CPSC proposes new ban on phthalates in children's products.

/in ,

Regular readers know that in terms of domestic, national regulation, we usually focus on developments coming out of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In the U.S., the EPA is the principal federal agency that regulates chemicals in products, but it’s not the only one. Last month, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) approved for publication a proposed rule prohibiting the use in children’s toys and child care articles of certain phthalates, a type of plasticizer used in teethers, plastic toys, home furnishings, and cosmetics.

The rule expands the existing “permanent ban” on phthalates at levels greater than 0.1% in accessible plasticized components of toys and child care products. Diisononyl phthalate (DINP) is shifted from the “interim ban” list and di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), and butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP) remain on the “permanent ban” list. The rule also adds to the “permanent ban list” the following: diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP), di-n-pentyl phthalate (DPENP), di-n-hexyl phthalate (DHEXP), and dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP) in concentrations greater than 0.1%. Two other phthalates, diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP) and di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP), were removed from the “interim ban” list.

The Commission proposed the rule under § 108 the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), which requires promulgation of regulations in response to the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel’s report and recommendations on the health effects of phthalates in children’s toys and child care articles. Under the CPSIA, a “child care article” is “a consumer product designed or intended by the manufacturer to facilitate sleep or the feeding of children age 3 and younger, or to help such children with sucking or teething.”

The Commission is accepting public comment on the proposed rule through March 16, 2015.

An early look at TSCA reform's prospects in the 114th Congress.

/in

As the 114th Congress begins, legislators in both houses are expected to continue trying to reform the outdated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), although which specific proposals and policies will be pursued remains to be seen.

According to E&E Daily, Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) says he’s already rallying support for a new version of the Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA), a bipartisan bill originally developed and introduced by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) and the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) in May 2013. Although Sen. Udall lost his seat in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, he is still seen by some advocates as “uniquely positioned to garner the support of more lawmakers.” Moreover, efforts at bipartisan collaboration may fare better under new Committee Chair Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who is known to have a collegial relationship with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), the former Chair and current Ranking Member of the Committee. Last year’s TSCA negotiations in the Senate ended with acrimonious disagreements between Sens. Boxer and Vitter. In discussing his agenda for the new Congress, Sen. Inhofe described the CSIA as a “good starting point” and “a high priority” for the Committee. Among the Democrats, a Committee aide said that Sen. Boxer’s support is predicated on the bill being “stronger than current law.” Sen. Udall said he is still trying to resolve Sen. Boxer’s concerns

On the House side, Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) said in a statement that he is “hopeful” about attracting the bipartisan support needed to pass chemical reform. Rep. Shimkus, returning as head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, tabled his Chemicals in Commerce Act (CICA) draft bill after failing to win buy-in among Democrats. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), the new Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, has expressed “serious concerns” about CICA, a sentiment echoed by other key Democrats. In addition, at a committee hearing last year, Jim Jones, the EPA Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said that “some in the administration would have some problems” with the draft bill if it advanced, which has been interpreted as an implied veto threat. Nevertheless, whether Rep. Shimkus pursues a similar approach as last year or a more targeted one, at least some in the chemical industry are hopeful that this Congress can pass TSCA reform. Bill Allmond, vice president of government affairs at Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA), said he is optimistic that Rep. Pallone can encourage his Democrats “to be more open-minded than in the last Congress, on TSCA reform, specifically.”

EPA proposes restrictions on toluene diisocyanates in consumer products.

/in , ,

Today, EPA released a proposed rule regulating toluene diisocyanates (TDI), a group of chemicals mainly used to make polyurethanes like the flexible foam in furniture, as well as other consumer products, including coatings and adhesives. According to the agency, diisocyanates are “well known dermal and inhalation sensitizers in the workplace and can cause asthma, lung damage, and in severe cases, death.” Today’s proposal is a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and applies to the domestic manufacture, processing, or import of TDI in consumer products.

The proposed SNUR [PDF] designates as a “significant new use” the use of certain types of TDI in any consumer products; for three other types of TDI, the “significant new use” designation contains a carve-out for use in coatings, adhesives, elastomers, binders, and sealants at no greater than 0.1% by weight. Under the SNUR, manufacturers, processors, and importers would be required to notify EPA at least 90 days before beginning or resuming the manufacture, processing, or import of TDI in a consumer product. The 90-day period would allow the EPA to evaluate the potential uses for any associated risks or hazards.

Following a recent trend, EPA has proposed making inapplicable the general SNUR exemption for importing or processing the SNUR chemical as part of an article. In the proposal, EPA explains that the articles exemption “is based on an assumption that people and the environment will generally not be exposed to chemical substances in articles…. However, TDI and related compounds are volatile and as such could migrate out of articles that contain them.” The agency cites studies finding that TDI have migrated from products, leading to potential exposure.

EPA notes that TDI, also a high production volume chemical (HPV), are “widely used in residual amounts.” According to the proposed rule, TDI use in consumer products was not reflected in Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) data, and agency staff only learned of its use, at residual concentrations no more than 0.1% by weight, in coatings, adhesives, and similar products, from direct conversations with manufacturers and a review of published literature and Safety Data Sheets for products in stores. Moreover, due to expected growth in the market for such products, “EPA is concerned that consumer products in the future might contain amounts of TDI above [current] levels.”

The chemicals covered by the proposed SNUR are:

  • Toluene diisocyanate trimer
  • Poly(toluene diisocyanate)
  • Toluene diisocyanate dimer
  • Toluene diisocyanate “cyclic” trimer
  • 2,4-toluene diisocyanate
  • 2,6-toluene diisocyanate
  • Toluene diisocyanate unspecified isomer

EPA requests comment on the proposed SNUR, and is particularly interested in “whether there are any ongoing uses of these consumer products of which the Agency is currently unaware and would welcome specific documentation of any such ongoing uses.” The proposal released today is a prepublication version [PDF], and is expected to appear in the Federal Register in the next week or two; comments will be accepted within 60 days after the proposal’s Federal Register publication. Additional material may be found and comments may be filed on Regulations.gov using the proposed rule’s docket number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0976.

EPA sued over lack of nanosilver regulations.

/in , ,

On December 16, a group of NGOs sued [PDF] the U.S. EPA over the agency’s failure to regulate nanosilver in consumer products. The plaintiffs, which include the Center for Food Safety, Center for Environmental Health, and Beyond Pesticides, seek to compel EPA to take action in response to their 2008 petition for rulemaking. The groups’ petition requested that EPA regulate nanosilver products as pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), thus requiring product manufacturers to obtain pesticide registrations. The petition also asked EPA to analyze “the potential human health and environmental risks” of nanosilver under FIFRA and other environmental statutes, including the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Since the 2008 petition, EPA has accepted comments on the petition, enforced against companies making antimicrobial claims about nanosilver-containing products, convened a scientific advisory panel, and proposed a policy statement on the subject, but the NGOs maintain that EPA’s actions constitute an “ongoing failure to meaningfully regulate nanotechnology.” The plaintiffs contend that EPA has violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to provide a timely response to the 2008 petition.

The case is Center for Food Safety et al v. McCarthy, Case No. 14-cv-2131, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

EPA finalizes SNURs, revokes articles exemption for benzidine dyes.

/in , ,

Today, EPA announced the promulgation of a final Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) [PDF] under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) targeting three different chemical types: certain benzidine-based dyes, di-n-pentyl phthalate (DnPP), and alkanes, C12-13, chloro, a short-chain chlorinated paraffin (SCCP). Benzidine-based dyes can be used in textiles, paints, and inks; DnPP in PVC plastics; and alkanes in industrial lubricants. EPA found that all of the affected chemicals can cause health effects including aquatic toxicity, cancer, persistence and bioaccumulation, and reproductive and developmental effects.

Like other SNURs, the rule requires manufacturers (including importers) or processors of the identified substances to notify EPA at least 90 days before beginning any significant new use. Under this SNUR, any new use is considered a significant new use for the benzidine-based dyes and alkanes. For DnPP, EPA has designated “any use other than as a chemical standard for analytical experiments” as a significant new use. For the benzidine-based dyes, EPA is adding nine chemicals to an existing rule regulating benzidine-based chemicals.

Notably, the SNUR makes inapplicable the usual TSCA exemption for importing or processing chemicals as part of an article, calling it a “loophole.” Thus, 90-day notification will be required of importers or processors of any articles containing benzidine-based chemicals, encompassing both the nine newly-added dyes as well as those first regulated in 1996. The elimination of this articles exemption has been questioned by the chemical industry, and marks a shift in EPA’s policy. In today’s SNUR, the agency notes that it is “concerned that commencement of the manufacture (including import) or processing for any new uses, including resumption of past uses… could significantly increase the magnitude and duration of exposure to humans.”

Today’s rule is not the agency’s only effort at regulating these chemicals; benzidine dyes and SCCPs are both already subject to Action Plans, while other phthalates (not including DnPP), as well as medium-chain and long-chain chlorinated paraffins have been added for assessment under the TSCA Work Plan. SCCPs have been nominated for addition to the Stockholm Convention for Persistent Organic Pollutants, and manufacturing and importing in the U.S. has ceased following EPA enforcement actions in 2012. EPA also notes that its Design for the Environment program has identified safer dye and colorant alternatives on its Safer Chemical Ingredients List.

The SNUR will go into effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register, which will likely occur in the next week.

EPA finalizes Significant New Use Rules for ethylene glycol ethers.

/in , ,

In today’s Federal Register, the EPA has published a final Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for seven ethylene glycol ethers, also known as glymes. Glymes are used as industrial solvents or processing aids, and in some consumer products, such as inks, paints, coatings, adhesives, graffiti removers, and soldering compounds. The seven chemicals affected are:

  • monoethylene glycol dimethyl ether (monoglyme);

  • diethylene glycol dimethyl ether (diglyme);

  • diethylene glycol diethyl ether (ethyldiglyme);

  • triethylene glycol dimethyl ether (triglyme);

  • diethylene glycol dibutyl ether (butyl diglyme);

  • ethylene glycol diethyl ether (ethylglyme); and

  • triethylene glycol dibutyl ether (butyl triglyme).

The SNUR will require manufacturers (including importers) to notify EPA at least 90 days before starting any activity identified as a significant new use. For six of the glymes, the agency is designating all new consumer uses as significant new uses, while any new use constitutes a significant new use for the seventh glyme, triethylene glycol dibutyl ether (butyltriglyme). Three of the glymes subject to the SNUR contain carve-outs for certain uses, such as when diethylene glycol diethyl ether (ethyldiglyme) is used as a component of inks, coatings and adhesives, and as a component of paint/graffiti removers. In addition, in response to comments, EPA clarified that ethylene glycol ethers in brake fluid contained in a motor vehicle at point of sale would not be considered to have been “’sold or made available to consumers for their use,’ merely because it has been made available to motor vehicle manufacturers (as part of a brake fluid mixture for their use in manufacturing customers’ motor vehicles) or used car dealers.” Likewise, monoethylene glycol dimethyl ether (monoglyme) contained in sealed lithium batteries does not constitute use in a consumer product.

The agency is issuing this SNUR because glymes “have been shown to cause damage to reproductive organs and DNA, as well as toxicity to blood and blood forming organs.” EPA first proposed a SNUR for 14 glymes on July 12, 2011, but is not currently finalizing the rule for the other seven glymes “because the Agency believes that these chemicals are not sufficiently similar to the seven chemicals subject to this SNUR and therefore do not raise the same concern for potential exposure to these chemicals.”

EPA also notes that ethylene glycol dimethyl ether (monoglyme) is on the Work Plan for Chemical Assessments, because it met the criteria for priority assessment due to toxicity and use in commercial and consumer products. Under the Work Plan, EPA will conduct a risk assessment and determine if further risk reduction is necessary.

The SNUR goes into effect on February 17, 2015.

EPA updates Alternatives Assessment for flame retardants in printed circuit boards.

/in

Today, EPA’s Design for the Environment (DfE) program released an updated draft Alternatives Assessment of flame retardants in printed circuit boards (PCBs) in electronics. The report [PDF] revises a draft released in 2008; according to the agency, the new report “is being released for a second public comment period because of the large amount of information added describing the combustion testing conducted between 2008 and 2012,” and to update hazard profiles to align with the 2011 DfE Hazard Assessment Criteria [PDF]. In addition, the new draft addresses comments made on the 2008 draft.

This report is the result of a partnership convened in 2006 by EPA and members of the electronics industry and other sectors to develop information to better understand materials used to provide fire safety for PCBs in electronic equipment like computers and cell phones. The report’s purpose is to provide objective information to help electronics-makers “more efficiently factor human health and environmental considerations into decision-making when selecting flame retardants for PCB applications.”

The new draft assessment provides health and environmental information on flame retardant alternatives to tetrabromobisphenol-A (TBBPA), one of the most commonly used flame retardants for printed circuit boards. Hazard profiles vary across the three categories studied: reactive flame retardant alternatives (TBBPA, DOPO, and Fyrol PMP), reactive flame retardant resins (TBBPA-based resin and DOPO-based resin), and additive flame retardant alternatives (aluminum diethylphosphinate, aluminum hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide, melamine polyphosphate, and silicon dioxide). Human health effects for all of the assessed substances varied, with a range of toxicity endpoints. In terms of environmental fate, the reactive flame retardant alternatives and reactive flame retardant resins were all rated High or Very High for persistence, although TBBPA and DOPO were rated Moderate and Low for bioaccumulation, respectively. All five of the additive flame retardant alternatives are expected to have High persistence and Low bioaccumulation potential.

The report applies “life-cycle thinking” to explore factors affecting exposure, including occupational best practices, raw material extraction, and manufacturing. Results of combustion testing experiments simulating end-of-life disposal processes are also described.

Comments will be accepted on the draft report through February 15, 2015, under docket number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0893.

New chemical footprint tool released.

/in ,

Clean Production Action, an environmental nonprofit, and the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production at the University of Massachusetts Lowell yesterday announced the launch of a new tool for companies and investment firms to measure suppliers’ use of safer chemicals and evaluate their own progress towards sustainability. The Chemical Footprint Project (CFP) is a third-party benchmark facilitating the comparison of corporate chemical use practices, conceptually similar to carbon footprint metrics.

The CFP defines “chemical footprint” as “the total mass of chemicals of high concern (CoHCs) in products sold by a company and used in its manufacturing operations.” The CFP identifies chemicals of high concern as all chemicals on California’s Safer Consumer Products list of Candidate Chemicals.

The CFP’s Steering Committee and Technical Committee members are drawn from several major corporate and nonprofit stakeholders, including Target, Staples, Kaiser Permanente, Hewlett-Packard, Seagate Technology, ChemSec, Environmental Defense Fund, and the U.S. Green Building Council.

According to the Project’s press release, the CFP is “the first initiative to publicly measure overall corporate chemicals management performance by evaluating:

  • Management Strategy
  • Chemical Inventory
  • Progress Measurement
  • Public Disclosure.”

The Project is expected to be fully operational in early 2015. The CFP is only the latest initiative to measure and manage the environmental and health impacts of products based on chemicals in supply chains. In October, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development released a guidance document on life cycle assessment (LCA) methods for chemical products. Last year, retailers Target and Walmart both announced sustainable chemical products programs which were both based on private standards.

EPA invites submissions to add ingredients to Design for Environment Safer Chemical Ingredients List.

/in ,

Today, the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention announced a new initiative to expand the number of chemicals and functional use categories on its Design for Environment (DfE) Safer Chemical Ingredients List (SCIL). Under the new initiative, EPA is inviting manufacturers to voluntarily submit chemicals/ingredients for review and inclusion on the SCIL. Submitters must “fully disclose” the chemicals to the agency’s DfE program as well as to one of EPA’s authorized third-party profilers, who will compile a hazard profile for each chemical. After receiving the submission from the profiler, DfE will review the chemical profile to determine whether it meets DfE criteria for inclusion on the SCIL.

Interested manufacturers are instructed to contact one of the two authorized third-party profilers, NSF or ToxServices. For chemicals that would be the first ingredient in a component class, EPA also recommends requesting a consultation with the DfE program to discuss broader context implications before the SCIL evaluation takes place.

In addition, EPA encourages cleaning product formulators to participate in the independent CleanGredients program, noting that profiles prepared for SCIL screening may also be used to qualify for CleanGredients.

Chemical industry sees improved prospects for passing TSCA modernization in new Congress.

/in ,

In the wake of last week’s Republican takeover of Congress, the chemical industry is optimistic that Congress will be able to quickly pass legislation updating the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Cal Dooley, the president of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), told journalists yesterday that the legislation proposed by Senators David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM) would “see committee action relatively soon in the congressional session,” since Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who opposed the bipartisan Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA), will be replaced as chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK).

Dooley also said he expected further developments in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) has already introduced and held hearings on his proposed Chemicals in Commerce Act (CICA).

Although it remains unclear if enough Senate Democrats will support the CSIA, or if President Obama would back a law that preempts state restrictions, Dooley predicted that TSCA reform would pass both the House and Senate and be signed into law next year.