes long and include video and audio files. ASME releases new podcasts on various topics on a regular schedule, so be sure to check back periodically for the new podcasts.

ASME promotes the art, science & practice of mechanical & multidisciplinary engineering and allied sciences around the globe.

Nanomaterial Aquatic Toxicity Tests

2011-02-16T11:49:00.004-05:00

Craig A. Calvert, Ph.D., C-CHO

Fuss & O'Neill EnviroScience

February 2011

In recent years the use of nanotechnology through the development of nanomaterials has increased rapidly. A graph of the number of papers published with nano used in the title is given below to illustrate the rapid growth from minimal pre-1990 level to a peak in 2009. The slight dip is likely due to the economic downturn. The increased use of the materials has sparked many debates over the toxicity of nanomaterials. Since size plays a large role in reactivity, groups are debating the need for regulating nanomaterials. The most likely regulation to oversee nanomaterials is EPA’s Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). TSCA regulates materials based on composition, and since most nanomaterials are the same composition as the bulk material, there was no immediate regulatory requirement. However, EPA has clarified that nanomaterials must follow TSCA testing requirements and reporting in Section 4 and 8. On September 17, 2010, EPA issued a significant new use rule (SNUR) notice under TSCA for single and multi-walled carbon nanotubes that are used in applications such as advanced composites, fuel cells, and electronics. www.tscaconsulting.blogspot.com/2010/09/epa-issues-final-snurs-for-carbon.html Because of the TSCA reporting requirements and the potential for increased reactivity, toxicity testing of nanomaterials is important in understanding the potential risks posed by these materials.

Figure 1. A plot of number of papers published with

“nano” in the title versus the year. The search was

performed using Google Scholar.

Fuss & O'Neill EnviroScience in Manchester, CT in collaboration with Dr. Steven Suib, Professor of Chemistry in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Connecticut, have studied the toxicity of several inorganic nanoparticles. These studies used 48-hour static acute toxicity tests on a freshwater crustacean (Daphnia pulex) and small fish (minnow). In general terms, these tests added the nanomaterials to a beaker of water with the organisms and then the combination was left to sit for 48 hours. After 48 hours, the number of surviving organisms was counted and used to calculate the survival percentage. The results showed that the survival percentages depended on the concentration of the nanomaterials added to the beaker and the type of nanomaterial used. These tests were looking for the relationship between different nanomaterials with nanosilver as the control; no bulk material control was used. Silver is commonly used as an antimicrobial due to its toxicity. The results of this study confirms that silver is highly toxic and that the toxicity of the nanomaterials is based on the type of material.

Table 1. Results of nanomaterial toxicity testing.

Decreased Chemical Confidentiality

2011-02-10T13:54:00.003-05:00

EPA removes confidentiality claims on studies of chemicals submitted under TSCA as part of an ongoing commitment to transparency.

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has notified five companies that the identities of 14 chemicals associated with a number of health and safety studies submitted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and claimed as confidential are not eligible for confidential treatment. The action comes as part of Administrator Lisa P. Jackson’s continued efforts to increase public access to chemical information to help Americans understand risks posed by chemicals in our environment.

Last year, EPA put in place a plan to review confidentiality claims for the name of chemicals addressed in health and safety studies. Under these new procedures EPA is moving to declassify many chemical identities so they are no longer secret. More chemical names connected with health and safety studies will be released in the future. The agency plans to deny confidentiality claims for chemical identity in health and safety studies provided to the agency under TSCA unless the chemical identity contains process or mixture information that is expressly protected by the law.

“The public deserves access to critical health and safety information on chemicals, but if the name of the chemical is kept secret in the health and safety report, the information is of no real value to people,” said Steve Owens, EPA’s assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “We are committed to increasing the American people’s access to this important information.”

Under TSCA, companies may claim that information they submit to EPA should be treated as confidential business information (CBI) and not be disclosed to the public. Companies that manufacture, process, or distribute chemicals are required to immediately provide notice to EPA if they learn that a chemical presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment. The reports are made available on EPA’s website, but when the identity of the chemical has been claimed confidential by a company, the name of the chemical has been removed from the copy of the report that is made public.

EPA has begun reviewing past CBI claims for chemical identity in health and safety studies. Where EPA determines that the information is not eligible for confidential treatment under the law, the agency will notify companies of the determination and that EPA will make the information public on the 31st day after receiving the determination unless the company challenges the disclosure in federal court.

Release date: 02/10/2011

Contact Information: Dale Kemery kemery.dale@epa.gov (News Media Only) 202-564-7839 202-564-4355

More information on EPA’s efforts to increase transparency, for a copy of the letter, and additional information on the notifications on declassifications:

www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/transparency.html

National Nanotechnology Initiative's Strategic Plan

2011-02-10T13:17:00.000-05:00

The National Nanotechnology Initiative's (NNI) Strategic plan does not include any specifics on regulation of nanomaterials; however, it does mention a NNI Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Strategy that is due in "early 2011." This combined with the information gathered in the strategic plan will likely play a large role in the determining how nanomaterials are regulated. The full announcement is below along with a link to the pdf version of complete plan.

The NNI Strategic Plan announcement from NNI:

"NNI and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy are pleased to announce the release of the 2011 NNI Strategic Plan. As called for by the 21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act, the NNI plan is updated every three years. The February 2011 NNI Strategic Plan retains the overall vision, the four goals, and the eight program component areas outlined in the previous edition of the plan (released in December 2007). For the first time the 2011 plan includes specific objectives under each goal, outlining the concrete steps that the NNI member agencies will take toward collectively achieving the NNI vision and goals. Developed under the auspices of the National Science and Technology Council's Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology, the plan will be used by the NNI member agencies to guide the coordination of their research, training programs, and resources. The plan benefits from and builds upon recommendations from the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and the National Academies, and incorporates a broad rage of stakeholder input obtained through NNI-sponsored workshops, a formal Request for Information published in the Federal Register, and the NNI Strategy Portal website, http://strategy.nano.gov.

The NNI Strategic Plan can be found below.

www.nano.gov/nnistrategicplan211.pdf

EPA Requires Testing of 19 Widely Used Chemicals

2011-01-10T11:18:00.001-05:00

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing a final rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requiring manufacturers of 19 high production volume (HPV) chemicals to test the health and environmental effects of the chemicals and submit the data to the agency. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson has made assuring the safety of chemicals one of her top priorities. This rule is one of a series of actions that EPA is taking to ensure that the agency has the data it needs to adequately review priority chemicals. HPV chemicals are produced in or imported into the United States in quantities of 1 million pounds or more per year.

“This chemical data reporting will provide EPA with critical information to better evaluate any potential risks from these chemicals that are being produced in large quantities in this country,” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “Having this information is essential to improve chemical safety and protect the health of the American people and the environment.”

The chemicals in the rule announced today have many consumer and industrial applications. For example, diphenylmethanone is used in consumer products and may be found in personal-care products; 9, 10-anthracenedione is used to manufacture dyes; C12-C24 chloroalkenes are used as metalworking fluids; pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) is a blasting and demolition agent; and leuco sulfur black is a fingerprinting agent.

The rule follows up on the voluntary HPV Challenge Program Chemical List launched by EPA that included chemicals used in household products such as hobby/craft glues, personal-care products, home cleaning products, home maintenance products, and automotive products. The program challenged companies to make health and environmental effects data publicly available for HPV chemicals.

Companies voluntarily supplied data on more than 2,200 HPV chemicals under the challenge program; however, no health and environmental effects data was provided on the 19 chemicals in the rule, making it necessary for EPA to require testing. In the coming year, EPA intends to require testing of other chemicals for which the agency has not received data.

Complete List of 19 Chemicals

Acetaldehyde
1,3-Propanediol, 2,2-bis[(nitrooxy)methyl]-, dinitrate (ester)
9,10-Anthracenedione
1H,3H-Benzo[1,2-c:4,5-c']difuran-1,3,5,7-tetrone
2,4-Hexadienoic acid, (E,E)-
Phenol, 4,4'-methylenebis[2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-
Methanone, diphenyl-
Ethanedioic acid
Methanesulfinic acid, hydroxy-, monosodium salt
Phosphorochloridothioic acid, O,O-diethyl ester
1,3,5-Triazine-1,3,5(2H,4H,6H)-triethanol
D-erythro-hex-2-enonic acid, gamma.-lactone, monosodium salt
D-gluco-heptonic acid, monosodium salt, (2.xi.)-
C.I. Leuco Sulphur Black 1
Castor oil, sulfated, sodium salt
Castor oil, oxidized
Benzenediamine, ar,ar-diethyl-ar-methyl-
Alkenes, C12-24 , chloro
Hydrocarbons, C>4

For more information on HPV chemicals.

Original posting can be accessed HERE.

$3.3 Million TSCA Violation

2011-01-05T12:02:00.001-05:00

EPA Announces $3.3 Million Settlement with DuPont for Failure to Report Toxic Chemical Studies

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced that DuPont has agreed to pay a penalty of $3.3 million to resolve 57 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) violations. DuPont failed to immediately notify EPA of research indicating substantial risk found during testing chemicals for possible use as surface protection, masonry protection, water repellants, sealants and paints. The Toxic Substances Control Act requires companies to inform EPA when they have research demonstrating that a chemical could pose a substantial risk to human health and the environment.

“DuPont failed to comply with the law and notify EPA that it had information on chemicals that could pose a risk to human health and the environment,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “EPA is serious about making companies follow our nation’s laws and protecting public health.

On May 5, 2006, DuPont notified EPA that it had failed to submit chemical toxicity studies on ratsas required by TSCA Section 8(e). On July 12, 2006, DuPont submitted studies that contained information on chemical toxicity when certain chemicals are inhaled. EPA determined that 57 of the studies contained information on chemicals that could present a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment and therefore subject to the TSCA Section 8(e). Full compliance with TSCA reporting requirements allows EPA to understand and limit, when necessary, potential hazards associated with manufacturing, use, and disposal of chemical substances.

DuPont is a chemical manufacturer that provides products and services for markets including agriculture, nutrition, electronics, communications, safety and protection, home and construction, transportation and apparel. DuPont is based in Wilmington Del. and operates in approximately 90 countries.

Release date: 12/21/2010

Contact Information: Stacy Kika, kika.stacy@epa.gov

The original EPA notice can be accessed HERE.

Nanomaterial Risk Analysis - Free Access

2010-12-15T12:59:00.017-05:00

The Journal of Risk Analysis has dedicated a full issue to the topic of risk analysis of nanomaterials. I have not read the full issue, but from what I have looked over, there is a lot of interesting information. Below is a link to the online version of the journal. As of today (December 15th) you can view all the articles online for FREE.

Risk Analysis, November 2010, Volume 30, Issue 11.
© Society for Risk Analysis

Nanomaterial Case Studies and Workshop on Nanoscale Silver - EPA

2010-12-15T12:28:00.002-05:00

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced in a December 13, 2010, Federal Register notice that it will hold a public information exchange meeting to receive comments and questions on the Nanomaterial Case Studies on January 4, 2011, in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. According to EPA, the meeting will provide it an opportunity to highlight the Nanomaterial Case Studies and how EPA is using the studies as part of an ongoing process to refine a long-term research strategy to support the comprehensive environmental assessment of nanomaterials.

Registration is required to attend the meeting, and EPA states that space is limited. Comments may be submitted in writing or made orally during the meeting. Written comments are due December 28, 2010. EPA intends to consider all such comments in evaluating whether or how to develop further case studies and workshops on nanomaterials. To date, EPA has published two Nanomaterial Case Studies -- Nanomaterial Case Studies: Nanoscale Titanium Dioxide in Water Treatment and in Topical Sunscreen (Final) and Nanomaterial Case Study: Nanoscale Silver in Disinfectant Spray (External Review Draft)

Immediately following the public information exchange meeting, ICF International (ICF), an EPA contractor, will conduct a separate meeting, the ICF International Nanomaterial Case Studies Workshop: Developing a Comprehensive Environmental Assessment Research Strategy for Nanoscale Silver, in the same location. According to the Federal Register notice, the workshop will be conducted with a selected set of invite-only participants in a structured decision science process known as Nominal Group Technique (NGT). The workshop will use the EPA document Nanomaterial Case Study: Nanoscale Silver in Disinfectant Spray (External Review Draft) as a starting point for identifying and prioritizing possible research directions related to nanoscale silver. EPA expects the ICF workshop to conclude by 1:00 p.m. (EST) on Friday, January 7, 2011. Although funded by EPA, the ICF workshop is being conducted independently of EPA so as to comply with provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The ICF workshop will be open to public observers.

Lynn L. Bergeson
December 14, 2010

Nanotechnology: A Dead End for Plant Cells?

2010-11-23T09:00:00.003-05:00

New Study Examines Nanoparticles’ Effects on Plants

Using particles that are 1/100,000 the width of a human hair to deliver drugs to cells or assist plants in fighting off pests may sound like something out of a science fiction movie, but these scenarios may be a common occurrence in the near future.

Carbon nanotubes, cylindrically shaped carbon molecules with a diameter of about 1 nanometer, have many potential applications in a variety of fields, such as biomedical engineering and medical chemistry. Proteins, nucleic acids, and drugs can be attached to these nanotubes and delivered to cells and organs. Carbon nanotubes can be used to recognize and fight viruses and other pathogens. However, results of studies in animals have also raised concerns about the potential toxicity of nanoparticles.
Recent research by a team of researchers from China, led by Dr. Nan Yao,

explored the effects of nanoparticles on plant cells. The findings of Dr. Yao and his colleagues are published in the October issue of the American Journal of Botany (http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/reprint/97/10/1602).

Dr. Yao and his team of researchers isolated cells from rice as well as from the model plant species Arabidopsis. The researchers treated these cells with carbon nanotubes, and then assessed the cells for viability, damage to DNA, and the presence of reactive oxygen species.

The researchers found an increase in levels of the reactive oxygen species hydrogen peroxide. Reactive oxygen species cause oxidative stress to cells, and this stress can result in programmed cell death. Dr. Yao and his colleagues discovered that the effect of carbon nanotubes on cells was dosage dependent—the greater the dose, the greater the likelihood of cell death. In contrast, cells exposed to carbon particles that were not nanotubes did not suffer any ill effects, demonstrating that the size of the nanotubes is a factor in their toxicity.

"Nanotechnology has a large scope of potential applications in the agriculture industry, however, the impact of nanoparticles have rarely been studied in plants," Dr. Yao said. "We found that nanomaterials could induce programmed cell death in plant cells."

Despite the scientists' observations that carbon nanotubes had toxic effects on plant cells, the use of nanotechnology in the agriculture industry still has great promise. The scientists only observed programmed cell death as a temporary response following the injection of the nanotubes and did not observe further changes a day and a half after the nanotube treatments. Also, the researchers did not observe death at the tissue level, which indicates that injecting cells with carbon nanotubes caused only limited injury.

"The current study has provided evidence that certain carbon nanoparticles are not 100% safe and have side effects on plants, suggesting that potential risks of nanotoxicity on plants need to be assessed," Dr. Yao stated. In the future, Dr. Yao and colleagues are interested in investigating whether other types of nanoparticles may also have toxic effects on plant cells. "We would like to create a predictive toxicology model to track nanoparticles."

Only once scientists have critically examined the risks of nanoparticles can they take advantage of the tremendous potential benefits of this new technology.

CITATION: Cong-Xiang Shen, Quan-Fang Zhang, Jian Li, Fang-Cheng Bi, and Nan Yao (2010). Induction of programmed cell death in Arabidopsis and rice by single-wall carbon nanotubes. American Journal of Botany 97(10): 1602-1609. DOI: 10.3732/ajb.1000073

The full article in the link mentioned is available for no charge for 30 days following the date of this summary at http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/reprint/97/10/1602. After this date, reporters may contact Richard Hund at ajb@botany.org for a copy of the article.

Contact: Richard Hund

Nov. 16, 2010

American Journal of Botany

The Botanical Society of America (www.botany.org) is a non-profit membership society with a mission to promote botany, the field of basic science dealing with the study and inquiry into the form, function, development, diversity, reproduction, evolution, and uses of plants and their interactions within the biosphere. It has published the American Journal of Botany (www.amjbot.org) for nearly 100 years. In 2009, the Special Libraries Association named the American Journal of Botany one of the Top 10 Most Influential Journals of the Century in the field of Biology and Medicine.

Original Webarticle found HERE.

EPA Denies Petition to Ban Lead in Fishing Gear

2010-11-08T08:02:00.002-05:00

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has denied a petition calling for a ban on the manufacture, use and processing of lead in fishing gear.

In a letter to the petitioners, EPA indicated that the petitioners have not demonstrated that the requested rule is necessary to protect against an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, as required by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The letter further indicates that the

increasing number of limitations on the use of lead fishing gear on some federal and state lands, as well as various education and outreach activities, call into question whether a national ban on lead in fishing gear would be the least burdensome, adequately protective approach to address the concern, as called for under TSCA. EPA's letter also notes that the prevalence of non-lead alternatives in the marketplace continues to increase.

On August 3, 2010, the American Bird Conservancy and a number of other groups petitioned EPA under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act to "prohibit the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of lead for shot, bullets, and fishing sinkers." On August 27, 2010, EPA denied the portion of the petition relating to lead in ammunition because the agency does not have the legal authority to regulate this type of product under TSCA.

View the EPA letter HERE.

Characterization Necessary for Nanotoxicity?

2010-10-31T20:09:00.002-04:00

The article referenced below points out the importance of material characterization as part of the process to determine nanotoxicity. The properties that are important are:

Particle size and size distribution (wet state) and surface area (dry state) in the relevant media being utilized—depending upon the route of exposure
Crystal structure/crystallinity
Aggregation status in the relevant media
Composition/surface coatings
Surface reactivity
Method of nanomaterial synthesis and/or preparation including postsynthetic modifications
Purity of sample

The absence of such data would result in misleading information, as chemical composition or chemical formula alone is not sufficient. TSCA does not currently make such a distinction, so any changes to the regulation must take this into consideration. Please read the entire article for a more detail discussion.

"How Meaningful are the Results of Nanotoxicity Studies in the Absence of Adequate Material Characterization?"

David B. Warheit

Toxicol. Sci. 2008, 101 (2), 183-185

doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfm279

Should EPA Ban Phthalates Under TSCA

2010-10-25T13:11:00.004-04:00

The concern over phthalates has been around since the inception of TSCA, as the regulatory commentary below shows.

"TSCA Interagency Testing Committee Actions Related to Phthalates"
Environmental Health Perspectives. 1982, Vol. 45, pp. 135-136.

Recently there has been an increasing debate on how much, if any, of this chemical should be allowed in household materials. Below are some recent articles discussing the hazards and occurrences of phthalates.

"Health Special Report: The Problem with Phthalates"

By: Pete Harrison

Reuters

Oct 18, 2010

Imagine a child sitting in his classroom, gazing through the window at the rain. He picks up his pencil and chews distractedly on the eraser at its top. Chemicals, classed in Europe as "toxic to reproduction," dissolve in his saliva and enter his body.

It's a scenario that may not be unusual. A report published last week by a consortium of 140 environment groups shows that potentially risky chemicals are present in dozens of everyday plastic items for sale by European retailers -- from shoes to erasers, from pencil cases to sex toys.

For the complete article click HERE.

"Enviro Groups Press for Expanded EPA Oversight of Household Toxins"

By: Elana Schor

Greenwire via NY Times

October 19, 2010

Seeking fresh momentum in their push for stronger federal toxics law, environmental groups today are homing in on a nearly universal path of human exposure to chemicals: the home.

A new report by the Ecology Center, a member of the broader coalition lobbying for greater U.S. EPA power over hazardous substances, found that household flooring made with vinyl is nearly twice as likely as non-PVC tiles to contain detectable levels of chemicals such as lead, cadmium and chlorine. Separate tests found some flooring brands carried elevated levels of phthalates, controversial plastic additives, that were banned in children's items in 2008.

For the complete article click HERE.

"Chemicals in Vinyl Flooring and Wallpaper Raise Worries"

Tests of home-improvement products find high levels of phthalates.

By: Linda Carroll

msnbc.com

10/19/2010

Some of the very chemicals that Congress banned from children’s toys and child care products in 2009 are found in flooring and wallpaper products sold across the U.S., a new report claims.

Researchers from a nonprofit environmental group called the Ecology Center tested more than 2,000 wallpapers and floor coverings for toxic substances. Along with low levels of some heavy metals, such as cadmium and lead, the researchers discovered significant levels of phthalates, a hormone-like chemical.

For the complete article click HERE.

EPA Accuses Chromium Company of Withholding Study

2010-10-04T12:31:00.011-04:00

Potential fine
of $69,685,000

On September 2, 2010 EPA filed a complaint against Elementis Chromium because Elementis allegedly received health hazard information that it did not pass onto EPA under TSCA section 8(e) which requires immediate notification of EPA of any, “information that which reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or environment.” Below is an outline of the claims and violations.

Claims and violations by EPA against Elementis Chromium in Docket number: TSCA-HQ-2010-5022

Largest manufacturer, in the world, of chromium and chromium products
Chemicals and mixtures produced distributed into commerce; thus, regulated under TSCA
Study of specific health effects related to the company’s processes performed by trade association
Draft and final reports reviewed by company officials
Company officials had knowledge of this study through trade association involvement
These reports represented information that reasonably supports the health hazards of chromium
Over 6 years later notification was performed under EPA subpoena
Notification should have been done immediately under TSCA section 8(e) upon review of reports
This is a direct violation of TSCA section 15(3)(B) a failure to submit reports
Fines will be on a per day basis from October 8, 2002 through November 17, 2008 (~ $30,000/day)
Fines will be based on nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of alleged violations as well as ability to pay, effect on business, history of prior violations, and other matters of justice. TSCA section 16(a)(2)(B)
Nonadjusted fine $69,685,000
EPA sees violations as serious and major along with company size means violation relief less likely

Bottom Line:

Any knowledge of adverse health effects, whether company funded or not, must be reported.

For more information click HERE.

EPA Issues Final SNURs for Carbon Nanotubes

2010-09-27T16:22:00.001-04:00

EPA is issuing significant new use rules (SNURs) under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for two chemical substances which were the subject of Premanufacture Notices (PMNs). The two chemical substances are identified generically as multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) (PMN P–08–177) and single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) (PMN P–08–328).

This action requires persons who intend to manufacture, import, or process either of these two chemical
substances for a use that is designated as a significant new use by this final rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. EPA believes that this action is necessary because these chemical substances may be hazardous to human health and the environment. The required notification would provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs.

This final rule is effective October 18, 2010.

For the complete Federal Register Notice / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Rules and Regulations click HERE.

Comparison of Pending House and Senate Bills to Amend TSCA

2010-09-20T13:04:00.005-04:00

The Congressional Research Service published a comparison of the pending House and Senate bills to amend TSCA. It provides and in-depth (60+ pages) analysis and is useful for those wanting more information on the bills and their similarities and differences.

A link to the pdf version of the bill is prvided below:

www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41335.pdf

Premanufacture Notice Information and Guidance

2010-09-16T09:01:00.002-04:00

Do you need help with EPA's TSCA Premanufacture Notice (PMN)? Below is a short description of what a PMN is and where to find further information.

Mandated by section 5 of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA's New Chemicals Program helps manage the potential risk to human health and the environment from chemicals new to the marketplace. The program functions as a "gatekeeper" that can identify conditions, up to and including a ban on production, to be placed on the use of a new chemical before it is entered into commerce. Anyone who plans to manufacture or import a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose is required by section 5 of TSCA to provide EPA with notice before initiating the activity. This premanufacture notice, or PMN, must be submitted at least 90 days prior to the manufacture or import of the chemical.

This Web site provides information on how the PMN process works and on related programs, including the existing chemicals programs under TSCA and the Sustainable Futures Initiative, which shows how to use the new chemicals program's computer models to screen your PMNs or exemption notices before you submit them to EPA.

Find out more about various parts of the program:
EPA TSCA PMN Website
PMN Flowchart/Decision Tree
PMN Regulations and Guidance

Electronics Industry a Focus of TSCA IUR

2010-09-13T17:19:00.003-04:00

Proposed TSCA IUR Rule Specifically Calls Out Electronics Industry

BANNOCKBURN, Ill., USA, - Electronics manufacturers who send byproducts and waste for recycling are included among the targets of a proposed rule from the EPA published on August 13. The rule expands the reporting requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule that requires manufacturers of chemical substances to report on the manufacturing, importation, processing, and use of those chemical substances. The EPA estimates it will cost each facility $48,700 and take 792 hours to comply with the proposed rule. IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries® urges industry members to actively join its efforts to oppose the EPA's regulation of byproducts and waste under TSCA as well as the proposed changes to the reporting requirements.

According to the EPA, byproducts and waste that are sent for recycling are subject to IUR rule because they serve a commercial purpose as a feedstock to new products. Under the proposed rule, manufacturers will have to comply not only with existing TSCA IUR rule requirements for byproducts and waste sent for recycling, but also with even more burdensome reporting requirements.

Specifically, the proposed rule:

Changes the definitions of manufacturer use and commercial use to include EPA's interpretation that recycled byproducts must be reported under IUR;

Requires manufacturers to report if the production volume of a chemical substance meets or exceeds the 25,000 lb/year threshold during ANY calendar year since the last principal reporting year;

Requires manufacturers to report every four years instead of every five years;

Requires more detailed manufacturing data as well as processing and use data to be reported; and

Requires additional reporting for a variety of factors, including the number of workers likely to be exposed to the chemical and identifying consumer and commercial categories associated with the chemical substance.

In addition, the EPA's proposed reporting requirements would apply to the 2011 submission reporting of 2010 manufacturing, processing and use information. This means that manufacturers should be collecting data now in order to submit it next summer, even though the details on what data should be collected have not been communicated.

"My facility sends manufacturing byproducts for recycling, and now we could be subject to an additional set of chemical reporting regulations that were never considered applicable or relevant," says Bret Bruhn, environmental operations manager for Viasystems.

Fern Abrams, IPC director of environmental programs and government relations explains that the EPA even considers F006 electroplating sludge - a listed hazardous waste under RCRA - as a new chemical if it is recycled. Over the past several years, IPC and a coalition of affected industries have had several meetings with the EPA vigorously opposing their interpretation.

The EPA's comment period ends October 12. IPC will be submitting comments that thoroughly oppose EPA's byproducts interpretation as well as the proposed burdensome reporting requirements, but Abrams fears this will not be enough. "We need our members to get actively involved," says Abrams.

IPC-Association Connecting Electronics Industries
Press release date: September 7, 2010

Click HERE for original article.

EPA Denies Petition Banning Lead Shot, Bullets, and Sinkers.

2010-09-07T14:58:00.002-04:00

On August 3, 2010, the American Bird Conservancy, the Association of Avian Veterinarians, and a number of other groups submitted a petition and attachment , About PDF) to EPA under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) asking EPA to "prohibit the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of lead for shot, bullets, and fishing sinkers." Read EPA's letter acknowledging receipt of the petition. On August 27, 2010, EPA denied the portion of the petition relating to lead in ammunition because the Agency does not have the legal authority to regulate this type of product under TSCA. EPA will continue to evaluate the petition request regarding fishing sinkers and will consider comments submitted by September 15, 2010.

For original post click HERE.

Cadmium in Jewelry

2010-08-31T12:18:00.013-04:00

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) has received a petition requesting standards restricting cadmium in children's products, especially toy metal jewelry.

The Empire State Consumer Project, Sierra Club, Center for Environmental Health, and Rochesterians Against the Misuse of Pesticides (petitioners)submitted a petition stating that the Commission should issue regulations to ban cadmium in all toy jewelry under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), 15 U.S.C. 1261 et seq. Specifically, petitioners request that the Commission adopt regulations declaring that any toy metal jewelry containing

more than trace amounts of cadmium by weight which could be ingested by children be declared a banned hazardous substance. If the Commission finds that it lacks sufficient information to determine the appropriate level of cadmium in products, petitioners request that the Commission, as an interim measure, adopt the maximum levels established for lead. In addition, petitioners request a test method based on total cadmium, which simulates a child chewing the jewelry before swallowing by cutting the metal jewelry in half, and evaluating the extractability of cadmium from children's metal jewelry based on a 24hour acid extraction period. Petitioners also assert that if the CPSC has insufficient information regarding cadmium, it should obtain additional information under the Interagency Testing Commission (``ITC'') through the Toxic Substances Control Act (``TSCA'') administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') to include metal jewelry in the scope of reporting under section 8(d) of the TSCA and require importers and processers to test toy metal jewelry for cadmium.

August 13, 2010.

Todd A. Stevenson,

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.

[FR Doc. 201020599 Filed 81810; 8:45 am]

For a copy of the petition visit: www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/cadmium_21_petition.pdf

Inventory Update Rule Changes for 2011

2010-08-16T12:06:00.010-04:00

EPA announced proposed changes for the 2011TSCA Inventroy Update Rule (IUR). Companies will need to submit their reports between June 1 and September 30 2011. Some changes include electronic submission, report chemicals produced above 25,000 lbs in any year since last IUR, remove 300,000 lb restriction, and change reporting to every four years.

For more details visit: www.epa.gov/iur/

Nano Material Safety

2010-08-11T17:20:00.005-04:00

These two articles discuss nano material safety. Although not directly related to TSCA, which regulates materials before production, they are interesting to help put the nano material issue in perspective.

OTA Technology Guidance Document: Nanotechnology — Considerations for Safe Development

By: MA OTA

The Massachusetts Office of Technical Assistance (OTA) is responsible for helping entities in the state achieve superior environmental, health and safety performance while also improving economic sustainability. Nanotechnology is a very promising set of industries. It creates a wide range of opportunity for innovation in areas such as biomedical devices, improved electronic devices, clean energy technology, and materials engineering. There is vast potential for environmental improvement, along with the economic benefits of new products of higher quality and greater variety. At the same time, there are indications of potential harm from certain exposures and releases of engineered nanoparticles (ENPs), and it is essential to recognize, reduce and control these risks when they are present. An effective program for reducing or eliminating potential risks would be premised on adequate recognition of where those risks might arise, and a continuous effort to apply preventive strategies

CLICK HERE for the complete pdf document.

Nanomaterials in the Construction Industry: A Review of Their Applications and Environmental Health and Safety Considerations

By: Jaesang Lee, Shaily Mahendra, and Pedro J. J. Alvarez

The extraordinary chemical and physical properties of materials at the nanometer scale enable novel applications ranging from structural strength enhancement and energy conservation to antimicrobial properties and self-cleaning surfaces. Consequently, manufactured nanomaterials (MNMs) and nanocomposites are being considered for various uses in the construction and related infrastructure industries. To achieve environmentally responsible nanotechnology in construction, it is important to consider the lifecycle impacts of MNMs on the health of construction workers and dwellers, as well as unintended environmental effects at all stages of manufacturing, construction, use, demolition, and disposal. Here, we review state-of-the-art applications of MNMs that improve conventional construction materials, suggest likely environmental release scenarios, and summarize potential adverse biological and toxicological effects and their mitigation. Aligned with multidisciplinary assessment of the environmental implications of emerging technologies, this review seeks to promote awareness of potential benefits of MNMs in construction and stimulate the development of guidelines to regulate their use and disposal to mitigate potential adverse effects on human and environmental health.

CLICK HERE for the complete article.

Industry Groups Reactions to TSCA Reform Guarded

2010-08-09T10:17:00.004-04:00

Society of Chemical Manufactures & Associates (SOCMA) Tells Congress TSCA Reform Bill Creates Major Challenges for Industry, EPA

Washington, DC – The Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates today told Congress that recently-introduced legislation to reform US chemical safety laws is overreaching and unworkable, saying it would have a substantially negative impact on an industry already fighting recession and foreign competition.
In testimony before the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, Beth D. Bosley, President of Boron Specialties, said the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010 (H.R. 5820) poses overwhelming challenges for batch, custom and specialty chemical manufacturers. While Bosley noted some improvements in the bill, including the requirement for varied and tiered testing, she expressed deep concern over the eventual loss of high-paying manufacturing jobs as a result of the bill.

“It is more important than ever that we maintain our competitive edge as innovators,” Bosley stated. “The US chemical industry’s competitiveness has continued to decrease substantially in recent years due to competition from countries, like China and India, with lower resource costs, lower wage standards, and a less burdensome regulatory environment.”

Bosley highlighted the following major concerns with the legislation:

Inappropriate Safety Standard – the standards used to regulate drugs and food additives should not be used as the model for regulating industrial chemicals. The bill presents major roadblocks to market entry even for low risk chemicals.
New Chemicals and New Use Requirement – the bill requires an unnecessary increase in testing and reporting, discouraging research and development and introduction of new chemicals or new applications in existing chemicals into the market.
Inclusion of Mixtures – this expansion would overwhelm the Environmental Protection Agency and disadvantage the industry. It would require a massive increase in paperwork for submittal to EPA for mixtures containing chemical substances that do not have an identified risk.
Lack of Confidential Business Information Protection – by disclosing chemical identity and components of a mixture in health and safety studies, we will promote foreign undercutting of the industry.
No State Preemption – the potential for disruption of interstate commerce will remain without some kind of preemption in place.

SOCMA has testified before this subcommittee numerous times on modernizing TSCA and most recently participated in a month-long stakeholder discussion, during which the House Energy and Commerce Committee gathered feedback from industry groups, including SOCMA, on the draft version of this legislation.

SOCMA looks forward to continuing its efforts to promote recommendations for a pragmatic approach to TSCA reform with members of Congress.

By: Christine Sanchez

American Chemistry Council:

ACC: Chemicals Management Reform Can Be a Reality

CLICK HERE for original article

In testimony before a key House subcommittee today, American Chemistry Council (ACC) president and CEO Cal Dooley urged Congress to take the time to fix recently introduced legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to ensure that it enhances public safety, preserves the ability of industry to innovate, and protects American jobs.

“My simple request is that we recognize that chemicals management is an extremely complex undertaking that affects the entire American economy, and there is much more work that needs to be done,” Dooley said in prepared remarks provided to the subcommittee. Dooley was one of several witnesses to testify before the Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection for a hearing on H.R. 5820 “The Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010,” which was introduced last week by Rep. Henry Waxman and Rep. Bobby Rush, chairman of the subcommittee.

While Dooley commended Congress for taking on this issue and for using a stakeholder process to gather ideas, he argued that the bill, as drafted, misses the mark. “It creates additional burdens that do not contribute to and, in fact, detract from making advances in safety, while coming up short with respect to promoting innovation and protecting American jobs,” he said. Dooley specifically called into question the safety standard in the bill, as well as its treatment of new chemical innovations, and its approach to the safety of imported products.

“We firmly believe that you can develop legislation that ensures safety while promoting innovation and protection jobs,” he concluded.

American Chemistry Council's 10 Principles for modernizing TSCA

2010-08-09T10:00:00.007-04:00

The American Chemistry Council's (ACC) offers ideas, but Cal Dooley, President of the American Chemistry Council, still sees “some significant flaws” in the reform bill.

10 Principles for Modernizing TSCA

Chemicals should be safe for their intended use.
EPA should systematically prioritize chemicals for purposes of safe use determinations.
EPA should act expeditiously and efficiently in making safe use determinations.
Companies that manufacture, import, process, distribute, or use chemicals should be required to provide EPA with relevant information to the extent necessary for EPA to make safe use determinations.
Potential risks faced by children should be an important factor in safe use determinations.
EPA should be empowered to impose a range of controls to ensure that chemicals are safe for their intended use.
Companies and EPA should work together to enhance public access to chemical health and safety information.
EPA should rely on scientifically valid data and information, regardless of its source, including data and information reflecting modern advances in science and technology.
EPA should have the staff, resources, and regulatory tools it needs to ensure the safety of chemicals.
A modernized TSCA should encourage technological innovation and a globally competitive industry in the United States.

CLICK HERE for the original article

Chemicals Law Overhaul Proposed in House

2010-07-29T11:10:00.003-04:00

WASHINGTON, DC – Congressional leaders today introduced in the House the first comprehensive overhaul in more than 30 years of a federal law that has been widely condemned for failing to protect Americans against the risks of toxic chemicals.

The legislation filed by Reps. Bobby L. Rush (D-Ill.) and Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) to reform the Ford-era federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) would fundamentally change the process by which chemicals – current and future – are cleared for use.

The Toxic Chemicals Safety Act (H.R. 5820) would make a number of significant changes in the current approach to chemical regulation, including:

• Establishing a framework to ensure that all chemicals to which the American people are exposed are reviewed for safety and restricted where necessary to protect public health and the environment.

• Requiring the chemical industry to develop and provide to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) essential safety data, and improving EPA’s authority to compel safety testing where necessary.

• Ensuring that non-confidential information about chemicals submitted to EPA is readily available to the public and that critical confidential information is shared among regulators, state officials and workers in the industry.

• Establishing an expedited process enabling EPA to reduce exposure to chemicals that are known to be persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic.

• Promoting research to advance understanding of children’s vulnerability to the harms of chemicals.

Environmental Working Group (EWG) has documented through two landmark reports that chemical contamination among people begins in the womb where the developing fetus is, largely due to the failed federal law, exposed to hundreds of industrial pollutants.

“Not as much as a speed bump dots the current regulatory path that toxic chemicals travel to get on the

market, in products and ultimately into people.” said EWG president Ken Cook. “The House plan, along with legislation introduced earlier this year in the Senate, will finally bring some order to the free-wheeling, ‘wild west’ approach industry has enjoyed for more than 30 years, sending thousands of chemicals through the EPA’s toothless review program faster than a bullet through a barrel.”

Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced his proposal for reform, titled the Safe Chemicals Act, in April. The House and Senate bills are similar in their approach to overhauling TSCA and both place the burden on industry to prove that a chemical is safe before it can be used.

From: Environmental Working Group

EWG is a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, DC that uses the power of information to protect human health and the environment. http://www.ewg.org

Complete TSCA reform Bill Hearing Documents from April

2010-07-19T12:22:00.004-04:00

July 19, 2010 The link provided HERE is a bit dated, as it is from April 2010. It does provide all the TSCA revisions and video of the hearings.

House lawmakers are looking to introduce TSCA reform before the August 2010 recess. Look for something to happen before August 1.

No TSCA Changes Expected for 2010

2010-07-19T12:16:00.004-04:00

Key House lawmakers are set to introduce this week a bill reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which will be based on a widely circulated discussion draft but could incorporate suggestions brought up in recent stakeholder meetings.

Sources say the bill is slated for introduction by House Democrats on July 15 and will be based on a discussion draft floated by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, and commerce panel chairman Bobby Rush (D-IL) in April.

The sources say the bill will also incorporate changes from an extensive series of stakeholder discussions held this spring and, on the eve of its introduction, some in industry say that it is important for suggestions from the talks to be reflected in the bill to justify further industry participation in the process.

Sources says there are also plans for a July 22 hearing on the bill, which is scheduled to include testimony

from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and representatives from environmentalist groups and industry.

Despite new action on the bill, few expect Congress to pass a bill this year. EPA toxics chief Steve Owens has said that action on a bill is "unlikely" this Congress.

Moreover, since the release of the draft bill earlier this year, industry have raised myriad concerns with the broad reach of the draft bill. Many in industry have also suggested potential GOP gains in the House in November's mid-term elections as one way to influence the legislation and address their concerns with the draft. A Republican House takeover, or significant GOP gains, could make it harder for Democrats to pass TSCA reform without moderating it to win sufficient votes from the GOP, sources said earlier this summer.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced companion legislation in the Senate, but has yet to hold hearings on the topic. Activists have long been pushing for TSCA to be reformed to switch the burden of proof from EPA proving chemicals pose an "unreasonable risk" to industry proving that chemicals are safe.

SOURCE: InsideEPA.com

Nanomaterials Are Widely Used in Commerce, but EPA Faces Challenges in Regulating Risk

2010-06-28T18:03:00.005-04:00

June 28, 2010 Companies around the world are currently harnessing the properties of nanomaterials for use in products across a number of sectors and are expected to continue to find new uses for these materials. GAO identified a variety of products that currently incorporate nanomaterials already available in commerce across the following eight sectors: automotive; defense and aerospace; electronics and computers; energy and environment; food and agriculture; housing and construction; medical and pharmaceutical; and personal care, cosmetics and other consumer products. Within each of these sectors, GAO also identified a wide variety of other uses that are currently under development and are expected to be available in the future.
Full Report:
www.gao.gov/new.items/d10549.pdf

Taking the NanoPulse -- Toxic Substance Meets Poison Thinking

2010-06-17T16:28:00.004-04:00

New toxics legislation aims for safe. But is it sound?

In April, the Safe Chemicals bills were introduced into the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, designed to oveahaul the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA. This is probably old news to most of you. Since your business has probably been laboring under the regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency for decades when it comes to formulations of your products, you're already anticipating what's to come -- the good, the bad and the ugly. But for those of us in the nanotechnology field, there's an additional wrinkle beyond the chemical formula of our products. Both the House and Senate version of the bill now include size, size distribution, shape and surface structure in the definition of a chemical's "substance characteristic." That means that over and above concerns about the chemical formula a nanotechnology company may be using, it may become suspect simply because of its nanoscale characteristics.

By Scott E. Ricker

For original article click HERE.

What Do We Know about Nano?

2010-05-27T15:04:00.002-04:00

Nanotechnology involves manipulating the unimaginably small. A nanometer is about five carbon atoms in a row, or the distance your fingernail grows in one second. Matter behaves fundamentally differently at that scale, opening up new possibilities for products and processes. Nanotech is a vast emerging field of research, full of possibilities, and the media and the public are starting to take notice.

“One promise of nanotech is the idea of building molecule-sized machines to haul atoms. You could ‘grow’ anything you wanted. You could grow a house. Or a t-bone steak,” said Arizona State University (ASU) law professor Joel Garreau at a science café, “Facts or Hype: What is the Media Telling Us about Nano & Other New Technologies?” at the Arizona Science Center on March 19, 2010.

Today, nanotechnology brings us self-cleaning windows and stain-resistant pants. These products are useful, but not exactly revolutionary. It’s the promise of nanotechnology that’s intriguing...

Source:

http://www.scientificcomputing.com/news-DS-What-Do-We-Know-about-Nano-051110.aspx

EPA Adds 6,300 Chemicals and 3,800 Chemical Facilities to Public Database

2010-05-27T14:46:00.003-04:00

EPA has announced that it added more than 6,300 chemicals and 3,800 chemical facilities regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to a public database called Envirofacts.

The Envirofacts database is EPA's single point of access on the Internet for information about environmental activities that may affect air, water, and land in the United States and provides tools for analyzing the data. It includes facility name and address information, aerial image of the facility and surrounding area, map location of the facility, and links to other EPA information on the facility, such as EPA's inspection and compliance reports that are available through the Enforcement Compliance History Online database. EPA is also adding historic facility information for another 2,500 facilities.

EPA is interested in increasing the public's access to chemical information, including reducing confidentiality claims by industry and making the public portion of the TSCA inventory available free of charge on the Agency's website. EPA intends to take additional actions in the months ahead to further increase the amount of information available to the public.

May 18, 2010

Source:

http://enviro.blr.com/environmental-news/hazmat-and-chemicals/TSCA-toxic-substances-control-act/EPA-Adds-6300-Chemicals-and-3800-Chemical-Faciliti/

TSCA Changes

2010-05-25T08:55:00.005-04:00

TSCA changes are currently under review by Congress. These changes to TSCA are being presented in two major bills. EPA Administrator Jackson has a particualar interest in TSCA and examining select chemicals of concern including brominated flame retardants (PBDE) and polybisphenyl A (PBA).