Verdant Proudly Sponsors Prop.65 Clearinghouse's Green Chemistry Conference

/in , , , , , , , ,

Green Chemistry:

Verdant is pleased to announce its sponsorship of the Prop.65 Clearinghouse Green Chemistry Annual Conference.  This year’s conference will be held on Tuesday, April 9, 2013, at the The City Club of San Francisco, 155 Sansome Street.

  • Verdant attorney, Philip Moffat, will present on “REACH 2013.”
  • Verdant attorney, Catherine Lin, will present on “Supply Chain Management.”

More information about the conference is available here and an agenda is available here.   A copy of Mr. Moffat’s presentation is available here [PDF].

EPA Proposes Significant New Use Rules for 37 Chemicals and Nanomaterials

/in , , ,

TSCA/SNUR/Nanotechnology:

Background

Continuing its robust exercise of its expansive TSCA authority, EPA last week released proposed Significant New Use Rules (“SNURs”) under TSCA for 37 chemicals, including 14 nanoengineered carbon compounds. The SNURs cover a wide range of uses, including the manufacture, processing, and import of adhesives, coatings, colorants, lubricants, chemical intermediates, etc., and result from premanufacture notice (“PMN”) submissions from as long ago as 2000. For almost half of the affected chemicals, the SNURs essentially codify protective measures already required under existing consent orders; the rest are largely based on PMN use scenarios.

EPA has already determined that 17 of the substances addressed by the proposed rule “may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or environment” and thus are subject to risk-based consent orders under TSCA § 5(e). The proposed SNURs for these substances adopt certain safety precautions already required by the consent orders. For example, for certain chemicals, workers would be required to wear specified respirators unless air monitoring shows that the substance is actually present in concentrations lower than the New Chemical Exposure Limit (“NCEL”). The NCEL provisions, already incorporated in the § 5(e) consent orders, were established by EPA “to provide adequate protection to human health” and modeled after Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs). Users who wish to pursue the NCEL alternative to the respirator requirement would have to request permission to do so under 40 CFR § 721.30 (“EPA approval of alternative control measures.”) EPA anticipates approving such requests under the same conditions already present in the consent orders.

The other 20 substances covered by the new SNURs are not subject to § 5(e) consent orders. These “non-5(e) SNURs” cover certain changes from the use scenarios described in the PMNs which could result in increased exposure, per 40 CFR § 721.170(c)(2).

In addition to personal protective equipment, the SNURs impose various standard use restrictions on the chemicals, such as prohibiting manufacture in the U.S., limiting use to conditions specified in existing consent orders, and banning release to water. EPA also recommends various types of toxicity testing to better characterize the new chemicals’ environmental effects.

Regulatory actions flowing from SNURs

Upon promulgation of the SNURs, any users of the affected substances will be required to determine whether they must submit a Significant New Use Notification (“SNUN”) to EPA 90 days prior to engaging in one of the designated “new uses.” On receipt of the SNUN, EPA may take further regulatory action under TSCA § 5(e), 5(f), 6 or 7, or otherwise publish a notice in the Federal Register explaining its reasons for not taking action.

In addition, EPA’s proposal of the SNURs triggers export notification requirements under TSCA § 12(b). Any exporter or intended exporter of the affected chemicals must notify EPA of the first export or intended export to a particular country, unless the substance is present at certain low concentrations that qualify for the de minimus exemption. If and when the SNURs are finalized, importers of the affected substances must also certify their compliance the SNURs.

EPA is accepting comments on the proposed SNURs through April 26, 2013.

Naming nanoscale materials and other CBI concerns

In the proposed SNURs, EPA identifies nanoengineered carbon compounds based on generic structural terms in order to protect the confidential chemical identities of the substances. EPA uses terms like, for example, “single-walled carbon nanotube” (or “SWCNT”), along with PMN numbers to identify the substances for inclusion in the TSCA Inventory.

The nomenclature developed by EPA is further described in a document, “Material Characterization of Carbon Nanotubes for Molecular Identity (MI) Determination & Nomenclature,” which should be available soon under the docket number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2012–0727. It is likely to be similar to or the same as the identically-named document published with the SNUR finalized in 2011 for a substance named as “multi-walled carbon nanotubes.”

If an intended user is uncertain whether its chemicals are subject to the new SNURs, EPA advises contacting the agency or obtaining a written determination under the bona fide procedures in 40 CFR § 721.11. Since production volume limits and certain other uses detailed in the proposed SNURs may also be claimed as CBI, users may not know whether their intended production volumes constitute a significant new use. The bona fide procedures also apply to such cases. If, after evaluating detailed submissions on the intended use, EPA finds that the user has a bona fide intent to manufacture, produce, or import the substance, the agency will advise whether the intended use would qualify as a significant new use.

CIEL Report Claims Regulation Stimulates Chemical Innovation

/in , , , , ,

Chemical Regulation/Innovation:

Earlier this month, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) released its report, Driving Innovation: How stronger laws help bring safer chemicals to market.  In the report, CIEL offers research showing that stronger laws foster innovation by large and small companies alike.  Among other things,CIEL cites the number of patents for alternative chemicals filed every time there’s new chemical regulation. CIEL is located in Washington, D.C. and Geneva, Switzerland.  More information about CIEL is available here.

Forbes magazine recently published an article on this same topic, citing the CIEL report among other sources.  That article is available here.

What do others think of this conclusion?

EU Commission Releases Roadmap on Substances of Very High Concern

/in , , , ,

EU REACH Substances of Very High Concern:

Last week, the EU Commission released its Roadmap on Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC). The Roadmap outlines a process for identifying and assessing potential SVHCs within the following categories: substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction (CMRs); substances that are persistent, bioaccumulative or toxic for the environment (PBTs); substances that are very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvBs); and substances of equivalent concern, such as endocrine disruptors. The Roadmap estimates that the process will evaluate up to 440 substances, a far lower number than the 1,900 substances originally anticipated, with an initial goal of completing 80 assessments by the end of 2014.

The Roadmap follows the Commission’s commitment to compile a comprehensive REACH candidate list of SVHCs and is designed to help meet the Commission’s plan to include all currently known SVHCs on the candidate list by 2020.

The SVHC Roadmap proposes first screening substances with REACH registration dossiers by applying a minimum quantity threshold and generally exempting substances registered only for intermediate uses. The second step entails conducting a “Risk Management Options” (RMO) analysis. Under this approach, the best regulatory option to manage a particular risk is chosen after considering actions available within REACH (like imposing authorization, restriction or substance evaluation requirements) or under other legislative schemes, such as RoHS. For example, the Roadmap suggests that substances with demonstrated risk should be restricted under REACH.

The roadmap is downloadable as a PDF from the EU website.

Upcoming Public Hearing on California's Draft Green Chemistry Regulations

/in , , , ,

California Green Chemistry Regulations:

California EPA and DTSC have announced a public meeting on the draft regulations.  The meeting will occur on Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 9:00 a.m.

See announcement embedded below.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY COUNCIL

NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING

Department of Toxic Substances Control’s

Safer Consumer Products Proposed Regulations

Need for a Multimedia Evaluation

The Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) will convene a public meeting of the California Environmental Policy Council (CEPC) to consider the need for a multimedia evaluation of the Safer Consumer Products regulations proposed by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). The public meeting will commence as follows:

Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 9:00 a.m.

2ndFloor – Sierra Hearing Room

Joe Serna, Jr. Cal/EPA Building

1001 “I” Street, Second Floor

Sacramento, California

At the public meeting, the CEPC will consider the DTSC staff report on the Need for a Multimedia Evaluation of the Safer Consumer Products Regulations. Based on the report and public comments, the CEPC will determine whether or not DTSC’s proposed regulations will have a significant adverse impact on public health or the environment.  The public comments made in this public meeting should be primarily focused on the recommendation contained in the DTSC report.

Persons interested in commenting on the DTSC Safer Consumer Products regulations must do so by sending their comments directly to DTSC as part of the rulemaking process,  by email to gcregs@dtsc.ca.gov, fax (916) 323-5542, or by mail to:

Department of Toxic Substances Control

Regulations Section

PO Box 806

Sacramento, CA 95812-0806

For further details or for a copy of the report, please visit Cal/EPA’s website at: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/Cepc/

 

 

Virginia Assembly Opposes Agenda 21

/in

Sustainability:

Yes, from the state that brought us Thomas Jefferson and so many other leaders, we now get the following.  Leaders or not?  You decide.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 654

Offered January 9, 2013

Prefiled January 8, 2013

Recognizing the need to oppose United Nations Agenda 21.

———-

Patrons– Lingamfelter, Cole, Hodges, Landes and Peace

———-

Referred to Committee on Rules

———-

WHEREAS, United Nations Agenda 21, a comprehensive nonbinding, voluntarily implemented action plan concerning sustainable development, environmentalism, social engineering, and globalism, was first presented at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992; and

WHEREAS, United Nations Agenda 21 is being covertly introduced in states and local communities across the nation by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives through local sustainable development policies such as Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, and other “green” or “alternative” projects; and

WHEREAS, United Nations Agenda 21, a radical plan of purported “sustainable development,” envisions the American way of life of private property ownership, single-family homes, and individual freedoms as destructive to the environment; and

WHEREAS, in addition, social justice is described by United Nations Agenda 21 as the right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded by society and the environment that would be accomplished by the redistribution of wealth; and

WHEREAS, United Nations Agenda 21, referring to the 21st century, is an action agenda of the United Nations, other multilateral organizations, and individual governments around the world that can be executed at local, national, and global levels; United Nations Agenda 21 has been affirmed and modified at subsequent United Nations conferences and various countries have become signatories, including the United States; and

WHEREAS, because United Nations Agenda 21 is not a treaty, the United States Senate has been unable to hold a formal debate or vote to ratify it, and the executive branch has not acted on it in any way; nevertheless, there is support in Congress for United Nations Agenda 21 and over 528 United States cities have become members of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, an international sustainability organization that helps to implement the Agenda 21 and Local Agenda 21 concepts across the world; and

WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, national sovereignty is deemed a social injustice and opposition to the policy has increased over the last 10 years in the United States at the local, state, and federal levels, and several state and local governments have passed legislation rejecting United Nations Agenda 21 as “erosive of American sovereignty”; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED by the House of Delegates, the Senate concurring, That the General Assembly recognize the need to oppose United Nations Agenda 21 due to its radical plan of purported “sustainable development,” and that the General Assembly recognize the policy’s infringement on the American way of life and individual freedoms and ability to erode American sovereignty.

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Clerk of the House of Delegates transmit a copy of this resolution to the United States Secretary of State, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and the members of the Virginia Congressional Delegation in order that they may be apprised of the sense of the General Assembly of Virginia in this matter during their deliberations.

DTSC Requests Public Comment on Another Draft of the Green Chemistry Regulations

/in , , , , , , ,

California Green Chemistry Regulations:

The saga of California’s nascent Green Chemistry program continues. Last week, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) released the revised text (PDF) of its proposed Safer Consumer Product Regulations. The comment period for the revisions started on January 29 and closes on February 28, 2013.

Notably, the revised rules significantly pare down the list of potential Chemicals of Concern (COCs), which are now referred to as “Candidate Chemicals,” from over 3,000 to approximately 1,200. The Candidate Chemicals  are drawn from lists of substances which exhibit one or more hazard trait. The revisions also clarify that the list of Priority Products to be regulated will be developed and updated through the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process.

In addition, DTSC modified the applicability of upfront exemptions for certain products, providing an exemption for products already regulated by other laws that provide comparable health and environmental protections. However, products which are manufactured, stored, or transported through California solely for use outside of the state, or used in California solely for the manufacture of non-consumer products will no longer be exempted, although these factors will be considered in the product prioritization process.

Requirements for the certification and accreditation of assessors involved in developing Alternatives Analyses (AA) have been relaxed in favor of a public review and comment process for AA reports, a choice that seems likely to increase the administrative burden and place confidential business information at greater risk. The scope of evaluating economic impacts for AA reports has also been limited to “a monetized comparison of public health and environmental costs, and costs to governmental agencies and nonprofit organizations that manage waste, oversee environmental cleanup and restoration efforts, and/or are charged with protecting natural resources, water quality, and wildlife.”

Finally, DTSC’s ability to make regulatory responses has been further refined and clarified. For example, the revised proposal requires DTSC to provide notice (with accompanying public comment period) of its proposed regulatory response determination no later than 90 days after it issues a notice of compliance or disapproval for a submitted AA report. The revised proposal also limits the agency’s ability to impose certain regulatory responses on manufacturers only, and not on retailers or importers.

More details on the revised proposed regulations, including how to submit comments and a comprehensive summary of changes from the agency’s last proposal, are available on the DTSC’s website.

Global Mercury Reduction Treaty Finalized

/in , , , ,

UN/Mercury:

Last week in Geneva, Switzerland, over 140 countries finalized the first global mercury reduction treaty, the Minamata Convention on Mercury. The treaty follows four years of negotiations among national environment ministers.

The Convention is named in honor of Minamata, the Japanese city which suffered severe public health effects from mercury pollution over 50 years ago, and where the diplomatic ceremony and official signing of the treaty will take place in October.

The Minamata Convention commits countries to reducing mercury in two main ways: (1) by phasing out its use in products and (2) by requiring new coal-fired power plants to employ the best available technology to cut mercury emissions. By 2020, manufacturing and trading in “mercury-added” products – like batteries (except ‘button cell’ batteries used in implantable medical devices); switches and relays; certain types of light bulbs; and soaps and cosmetics – will be banned. Other provisions of the treaty include phasing out primary mercury mining and restricting trade on mercury from decommissioning chlor-alkali plants.

Critics such as environmental NGOs have already found fault with the Convention’s lenient approach to existing coal plants and artisanal small-scale gold mining, the two largest global sources of mercury emissions. Under the Convention, countries where artisanal small-scale gold mining is practiced have within three years of the treaty entering into force to implement action plans to reduce mercury use in mining, but the treaty does not provide for an enforcement mechanism. Likewise, decisions on triggering thresholds for existing mercury-emitting facilities have been deferred until the first meeting of the treaty after it comes into force. Negotiators also agreed to funding mechanisms to assist developing countries implement the Convention and support capacity-building and technical assistance.

China’s Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) Releases Regular Reporting Requirements for Four New Substances

/in ,

China:

On January 4, 2013, China’s Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) released regular reporting requirements for four new substances under its chemical registration regime. Two of the newly certified compounds are classified as hazardous and the other two as dangerous.  Under China’s new chemical registration regime, the “Provisions on the Environmental Administration of New Chemical Substances (MEP Decree No. 7),” companies with certificates must file annual reports to the Chemical Registration Center (CRC) of the MEP.  The reports detail activities that occurred with the registered chemicals.

This announcement marks the sixth set of chemicals to be certified under China’s registration program for new chemical substances. More details on the affected chemicals, as well as reporting deadlines and contact information with the Chemical Registration Center of the MEP, are available in the MEP’s original notice (in Chinese).

International Negotiations on Mercury Treaty

/in , , , ,

UN/Mercury:

International negotiators in Geneva for the fifth and final Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee (“INC 5”) hope to complete a mercury reduction treaty by the end of this week, although officials warn that difficult issues remain to be resolved. Delegates from over 130 countries are expected to establish the first international legal instrument with enforceable limits on mercury emissions.

The negotiators must still determine issues including: the selection of products and processes containing mercury to be phased out; the deadline for such phase-outs; whether to adopt a complete ban on primary mercury mining; and programs for financial assistance, technology transfer, and capacity-building.

A draft text of the treaty provides for regulation of the supply and trade in mercury, as well as its use in products and processes. The draft also addresses how to: reduce mercury emissions from power plants and metal production facilities; safely store and treat waste containing mercury; and identify and evaluate contaminated sites.

A joint proposal submitted by the EU, Japan, and Jamaica would phase out mercury in products like fluorescent lamps, pesticides, and cosmetics by 2018, with a later phase-out of 2020 for batteries and measuring devices. The joint proposal also calls for phasing out mercury in the production of chlor-alkali, polyurethane, and acetaldehyde by 2018 to 2025.

Negotiators are still considering a ban on the export and sale of mercury from countries with primary mercury mining. Delegates have already reached a compromise on the use of mercury in artisanal and small-scale gold mining (“ASGM”), which recently surpassed coal burning as the major source of global mercury emissions. Under the deal, countries could continue to import mercury for ASGM if they develop national action plans to reduce mercury emissions. In addition, the draft treaty permits the continued use of mercury in producing vinyl chloride monomer (“VCM”), an intermediary chemical used in manufacturing PVC plastic.

In the run-up to the conference, UNEP released two reports warning of the growing environmental and health risks of mercury exposure. The reports present estimates and trends of mercury contamination; for example, in the past century, mercury levels have doubled in the top 100 meters of the world’s oceans. UNEP argues that a global reduction treaty would reduce health problems linked to mercury, including neurological and behavioral disorders.