EPA Announces Proposed Revisions to FIFRA Minimum Risk Exemption

/in , , ,

FIFRA:

In a December 31, 2012 Federal Register notice, (77 Fed. Reg. 76,979) EPA announced a new proposed rule that would revise the labeling requirements for minimum risk pesticide products. The proposed rule affects section 25(b) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) by changing how minimum risk pesticides are identified on product labels as well as the way ingredient lists are organized in the implementing regulations. In addition, producer contact information will be required on product labels.

Under FIFRA’s § 25(b) minimum risk exemption, pesticides with active and inert ingredients which are demonstrably safe do not need to be registered with EPA. These permitted ingredients are listed in 40 CFR 152.25(f), but because of ambiguities across the various ingredient lists, confusion remains as to which ingredients are covered and how they should be labeled, leading to increased regulatory burden and inefficiencies for state regulators. Many chemicals may be known by producers, regulators, and consumers by different names; for example, soybean oil may be described on a product label as “Glycine Soja Oil.”

EPA’s new proposed rule is intended to make clear which active ingredients are permitted in exempted pesticide products, and does not add or remove any ingredients from the list. Instead, EPA will identify permitted active ingredients by re-organizing them in tables including the chemical’s “Label Display Name” (e.g., “Citric Acid”), “Chemical Name” as determined by the Chemical Abstract Services (“CAS”) (e.g., “2-Hydroxypropane-1,2,3-tricarboxylic acid”) and “CAS Registry Number,” a unique identifier which is easy to use for consumers and widely accepted by industry and regulators alike. In addition, the table will include a “Specifications” column which will be empty for most ingredients, but will indicate the United States Pharmacopeia (“USP”) standard for “approximately 20 of the active ingredients.”

Inactive ingredients will also be re-organized into a table similar to the one proposed for active ingredients. This table will codify “List 4A,” the list of chemicals currently maintained on EPA’s website. In addition, EPA proposes to incorporate references to other CFR sections which describe which chemicals may be used as inert ingredients for the purpose of the minimum risk exemption. In the case of pesticides that may come in contact with foods, for which there are no federal tolerance levels or tolerance exemptions, EPA proposes to amend the text of the exemption to direct users to an EPA website for more information on which of the listed chemicals may be used in food-use pesticide products.

Finally, EPA proposes that exempted product labels must use the “label display name” in the product’s ingredient listing. The proposed rule also requires that producers of minimum risk pesticide products must include their company’s contact information (address and telephone number) on the product label. In the case of a product label which includes the name of a company that is not the producer, EPA proposes that the label text should clarify that the product was “packed for,” “distributed by,” or “sold by” the non-producer company.

EPA is requesting comments on various topics related to this proposal, including: the format and information to be included in the new tables; whether reference to an online resource with more information on food-use pesticide tolerance requirements would provide clarity for stakeholders; impacts on state and local agencies; and whether products would need to be reformulated as a result of the changes. The comment period for this proposed rule ends on April 1, 2013.

New EPCRA TRI Website

/in , , ,

EPCRA Toxics Release Inventory (TRI):

On November 19, 2012, EPA rolled out a new website to provide information on how industrial facilities are preventing releases of chemicals. The site shows how industry is making progress in reducing releases reported under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (ECPCRA).  The site and additional information about the TRI program is available  here. 

EPA to Post List of Chemicals Acceptable for DfE-labeled Products

/in , , , , ,

Design for the Environment (DfE) / Green Chemistry:

EPA’s Design for the Environment (DfE) team announced today that, in September, it will post on the agency’s website a list of chemicals that are acceptable for use in DfE-labeled products.   Questions or comments about the proposal should be submitted to EPA by August 24, 2012.  The contact at DfE is Bridget Williams (williams.bridget@epa.gov).

As readers know, over the years many DfE stakeholders have requested that EPA issue a list of safer chemicals.  According to the agency’s press release, EPA’s intent is for the list to serve as a resource for product formulators and consumers, to increase understanding of the DfE Safer Product Labeling Program and the types of chemicals in DfE-labeled products.  The list is also intended to enhance the dialogue on safer chemicals and products.  

EPA is compiling its list from the ingredients in DfE-labeled products, as well as from chemicals eligible for use in labeled products – i.e., chemicals that meet the DfE criteria. The chemicals will be identified by their specific chemical name and Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number and grouped by functional class—surfactants, solvents, etc. (chemicals with more than one common functionality may be listed in multiple classes).

A color code will appear next to each chemical to indicate its safer chemical status.  A green circle will appear next to chemicals that have met the DfE component-class criteria; a green/yellow square next to chemicals that have met the DfE criteria as adapted for their necessary functional characteristics, but are missing some experimental data on potential hazards; and a yellow triangle next to chemicals that have met the DfE criteria as adapted for their necessary functional characteristics, but have unresolved hazard profile issues.

No other information about the chemical—not its source, manufacturer, or use; association with a trade name product, percentages in formulation, etc.—will appear in the listing. EPA intends to include on this list the ingredients in third-party formulations sold by manufacturers to DfE participants, and will likewise not associate those ingredients with specific products. Also, no chemicals on the confidential portion of the Toxic Substances Control Act Inventory will be included in the listing.

According to the agency’s press release, the DfE list will complement the Green-Blue Institute’s CleanGredients database (www.cleangredients.org), which will continue to serve as a marketplace for chemicals that are acceptable for use in DfE-labeled products and provide trade name chemicals, physical-chemical and functional properties, hazard information, vendor contacts, and other information.

Environmental Advocates Want Disclosure of Chemicals in Consumer Products

/in , , , , ,

Chemicals in Consumer Products:

Researchers at the Silent Spring Institute argue that the findings of their consumer product evaluation illustrate the need for full disclosure of ingredient information. The Institute tested consumer products — ranging from toothpaste to laundry detergent — for compounds identified as either endocrine disruptors or asthma-related. Most products evaluated by the Institute included one or more “chemicals of concern.”  In their report, the researchers emphasize that current chemical testing and product labeling requirements do not prevent the use of hormone disruptors or asthma-associated chemicals in products or provide enough information for consumers to avoid them. Silent Springs published its findings in the March 8, 2012 issue of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ Environmental Health Perspectives.  The report has proven highly controversial and been severely criticized by industry for a flawed methodology and equating the mere presence of a chemical in a product with a lack of product safety.

The Institute, and other environmental and public health advocates, clearly plan to use the report to support their arguments for robust reforming of TSCA, the primary federal statute for regulating chemicals in the United States.  Such advocates argue that many consumer products contain chemicals known to adversely affect human health. They note that for numerous common commercial chemicals, information about their presence in consumer products is limited. In particular, little information is available about hazardous chemical exposures from personal care and cleaning products.

The Institute found 55 chemicals of concern in conventional and “green” consumer products. The evaluation assessed consumer products for the presence of 66 known endocrine disruptors and asthma causing chemicals. Tested consumer products ranged from toothpaste to laundry detergent. The researchers found bis-2-ethylhexyl phthalate, diethanolamine, and glycol ethers in high concentrations. They found phthalates, monoethanolamine, alkylphenols, parabens, and cyclosiloxanes in many of the products.  Sunscreens and scented products such as air fresheners and dryer sheets contained both the largest number of target chemicals and some of the highest chemical concentrations. However, the Institute did not report whether these chemicals were present above limits setting safe levels of exposure.  For example, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommends diethanolamine exposure be limited to 3 parts per million.

The researchers allege that regulations require only limited product labeling, thereby limiting the information available to consumers.  Personal products such as sunscreens, deodorants, and anti-bacterial hand soaps are largely regulated as over-the-counter drugs by the FDA. FDA regulations mandate only that “active” ingredients be identified on product labels.  The Institute asserts that EPA has primary regulatory oversight of cleaning products, and only when these products are pesticide products (e.g., products that will kill bacteria and viruses) is active ingredient labeling required. Many consumer products call themselves “natural,” “non-toxic,” and “green;” however, the Institute contends that these terms are unregulated and the chemical contents of such products do not necessarily differ from comparable products.

The Institute also argues that gaps in ingredient information are also problematic for regulators.  It argues that EPA, for example, relies on ingredient concentrations in products for exposure modeling. 

And lastly, the researchers conclude that further study of the risks posed by the types of chemical mixtures that are found in personal care products, cleaning products, etc. are needed to understand their effects on human health.

US News, Forbes, Consumer Reports, and many other news outlets have published stories on this report.

France to require mandatory reporting of nanoscale materials in 2013

/in , ,

Nanotechnology:

France will implement a compulsory declaration scheme for the quantities and uses of nanoparticle substances or nanomaterials produced in, distributed in, or imported to France January 1, 2013. Information about material identity, quantity, uses, and users will be required from all companies producing, distributing and importing nanomaterials, and public and private research laboratories. The declaration scheme will be implemented by the Ministries of Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transport and Housing; Economic, Financial and Industrial Affairs; Labor, Employment and Health; and Agriculture, Food, Fisheries, Rural Affairs and Planning. Detailed information on reporting requirements will be published in the Official Journal of the French Republic.

The reporting mandate was published February 19, 2012 in Decree 2012-232 (available in French only) (the December 2011 draft decree is available in English). The decree explains that the purpose of the scheme is to improve knowledge of nanomaterials and their uses, to monitor the channels of use, to improve knowledge of the market and the volumes sold and to collect available information on toxicological and eco-toxicological properties.  Data on 2012 nanomaterial use must be submitted by May 1, 2013.

Reporting requirements affect materials that are at least 50 percent comprised of particles with one or more external dimension between 1 nm and 100 nm. When any such material is produced, imported or distributed in quantities of 100 grams, the user must declare identity of the producer, importer, or distributor; identity of the nanomaterial; quantity of nanomaterial produced, distributed or imported; intended uses, and identifying information about the professional users to whom the material has been distributed. Specifics of the reporting requirements include:

  • Identity of the producer, importer, or distributor:
    • business name, official address, VAT number; and
    •  apacity (manufacturer, importer or distributor) and field of activity.
  • Identity of the nanomaterial:
    • chemical identification of the substance,
    • potential presence of impurities,
    • average particle diameter and particle size distribution,
    • specific surface,
    • surface coating, and
    • surface charge.

 

California DTSC Releases Public Comments on Informal Draft Green Chemistry Regulations

/in , , , ,

Green Chemistry Regulations:

The public comment for the latest informal draft version of California’s “Safer Consumer Product Regulations” closed on December 30, 2011.   On January 20, 2012, the implementing agency, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), posted the comments on its website.  DTSC received ninety submissions from a range of stakeholder interests.  More information about the regulations is available here.

Reminder: Upcoming Meeting of California's Green Ribbon Science Panel

/in , , , , ,

Green Chemistry Regulations:

California’s Green Ribbon Science Panel (GRSP), the expert body established to advise the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) on green chemistry and the regulation of consumer products, will convene in Sacramento on November 14 (all day) and 15 (morning only) to discuss the latest informal draft of the so-called Safer Consumer Product Alternatives (SCPA) Regulations.  No agenda or other meeting materials have been publicly released at this time, but a copy of the informal draft regulations and related information is available here.

California Releases Informal Draft of the Revised Green Chemistry Regulations

/in , , , , ,

Green Chemistry Regulations:

On Monday, October 31, 2011, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) released an informal draft of its revised green chemistry regulations, the so-called “Safer Consumer Product Alternatives (SCPA) Regulations.”  DTSC spent the last year further revising the regulations after some stakeholders decried the proposed final version released for public comment over the Thanksgiving holiday in 2010.  Public comments on the lastest informal draft are due by December 30, 2011.  The formal rulemaking process will begin in 2012.

On Monday DTSC also released a document setting out the most significant changes from the November 2010 version of the regulations. (For purposes of comparison, a summary of the November 2010 version is available here.)  It is clear that DTSC is envisioning a more robust program with shorter timelines and fewer exemptions, ultimately requiring more agency and private resources to implement without a clear benefit from doing so. In light of the poor state of California’s economy, and the relative weakness of the U.S. economy as a whole, one has to wonder why DTSC has chosen its proposed path. According to DTSC, the following are the most significant changes found in the current informal draft. 

Timeframes

(1) Many timeframes have been shortened and/or made more specific.

(2) Timing of initial Chemicals of Concern (COC) list — effective date of the regulations.

(3) Timing of initial Priority Products list — 6 months for the proposed list.

(4) Both the chemicals and products lists will be reviewed at least once every 3 years.

Chemical / Product Prioritization

(1) The regulations will establish an immediate robust (~3,000) list of COCs (which DTSC can add onto later), based on work already done by numerous authoritative bodies.

 (2) The list of hazard traits has been expanded to include all hazard traits and environmental and toxicological endpoints specified by OEHHA. Additionally, the universe of chemicals considered to be carcinogens and reproductive toxins is no longer limited to only those chemicals listed on a short list of lists.

(3) The regulations no longer limit the product categories that DTSC can consider when listing Priority Products during the first 5 years.

(4) Worker exposure has been added as a prioritization factor.

(5) The requirement for responsible entities to provide chemical and product information during the prioritization process has been eliminated. (DTSC will request this information and list anyone who does not provide the information on a Failure to Respond list.)

Alternatives Assessments

(1) The regulations expand the primary responsibility for compliance beyond the product producer to also include: (i) the person who controls the product design; and (ii) the U.S. importer.

(2) The alternatives assessment (AA) process is more specific and structured, but allows for flexibility.

(3) There is no requirement to fill information gaps during the AA — instead DTSC has the option to require this as a regulatory response.

(4) The third-party verification requirement for AAs has been eliminated — instead AAs are required to be conducted by a certified assessor. Also, DTSC will play a greater role in auditing AAs.

Exemptions

(1) The default de minimis level is 0.01% for chemicals with one of 9 specified hazard traits, and 0.1% for all other chemicals — DTSC can set a lower or higher de minimis level.

(2) The exemption for unintentionally-added chemicals has been eliminated. However, these chemicals are a consideration for setting a higher de minimis level.

(3) The “no exposure pathway” exemption has been eliminated. However, exposure potential will still be considered during the chemical/product prioritization process.

Readers wanting more information should check back for future posts on this development, as well as visit the DTSC website. In addition, there will be a public workshop on the draft proposal on December 5, 2011 from 9:30 am to 3:30 pm in Sacramento. The Green Ribbon Science Panel also will dicuss the proposal at the Panel’s meeting on November 14 – 15, also in Sacramento.        

Department of Interior to Issue Rules Requiring Disclosure of Chemicals Used in Fracking

/in , ,

Right-to-Know/Transparency:

According to Reuters, on Monday, October 31, 2011, Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior (DOI), David Hayes, told the Department of Energy’s shale-gas advisory panel that DOI will issue rules “in a couple of months” requiring the disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” on federal lands.  Fracking is the controversial technique that involves injecting a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals into shale formations at high pressures to extract oil and gas.  Recent technological advances have facilitated greater use of the technique leading to concerns about potential water contamination and air pollution.  The well-known documentary, “Gasland,” purported to document some of the environmental harm resulting from improper use of the technique.  DOI hopes that greater transparency will increase accountability while fostering public confidence.  The Department’s decision is consistent with other initiatives the Obama Administration, particularly through EPA, has undertaken to increase public access to information on chemicals, placing confidential business information at risk.

Reuters reports that about 14 percent of all U.S. natural gas production occurred on federal land during the last fiscal year. DOI supposedly estimates that fracking is used for about 90 percent of gas wells drilled on public lands.  Accordingly, only a fraction of wells in the U.S. would be affected by the rules.   Implicit in the Department’s decision to require disclosure is the reasonable assumption that the same chemicals will be used on both public and private lands subsequent to the rule’s implementation.  By disclosing those used on federal lands, stakeholders will have insight into those used on private lands thereby gaining confidence in the fracking process.  Moreover, several states have disclosure rules in effect or under development.

According to Reuters, DOI’s announcement is part of a larger effort by the Obama Administration to regulate hydraulic fracturing in a way that instills confidence without over-burdening the industry.  Last week, EPA announced that it will promulgate rules for disposing of wastewater from shale gas wells.  Additional information about the Administration’s initiatives is available here and here.  Information from the American Petroleum Institute and others is available here.

EPA Assistant Administrator Steve Owens Resigns

/in , , , , , ,

EPA Administration/Chemical Regulation:

On Tuesday, October 25, 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the resignation of Assistant Administrator Steve Owens.  Readers will recall that President Obama appointed Mr. Owens the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), which is the office implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Pollution Prevention Act, and other federal laws concerning chemicals management.  November 30, 2011, will be Mr. Owens’ last day in office before returning home to Arizona where he previously served as the Director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.  It is unclear at this time who will assume Mr. Owen’s responsibilities and what effect his departure will have on EPA’s various chemicals management initiatives.

Mr. Owens served the EPA during a two-year period in which Congress, the courts, and various stakeholders engaged in vigorous debate and litigation over the appropriate regulation of chemicals in the United States.  In a 2010 brown-bag session (available on podcast), sponsored by the American Bar Association’s Pesticides, Chemical Regulation, and Right-to-Know Committee, Mr. Owens discussed many of the initiatives the Agency was undertaking and some of the challenges it faced as it participated and attempted to shape the debate. 

In a letter to EPA staff announcing his resignation, Mr. Owens said:

“I am writing to tell you that, after more than two years of working closely with all of you to protect Americans’ health and environment, I have made the difficult decision to leave EPA. My last day in the office will be November 30, 2011.
 
As many of you know, my family has remained in Arizona while I have been working at EPA headquarters in Washington. Although I have been able to get home to see my family periodically, I have essentially been away from them for more than two years. After a lot of hard thinking, we have decided that it is time for me to come home. My wife needs her husband; my sons need their father; and I need them.
 
While I am very happy that I will be back with my family, I will miss all of you greatly. It has been a true privilege to work with so many incredibly talented and dedicated people who are doing so much to protect the health and safety of the American people and our environment.
 
I am extremely grateful to Lisa Jackson for her wonderful friendship and the remarkable vision and leadership she provides to this Agency. We are truly fortunate that she is EPA’s Administrator.
 
As I said earlier, I will continue working alongside you all through November 30. Administrator Jackson will share additional information about the transition process shortly.
 
In closing, let me thank you so much for the friendship and support you have given me during my time at EPA. Please know how much I appreciate you and all that you are doing for our country.”