Global chemical industry publishes guidance on environmental footprints for products.

/in

Ten global chemical companies and stakeholders have released guidance for the chemical sector on communicating a product’s environmental footprint using life cycle assessment (LCA) methods. Collaborating as a working group of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), the members developed the guidance document – titled Life Cycle Metrics for Chemical Products – with the objective of facilitating “improved sustainability across value chains” by communicating reliable information using a “common language.” The guidance is based on ISO 14040:2006 and 14044:2006 and sets out requirements covering topics including:

  • Footprint system boundaries: Product footprint studies should be cradle-to-grave, except for business-to-business products, which may use cradle-to-gate studies. Cradle-to-gate studies must include end-of-life impacts for all waste generated in production.
  • Defining the functional unit and reference flow: The functional unit must be consistent with the goal and scope of the study, and the duration of the functional unit must be specified for cradle-to-grave studies. Compared solutions shall be assessed on main functionality, technical quality (stability, durability, ease of maintenance), and additional functions rendered during use and disposal.
  • Impact categories, energy, and other flows: The guidance names certain models to use in characterizing impacts ranging from global warming to marine eutrophication to human toxicity and ecotoxicity. Energy flows, including cumulative energy demand, renewable energy consumption, and non-renewable energy consumption, must also be assessed and reported.
  • Data source requirements and quality management: Primary data (from specific operations in the studied product’s life cycle) should be “the most accurate available data,” including on-site measurements of aggregated consumed water, energy, and raw material, as well as continual air and water emissions.
  • Main methodological choices: The guidance provides a decision tree for choosing how to allocate environmental impacts for multiple products with different functions coming from the same system. Other methodological choices addressed include: attribution of recycling benefits; avoided emissions; bio-based carbon storage; carbon storage and delayed emissions; and land-use change.
  • Uncertainties of results: At a minimum, studies should include a qualitative description of uncertainties. Quantitative assessments of uncertainty based on Monte Carle simulations are optional.
  • Critical/peer review: Chemical product footprint studies must undergo peer review to assess consistency with the guidance. Externally published comparative claims must undergo “an external critical review by a panel of LCA experts.” All studies must include a statement specifying that the study was critically or peer reviewed and summarizing the review’s conclusions.

This guide is the third release from the WBCSD Chemical Sector’s “Reaching Full Potential” project, which previously released guidance for the chemical industry on accounting and reporting corporate greenhouse gas emissions and avoided emissions. Together, the Project’s publications seek to provide for “consistent and credible communication on how the value chains of chemicals impact on and contribute to sustainability.”

The working group is comprised of major companies like BASF, Eastman Chemical, Evonik, and Solvay, as well as Cefic, the European Chemical Industry Council. The next step for the Reaching Full Potential project is to develop a guide for companies to assess social impacts and benefits of chemical products. Development of that guide is already under way, with release expected in late 2015.

U.S. chemical industry opposes fracking disclosure rules.

/in , , ,

Trade groups representing the U.S. chemical industry are urging EPA not to adopt rules requiring the disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemicals and mixtures. The Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA) and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) both filed comments in September responding to EPA’s May 19, 2014 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. That notice announced that the agency was “initiating a public participation process to seek comment on the information that should be reported or disclosed for hydraulic fracturing chemical substances and mixtures and the mechanism for obtaining this information.” EPA’s filing was made in response to a section 21 citizen petition under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and suggested that the contemplated reporting mechanism could be authorized under TSCA §§ 8(a) or 8(d), voluntary, or a combination of both, and “could include best management practices, third-party certification and collection, and incentives for disclosure.”

Both groups argue that mandating disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemicals and mixtures could reveal trade secrets. In its comments, the ACC wrote that EPA should first finalize its ongoing hydraulic fracturing study, and that voluntary programs “have worked well in the past” and state level regulation is more appropriate than federal. SOCMA proposed “the use of structurally descriptive generic names if a specific name would potentially reveal a trade secret” along with better information collection via EPA’s enhanced Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) in combination with the industry’s voluntary chemical registry, FracFocus.

EPA proposes new SNUR on nonylphenols and nonylphenol ethoxylates.

/in , ,

Yesterday, EPA released a pre-publication version of its proposed Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) targeting nonylphenols (NPs) and nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs). NPEs are a type of nonionic surfactant used in a wide variety of industrial processes and applications, including detergents, dry cleaning, cosmetics, adhesives, and paints and coatings; NPs are primarily used as an intermediate in producing NPEs. Under the SNUR, any person intending to manufacture, import, or process NPs or NPEs for the identified significant new uses must notify EPA before beginning any such activity, so that the agency may have the opportunity to evaluate each intended use and impose any appropriate controls.

The proposed SNUR [PDF] applies to 15 chemical substances; for 13 of these, any use is considered a significant new use, while “any use other than use as an intermediate or use as an epoxy cure catalyst” constitutes a significant new use for 4-nonylphenol, branched and 2-nonylphenol, branched. In discussing the environmental effects of NPs and NPEs, EPA cited the chemicals’ persistence, high toxicity to aquatic life and wide usage that can lead to “widespread releases to the aquatic environment.”

NPs and NPEs were also the subject of an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2009, following EPA’s settlement of a citizens petition to initiate rulemaking brought by several environmental groups and other NGOs. The release of the proposed SNUR is in line with EPA’s 2010 Action Plan for these chemicals. Other Action Plan efforts to regulate NPs and NPEs and reduce their risks include completing an alternatives assessment under the Design for Environment (DfE) program in 2012 and collaborating with the Textile Rental Services Association of America to phase out NPEs in industrial laundry detergents.

Comments will be accepted on the proposed SNUR for 60 days following the rule’s Federal Register publication, which is anticipated to occur the week of September 29.

EPA both finalizes and withdraws Significant New Use Rules.

/in ,

EPA finalized Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 36 substances on September 2, including several nanoengineered carbon compounds. The SNURs were first proposed in February 2013, and include several substances subject to § 5(e) consent orders. EPA is not finalizing the proposed SNUR for one substance, premanufacture notice (PMN) number P-11-155, in response to a comment from the PMN submitter urging the SNUR’s withdrawal while the agency’s recommended environmental toxicity testing is ongoing. Other changes in the final SNURs are mostly minor and involve ensuring consistency with existing consent orders and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. In response to comments on the hierarchy of engineering and administrative controls and collaboration with OSHA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), EPA noted that it is “currently in the process of developing revisions to existing SNUR regulations that will serve as a template for future SNURs and SNURs already issued” and will consult with OSHA and NIOSH.

In July, we reported that EPA released two sets of SNURs by direct final rule. Earlier this month, EPA withdrew six of those SNURs after receiving notices of intent to submit adverse comment. The agency withdrew rules for the substances identified generically and by PMN number as follows:

  • 1,1′- methylenebis[isocyanatobenzene], polymer with polycarboxylic acids in alkane polyols;
  • aromatic dibenzoate (P-14-60);
  • propylene glycol, alpha isocyanate, omega silane (P-13-270);
  • aromatic dicarboxylic acid polymer with alkanediol, alkyl alkyl-2-alkenoate,1,4- dialkyl aromatic dicarboxylate, alkanedioic acid, alkanediol, .alpha.- hydro-.omega.-hydroxypoly[oxy(alkyl- alkanediyl)], hydroxyalkyl 2-alkyl-2- alkenoate, aromatic diisocyanate, alkyl 2-alkyl-2-alkenoate and 2-alkyl-2- alkenoic acid (P-13-563);
  • alkanedioic acid, polymer with alkyl 2- alkyl-2-alkenoate, alkanedioic acid, alkanediol, .alpha.-hydro-.omega.- hydroxypoly[oxy(alkyl-1 2-alkanediyl)], hydroxyalkyl 2-alkyl-2-alkenoate, aromatic diisocyanate, alkyl 2-alkyl-2- alkenoate and 2-alkyl-2-alkenoic acid (P-13-617); and
  • alkanedioic acid, polymer with alkyl alkyl- alkenoate, alkanedioic acid, alkanediol, .alpha.-hydro-.omega.- hydroxypoly[oxy(alkyl-1,2-alkanediyl)], aromatic diisocyanate, alkyl alkyl- alkeneoate and alkyl-alkenoic acid (P-13-619).

According to its Federal Register notice, EPA intends to publish proposed SNURs for these substances under separate notice-and-comment procedures in the near future.

Sen. Boxer releases new TSCA proposal; reform unlikely to pass this Congress.

/in ,

Yesterday, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, released her “counterproposal” to the bipartisan Chemical Safety Improvement Act (“CSIA”) to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”). The counterproposal, called the “Boxer Toxic Substances Control Act,” takes the form of a “redline” or amended version of a July 31 draft of the CSIA from Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM). Changes in the Boxer proposal include:

  • Strengthens testing requirements for chemical prioritization;
  • Specifies storage near drinking water sources as a factor in determining prioritization;
  • Authorizes EPA to regulate chemicals in mixtures and articles;
  • Removes state preemption provisions; and
  • Adds a fee system based on the number of chemicals EPA reviews.

The release of Boxer’s legislation this late in the Congressional session suggests that TSCA reform is unlikely to pass in the current Congress. Sen. Vitter criticized Sen. Boxer for releasing the latest CSIA draft to the press without his consent as “not a good faith effort to reach consensus but a press stunt/temper tantrum.” Sen. Boxer introduced her proposal along with a pointed “critique” [PDF] of the CSIA, finding fault with the CSIA’s long timetables for reviewing high-priority chemicals; “ambiguous and weak” standards for low-priority chemicals; preemption of state laws; failure to “ensure that chemical disposal and unintended releases, like the one in West Virginia, are covered by EPA reviews and regulations”; and lack of a fee system, among other issues.

Environmental groups increase pressure on EPA to release TSCA CBI rules.

/in

Following the August 21 filing of a petition by a coalition of health, environmental and labor NGOs, EPA is under increased pressure to release its much-anticipated proposed rule on Confidential Business Information (CBI) under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Represented by Earthjustice, the coalition – whose members include the Environmental Defense Fund, BlueGreen Alliance, and Breast Cancer Fund – is petitioning EPA to propose rules to (1) automatically sunset “affirmative CBI determinations” after five years and (2) establish procedures for “reassertion” of CBI claims.

The rules sought by the Earthjustice coalition are the same ones that the EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) has urged the agency to adopt. Last spring, EPA told the OIG that a proposed CBI rule would be released by September 30, 2014, although the same rule was previously slated for release in spring 2014 and then August 2014. The proposed rule is expected to set time limits with automatic expiration dates and establish reassertion and re-substantiation requirements.

The coalition’s petition was filed under a general provision of the Administrative Procedure Act – rather than the citizens’ petitions provision in TSCA – meaning that the EPA must only respond “within a reasonable time.” Earthjustice attorney Marianne Engelmann Lado told Chemical Watch that the coalition “wanted the clock ticking to actually finalize a rule and get it out the door.” The petition is available to read online [PDF].

TSCA reform still faces obstacles in Senate.

/in ,

Congress’ efforts to pass legislation modernizing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) have flown under the radar in recent months, but this weekend, the Associated Press provided an update on the difficult path for TSCA reform in the Senate. The AP reports that during the summer, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) rejected the revised version of the Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA) presented to her by Sens. Tom Udall (D-NM) and David Vitter (R-LA). Sens. Boxer and Udall both agreed that the new draft’s state preemption provisions remained too broad and must be narrowed.

This latest draft has not been released publicly, although Sen. Udall said it makes “big progress” with regard to TSCA’s safety standard and stressed that it “is a huge improvement compared to the law as it stands now, and as it has stood since 1976.” In contrast, Sen. Boxer said the new draft does not make needed improvements to TSCA. Sen. Boxer pointed to the legislation’s long timelines for reviewing chemicals of concern, saying the bill “could leave nearly a thousand chemicals of greatest concern unaddressed.”

Sen. Boxer also told the AP she would propose a provision to specifically address toxic chemicals that could endanger drinking water, like the chemical MCHM that contaminated drinking water in a massive spill in West Virginia last January.

The AP article quotes NGO representatives from Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families and the Environmental Defense Fund as optimistic that TSCA reform will eventually pass. The American Chemistry Council, which backs the CSIA, has set passing TSCA reform as its top legislative priority, and spent almost $6 million in lobbying during the first half of the year.

CA's Safer Consumer Products Draft Work Plan: Clothing, cosmetics, and cleaning products all under consideration.

/in ,

Today, California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) released its draft Safer Consumer Products Priority Products Work Plan [PDF], identifying the following seven product categories to be evaluated under the program over the next three years:

  • Beauty, Personal Care, and Hygiene Products – including soaps, deodorants, lotions, cosmetics, and nail care products);
  • Building Products and Household, Office Furniture and Furnishings – limited to paints, adhesives, sealants, and flooring; and furniture/furnishings treated with flame retardants and/or stain resistant chemicals;
  • Cleaning Products – including air fresheners, floor cleaners, detergents, and window cleaners;
  • Clothing – including “fiber and textile materials worn on the body with the primary function of covering the body and/or providing protection against the elements”;
  • Fishing and Angling Equipment – such as fishing weights and gear; and
  • Office Machinery (Consumable Products) – such as printer inks, specialty paper, and toner cartridges.

Potential candidate chemicals across all the categories include many familiar chemicals that have come under various levels of regulatory scrutiny in recent years, including: phthalates and triclosan in beauty/personal care and cleaning products and clothing; brominated or chlorinated organic compounds and organophosphates, perfluorinated compounds, and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in building products; and bisphenols and VOCs in consumable products for office machinery.

The draft Work Plan also explains the processes used to select the listed product categories, which employed seven different screening approaches – Hazard Trait and Endpoint; Route of Exposure; Chemical Prioritization; Evidence of Exposure; Sensitive Subpopulation, Functional Use; and Existing Research/Nomination Process. Based on information generated from the screening approaches, DTSC prioritized product categories with certain attributes, such as categories with chemicals observed in biomonitoring or indoor air quality studies, or categories that include product-chemical combinations that impact sensitive subpopulations. DTSC explains that the draft Plan is intended “to provide a level of predictability” to manufacturers, consumers, and other stakeholders.

Also today, DTSC announced the dates for the rescheduled public workshops to discuss the draft Work Plan. The first workshop will be held on September 25 at the Cal/EPA Headquarters in Sacramento; the second will be on September 29 at the DTSC Cypress Regional Office in Cypress. More details on the workshops, including agendas, are available here.

Comments from the public are being accepted on the draft Plan through October 13.

 

National Research Council advises EPA on sustainability-based decision-making.

/in , ,

A new report advises the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to consider incorporating sustainability concepts used in the agency’s Design for Environment (DfE) program in its new chemicals screening process as it evolves, suggesting a new direction for Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform. The National Research Council (NRC) says that EPA should incorporate into its decision-making process an integrated strategy for evaluating effects on the three dimensions of sustainability – environmental, social, and economic – across all the agency’s activities.

This week, the NRC, the principal operating agency of the National Academies, released its report, Sustainability Concepts in Decision-Making: Tools and Approaches for the US Environmental Protection Agency. The NRC found that a wide variety of tools are available for the agency to use in integrating sustainability concepts into its decision-making, while declining to give “prescriptive advice” on “the use of specific tools and specific decisions” and recognizing that incorporating sustainability into EPA decision-making will be an “evolutionary process.”

The NRC’s report elaborates on issues left unresolved in the NRC’s 2011 report, Sustainability and the U.S. EPA (also known as the Green Book); this new report was commissioned by EPA “to examine applications of scientific tools and approaches for incorporating sustainability considerations into assessments that are used to support EPA decision-making.”

The report includes among five case studies examining how EPA could incorporate sustainability tools into its decision-making the agency’s DfE program. The NRC recommends that EPA use a “systems-thinking approach,” in contrast to the agency’s traditional focus on reducing releases from specific source categories. Likewise, in regulating products, EPA is urged to consider potential life-cycle effects of business processes along the entire value chain. In particular, the report advises EPA to consider applying lessons learned from the DfE program to the new chemicals screening process under TSCA. The NRC highlights the following approaches from the DfE program:

  • Convening public-private partnerships;
  • Using a variety of screening-level and quantitative analytic tools (like life-cycle analysis and alternatives assessments) relevant to sustainability; and
  • Using a variety of indicators (ecotoxicity, human toxicity, bioaccumulation, and environmental persistence) relevant to sustainability.

EPA is also advised to look to the private sector’s sustainability expertise to learn about tools used outside the agency, and to convene the private sector and NGOs “to define and implement value-chain-wide goals and performance outcomes.” In addition, the NRC recommends that EPA work to share insights and best practices learned from leading companies with other businesses.

CA Safer Consumer Products draft Work Plan postponed.

/in ,

California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) announced earlier this month that it has rescheduled two workshops to discuss the draft Priority Products Work Plan under the state’s Safer Consumer Products (SCP) program.  The Work Plan workshops, originally scheduled for August, have been postponed until September, although specific dates have not yet been announced. According to DTSC’s email announcement, the workshops will provide “an overview of the Work Plan and will explain the process by which future Priority Products will be chosen from the product categories.” DTSC also stressed that the Work Plan would not apply requirements on any regulated entities but instead “is only intended to provide signals to the marketplace regarding the scope of product categories that will be under evaluation over the next three years.”

Chemical Watch reports that the agency is using the extra time to “refine” the categories of products and substances to be prioritized for review, including “incorporating corporate feedback to fill data gaps.” This effort may be to avoid the controversy and criticism DTSC received after choosing spray polyurethane foam containing unreacted diisocyanates as one of the first products to be regulated under the SCP program.