Reminder: Upcoming Meeting of the California Green Ribbon Science Panel

/in , ,

Green Chemistry Regulations:

For readers interested in learning more about the development of California’s Green Chemistry Regulations – the “Safer Consumer Product Alternative Regulations” – the upcoming meeting of the Green Ribbon Science Panel may be of interest.  Details are set out below in the embedded announcement from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).  Enjoy!

DTSC: Green Chemistry Initiative

 The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) will convene the Green Ribbon Science Panel (GRSP) on Thursday, July 14, 2011, from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (PDT), and on Friday, July 15, 2011, from 8:30 a.m. to 12 noon (PDT) in Sacramento, California and via webcast. The public is invited to attend, and comments to the GRSP on agenda items are welcome.

 Meeting notice:

http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/GreenChemistryInitiative/upload/GRSP_7-14_PN.pdf

Meeting agenda:

http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/GreenChemistryInitiative/upload/GRSP_7-14_Agenda.pdf

 

EPA Announces Winners of 2011 Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award

/in ,

Readers curious about notable innovations in the green chemistry space may be interested in the following announcement from EPA regarding the 2011 winners of the Presidential Challenge Awards.

CONTACT:
Dale Kemery (News media only)
kemery.dale@epa.gov
202-564-7839
202-564-4355

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 20, 2011

 

EPA Honors Winners of 2011 Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards

WASHINGTON – For the 16th year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is recognizing pioneering chemical technologies developed by leading researchers and industrial innovators who are making significant contributions to pollution prevention in the United States. These prestigious awards recognize the design of safer and more sustainable chemicals, processes, and products that will protect Americans, particularly children, from exposure to harmful chemicals.

The awards will be made this evening, June 20, at the Green Chemistry Challenge Awards ceremony in Washington, D.C. This year’s awards are significant because 2011 has been named the International Year of Chemistry and marks the 20th anniversary of EPA’s efforts in what would become the creation of green chemistry. 

“EPA congratulates this year’s winners for designing and developing innovative green chemistry technologies that will result in safer chemicals for use in products, homes, schools, and workplaces that also have significant environmental and economic benefits,” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.

The Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards are bestowed in five categories. The 2011 award winners are:

  •  Academic: Bruce H. Lipshutz, PhD, University of California, Santa Barbara
  •  Small business: BioAmber, Inc., Plymouth, Minn.
  • Greener synthetic pathways: Genomatica, San Diego, Calif.
  • Greener reaction conditions: Kraton Performance Polymers, LLC, Houston, Texas
  • Designing greener chemicals: The Sherwin-Williams Company, Cleveland, Ohio

By recognizing groundbreaking scientific solutions to real-world environmental problems, EPA’s Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Program has significantly reduced the hazards associated with designing, manufacturing and using chemicals. The program promotes research and development of less-hazardous alternatives to existing technologies that reduce or eliminate waste, particularly hazardous waste, in industrial production.

An independent panel of technical experts convened by the American Chemical Society Green Chemistry Institute selected the 2011 winners from among scores of nominated technologies. During the program’s life, EPA has received more than 1,400 nominations and presented awards to 82 winners. Winning technologies alone are responsible for reducing the use or generation of more than 199 million pounds of hazardous chemicals, saving 21 billion gallons of water, and eliminating 57 million pounds of carbon dioxide releases to the air. These benefits are in addition to significant energy and cost savings by the winners and their customers. 

More information: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenchemistry/pubs/pgcc/past.html

Listen to podcasts about this year’s winners: http://www.epa.gov/greenchemistry/pubs/2011_podcasts/index.html

Japan Revises Its Annual Notification Requirements to Provide Greater Protection for Foreign Suppliers’ Confidential Business Information

/in , , ,

Japan/Chemical Notification and Reporting:

Early in June 2011, Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) announced a revision to the process Japanese companies use to annually notify the agency about the chemical substances that they import.  Under the new process, a foreign supplier can provide certain confidential business information (CBI) directly to METI rather than to the Japanese customer, and the Japanese customer would submit the remainder of the notification.  This joint process is a welcome approach, and although it is not a complete solution, it is an encouraging signal that METI will adopt a practical approach to implementing the 2009 amendments to the Chemical Substances Control Law (CSCL).

The annual notification requirement was adopted as part of a series of amendments to the CSCL that the government enacted in 2009 to move the country toward a more risk-based approach to chemical regulation.  For readers less familiar with the CSCL, the law is Japan’s analogue to the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  Several agencies, including METI, administer the law.  The CSCL generally requires Japanese manufacturers and importers to notify the agencies and receive their approval before commencing manufacture or importation of “new” chemical substances that are not otherwise excluded or exempt.  The law also bans certain substances and imposes restrictions and reporting requirements on others.  The annual notification requirement adopted in 2009 is distinct from the new chemical notification requirement.  The annual requirement applies to substances already on the market, and it was designed to provide additional exposure-related information to the agencies so that they can identify those whose risks warrant further management through restrictions or other measures.

The annual notification requirement applies to two classes of chemical substances, “General Chemical Substances (GCS)” and “Priority Assessment Chemical Substances (PACS)” that are manufactured or imported at or above 1 metric ton during the previous fiscal year.  (There is a similar notification process for so-called Monitoring Chemical Substances (MCS) that are manufactured or imported at or above 1 kg per year.)  When a GCS is present in a mixture below 10%, or a PACS is present as an impurity at less than 1%, it is not counted toward the 1-ton threshold.  Japanese companies that manufacture or import a reportable substance above the threshold must submit a notification form to METI between April 1 and June 30 each year.  2011 is the inaugural notification year.  The prescribed form requires information about the quantity of the substance imported or manufactured, as well as information about its chemical identity and uses.  

Prior to the revision METI announced, foreign suppliers, especially of mixtures, faced a tough choice.  Basically, they would either need to disclose to their Japanese customers the identities and percentages of the substances in their mixtures, potentially losing CBI since many of the mixtures are proprietary, or lose the customers by not providing information necessary to fulfilling a compliance obligation.  Preferring neither option, suppliers in the United States and elsewhere began lobbying METI for an alternative.  METI announced the alternative earlier this month, issuing guidance that revises the annual notification process.  However, the revision is not as comprehensive as what was requested since it does not protect from disclosure information concerning PACs.

METI’s revision affects annual notification of General Chemical Substances, but not PACs.  METI issued a three-page guidance document explaining the revised notification process.  A copy of the guidance is available here.  In it, METI explains that a Japanese company could submit a joint notification with its foreign supplier when the foreign supplier claims as CBI the chemical identity or its concentration rate in a mixture.  The Japanese company would initially complete as much of the notification form as possible and submit it to METI along with a cover letter explaining the situation and identifying the foreign supplier.  The incomplete form would function as a placeholder while the supplier completed the final version.  The supplier would then submit the final form to METI and the notification process would be considered complete. 

METI’s revision is an improvement on the annual notification process.  How well it works remains to be seen.  Presumably, the agency will make an evaluation at the end of this first notification cycle.  Readers interested in Japanese chemical regulatory control matters should check back periodically for further updates on this development and others in Japan.

EPA Publicly Discloses More Chemical Identities Claimed Confidential under TSCA

/in , ,

TSCA/CBI:

On June 8, 2011, EPA announced the public disclosure of the identities of more than 150 chemicals contained in 104 health and safety studies that had been claimed confidential under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  For those 104 studies, the chemical identity will no longer be redacted, or kept from public view.  According to EPA, the chemicals at issue 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 latest development is another demonstration of EPA’s commitment to increasing transparency under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by making publicly available more information about chemical hazards.

Readers will recall that, in 2010, EPA challenged industry to declassify voluntarily unwarranted claims of confidential business information (CBI).  EPA also issued new guidance outlining plans to deny CBI claims for chemical identity in health and safety studies under TSCA.  Based on this guidance, EPA notified a number of companies in February 2011 that it had determined that their CBI claims were not eligible for confidential treatment under TSCA and that EPA intended to make the information public.  (See related posts here and here.)   The health and safety studies included in the lastest disclosure  include some declassified by EPA and other voluntary declassifications by companies in response to EPA’s challenge.

In addition to these actions, EPA over the past several months has taken a number of other steps to make chemical information more readily available.  EPA provided the public, for the first time ever, with free access to the consolidated TSCA Inventory on the EPA and Data.Gov websites.  EPA also launched a new chemical data access tool that gives the public the ability electronically to search EPA’s database of more than 10,000 health and safety documents on a wide range of chemicals that they may come in contact with every day. (See related post here.)  More information about EPA’s transparency initiative under TSCA is avaialble here.

Reminder: Upcoming Teleconferences for Subcommittees of the DTSC Green Ribbon Science Panel

/in ,

Green Chemistry Regulations:

Each of the three subcommittees of the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) Green Ribbon Science Panel will hold two teleconferences in June in preparation for the meeting of the entire Panel scheduled for July 14 and 15 in Sacramento.  Each teleconference will focus on an aspect of the alternatives assessment process required under the Safer Consumer Product Alternatives (SCPA) Regulations still under development.

Members of the public and representatives of organizations are invited to attend and participate in the GRSP subcommittee meeting. The time allotted for individual public comments may be limited, depending on the number of individuals wishing to speak. Speakers are not required to identify themselves publicly.

Additional details are set out below.

#1: Alternative Assessment (as described in AB 1879)

This subcommittee will meet:

Subcommittee #1 members are:

  • Ken Geiser, Ph.D. (subcommittee chair)
  • Art Fong
  • Roger McFadden
  • Julia Quint
  • George Daston
  • Timothy Malloy
  • Ann Blake
  • Mike Wilson
  • Julie Zimmerman
  • Oladele Ogunseitan

#2: Tiered Alternatives Assessments

This subcommittee will meet:

Subcommittee #2 members are:

  • Jeff Wong DTSC Chief Scientist (subcommittee chair)
  • Kelly Moran
  • Richard Denison
  • Mike Kirschner
  • Richard Liroff
  • Meg Schwarzman
  • Anne Wallin
  • Bruce Cords

#3: Quality Assurance for Alternatives Assessments

This subcommittee will meet:

Subcommittee #3 members are:

  • Bill Carroll, Ph.D. (subcommittee chair)
  • Jae Choi
  • Dale Johnson
  • Joe Guth
  • Lauren Heine
  • Tod Delaney
  • Robert Peoples

 

Downstream User Reports-ECHA Webinar Tue May 31

/in ,

Readers interested in learning more about downstream user reporting may login to the webinar Tuesday May 31 or download a recorded version of the program from the ECHA website.

The webinar will be addressed to all downstream users of registered substances interested in learning more about downstream user reports and how to submit them to ECHA successfully.

Webinar
Date: 31 May 2011
Time: 11:00 AM Eastern European Time
(4:00 AM Eastern U.S. Time)
Register at: https://echa-events.webex.com/echa-events/onstage/g.php?t=a&d=701184789

Participants will receive practical information on how to complete a downstream user report using IUCLID5 and successfully submit it to ECHA via REACH-IT. Participants wishing to benefit from this training should have elementary knowledge of IUCLID5.

Downstream users may need to report their uses if these are not covered by the exposure scenarios provided by their suppliers. Exposure scenarios are part of the extended safety data sheets under REACH.

Producers, formulators, industrial users, other professional users, re-importers, and other downstream users can learn more about obligations under REACH from ECHA. Downstream user obligations include informing customers of hazards, providing risk management advice to formulators and suppliers, and, for chemicals of very high concern, warning customers and users about the parameters of and protocols for 

Philip Moffat Will Speak About Sustainable Packaging at the 2011 ASC Sustainability Summit

/in , , ,

Sustainable Products/Green Marketing:

Verdant is pleased to announce that Philip Moffat will speak at the 2011 ASC Sustainability Summit in Rosemont, Illinois (O’Hare) on July 26 – 27.  Mr.  Moffat will discuss green marketing and enforcement trends, the tools available to regulate green marketing in the U.S. and elsewhere, and the legal risks attending the marketing of “sustainable” packaging in the absence of universally accepted metrics and definitions.

The Adhesive and Sealant Council (ASC) and ASTM International (formerly known as the American Society of Testing and Materials) are co-sponsoring the event.  Representatives from well-known organizations such as Dow Corning, John Deere, HP Fuller, the America Chemical Society’s Green Chemistry Initiative, USEPA, and many others will be presenting on timely topics ranging from Green Chemistry to Green Marketing.  A copy of the preliminary agenda is set out below.  The conference brochure is available here.


Tuesday, July 26

Keynote Speaker………………………………………………………………….8:00 – 8:45 am
Dr. Bob Peoples, ACS

Adhesive Panel Discussion (focused on transportation)…………….8:45 – 10:15 am
Moderator: Sandra Niks, ASTM

Sealant Panel Discussion (focused on building construction)…….10:30 am – Noon
Moderator: Ken Yarosh, Dow Corning

Lunch Keynote Speaker……………………………………………………….Noon – 1:00 pm
FEICA – The EU’s perspective on sustainability
in the adhesive and sealant space

Adhesive Panel Discussion (focused on packaging)……………………1:15 – 2:45 pm
Moderator: John Kalkowski, Packaging Digest Magazine

Break Out Session – Adhesives………………………………………………3:30 – 4:30 pm

Break Out Session – Sealants…………………………………………………3:30 – 4:30 pm

Tour of a LEED Silver Building………………………………………………..4:30 – 5:45 pm

Reception…………………………………………………………………………..6:00 – 7:00 pm

Wednesday, July 27

Adhesives Group Key Findings……………………………………………….8:00 – 8:45 am
Presented by Adhesives Group Leader

Sealants Group Key Findings………………………………………………….8:45 – 9:30 am
Presented by Sealants Group Leader

ASTM Future Initiatives & Roadmap………………………………………9:45 – 10:00 am

ASC Future Educational Initiatives ………………………………………10:00 – 10:15 am

Closing Keynote Session……………………………………………………10:30 – 11:30 am
Rik Master, USG Corp.

ChemSec Adds 22 Chemicals to "SIN List"

/in

REACh:

On May 3, 2011, the EU environmental group, the International Chemical Secretariat (ChemSec), announced the addition of 22 chemicals to its so-called “Substitute It Now!” list or “SIN List.”  ChemSec supposedly selected the chemicals based “solely” on their endocrine disrupting properties.  Although there is no established EU definition for what constitutes an endocrine disrupting chemical (EDC), according to the USEPA and the NRDC, an endocrine disruptor is a synthetic chemical that, upon absorption into the body, either mimics or blocks hormones and disrupts the body’s normal functions.  According to ChemSec’s press release, EDCs “interfere with our hormone system and have been increasingly linked to a range of health problems including cancer, diabetes, behavioural and attention deficit disorders, as well as impaired fertility.” The group added the chemicals in part to force EU regulators to begin selecting EDCs for the authorization process set out in the EU’s primary chemical control law, titled “Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals” (REACh).

The SIN List is an inventory of chemicals that ChemSec developed.  Chemicals on the list purportedly meet the Substance of Very High Concern (SVHC) criteria established under REACh.  SVHCs are those chemicals that may be especially harmful to human health or the environment and thus may be considered for the REACH authorization process, which contemplates substitution of such chemicals for those that are “safer.”  ChemSec developed the list to encourage early substitution and to suggest “candidates” for authorization.

According to ChemSec, many of the 22 chemicals are “commonly found in toys, food packaging, and cosmetics….”  The chemicals that ChemSec selected are:

  • 3-benzylidene camphor
  • 4-methylbenzylidene camphor
  • 4-nitrophenol
  • 4,4´-dihydroxybenzophenone
  • Benzophenone-1
  • Benzophenone-2
  • Benzophenone-3
  • Butylparaben
  • Dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP)
  • Diethyl phthalate (DEP)
  • Dihexyl phthalate (DHP)
  • Ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate
  • Metam natrium
  • Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)
  • Pentachlorophenol
  • Perchloroethylene
  • Propylparaben
  • Quadrosilan
  • Resorcinol
  • Tert-butylhydroxyanisole
  • Thiram
  • Zineb

Thus far, the European Commission has embraced the SIN List and its recent additions. On May 19, 2011, in his opening speech at the annual Helsinki Chemicals Forum, Janez Potocnik, European Commissioner for Environment, said “The recently published second edition of the SIN list, which also includes substances with endocrine disrupting properties, should indicate to you the substances the European Commission will take into consideration for placement on the candidate list.” Potocnik also referred to the European Commission’s goal that another 90 substances should be added to the Candidate List for Authorization by the end of next year: “Now that we are working at full speed getting 136 substances of very high concern on the REACh candidate list by 2012, and even more by 2020, the dream of green chemistry is becoming a reality.”

Companies manufacturing, importing, or using chemicals in the EU will undoubtedly take seriously Mr. Potocnik’s remarks.  Moreover, they are certain to continue monitoring the SIN List and consider its potential implications when making product and raw material selections.

Health Canada Publishes FAQs on Canada Consumer Product Safety Act

/in ,

Consumer Products:

On May 17, 2011, Health Canada published a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document concerning the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA).  The CCPSA enters into force on June 20, 2011, and many questions remain unanswered.  Industry and other stakeholders have been waiting for more detailed instructions from the agency.  A copy of the CCPSA is available here, and the FAQ is available here.

A broad range of products and associated packaging are covered by the CCPSA.  Under the Act, a “consumer product” is defined as a product, including its components, parts or accessories that may reasonably be expected to be obtained by an individual to be used for non-commercial purposes, including for domestic, recreational and sports purposes, and includes its packaging. Section 4 of the Act outlines the consumer products to which the CCPSA does not apply, including those listed in Schedule I. These include products that are covered under other legislation such as food, cosmetics, medical devices, drugs, natural health products, pest control products, fertilizers and vehicles.

The FAQ includes a fairly comprehensive set of questions.  The following examples are provided for the reader’s convenience:

Q. Does my product fall under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA)?

Q. Is Health Canada considering adding certain products to the list of products to which the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA) does not apply?

Q. The definition of “consumer product” contains terms such as “obtained” and “non-commercial purposes” which are not defined in the Act. Is Health Canada going to provide definitions or guidance on these terms?

Q. Will there be a transition period for the implementation of the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA) and regulations, and if so, how long will it be?

Q. What does it mean in practice for the Minister to have the authority to order a recall?

Q. What is Mandatory Reporting?

Q. How do I determine what is considered as a reportable incident?

Q. Will the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA) Mandatory Reporting requirements be retroactive? For example, at the time that the Act comes into force on June 20th, 2011, will manufacturers, importers and retailers be required to report incidents that happened prior to that date?

Q. If a product falls under the purview of both the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA) and another statute, such as a provincial one, will Health Canada be the primary reporting body that will distribute the incident report information to the other regulatory body?

Q. Does a recall undertaken in another country need to be reported in Canada as well?

Q. Is Health Canada planning to require traceability of components of consumer products?

Q. When can we expect to see new regulations under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA)?

Q. When will the regulations for Administrative Monetary Penalties be developed?

Q. Will certain organizations be exempt from the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA)?

Q. What safeguards are in place to protect Confidential Business Information submitted to Health Canada?

Readers interested in consumer product safety should continue to follow Canada’s implementation of this important new law.

EU Environmental Groups Sue ECHA to Force the Disclosure of Companies Manufacturing or Importing Chemicals on the “SIN List”

/in ,

REACh:

On May 9, 2011, two EU environmental groups, the International Chemical Secretariat (ChemSec) and ClientEarth, announced that they had initiated a lawsuit against the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).  The groups filed the lawsuit in the General Court of the EU with the goal of forcing ECHA to publicly disclose the names of companies manufacturing or importing chemicals currently listed on ChemSec’s so-called “Substitute It Now!” list or “SIN List.”  The groups also seek volume information.  ChemSec and ClientEarth want the names and volume information so that they can pressure ECHA and the companies to substitute the chemicals for ones that supposedly are “safer.”  The groups submitted their initial request on December 1, 2010, and after a series of escalating and more formal requests, ECHA issued its final denial on March 7, 2011.  Now, in response to the lawsuit, ECHA has announced that it will release some of the information.  A spokesperson for the groups says that they intend to pursue the case in light of ECHA’s inadequate response.  Additional details are set out below.

ECHA received the names and volume information when the companies submitted their registration dossiers in partial fulfillment of their obligations under the regulation, “Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals” (REACh).  For readers less familiar with the regulation of chemicals, REACh is the primary EU chemical control law.  It applies to most chemicals, except for those used in pharmaceuticals, pesticides, or other products regulated under different EU laws.  Companies that manufacture or import nonexempt chemicals in the EU above 1 metric ton per year are required to submit a registration dossier to ECHA.  The dossier includes certain data and other information about the chemical, its uses, as well as the manufacturer or importer.  ECHA and the EU countries (called Member States) review the dossier to decide whether a chemical should be banned or its use limited through the so-called restriction or authorization processes established under REACh.  Additional testing or other information may also be requested.

The SIN List is an inventory of chemicals that ChemSec developed.  Chemicals on the list purportedly meet the criteria established under REACh for identifying Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC).  SVHCs are those chemicals that may be especially harmful to human health or the environment and thus may be considered for the REACH authorization process, which expressly contemplates substitution of such chemicals for those that are “safer.”

The lawsuit is currently pending before the General Court of the European Union.  The General Court handles cases filed by private individuals, companies and some organizations, and cases relating to competition law (antitrust for American readers).  The General Court provides the first level of judicial review.  Afterwards, a case can be appealed to the European Court of Justice.  The Court of Justice interprets EU law to ensure the law is applied consistently in all EU countries.  The Court of Justice also settles legal disputes between EU governments and EU institutions.  Individuals, companies, or organizations can also bring cases before the Court if they feel their rights have been infringed by an EU institution.  The Court of Justice has one judge per EU country.

A copy of the legal compliant, called an Application for Annulment, is available here.  In it, ChemSec and ClientEarth include numerous allegations challenging the substantive basis and procedures ECHA used in delaying its response and ultimately denying the groups’ request.  A discussion of the legal principles set out in the complaint and an evaluation of the merits of the allegations are beyond the scope of this post.  However, they may be reviewed more closely in a subsequent post.

In response to the lawsuit, ECHA announced on May 11, 2011, that it will begin to publish certain information from the registration dossier contained in the safety data sheet (SDS), including company names.  In addition to the company’s name, ECHA said that it will also make further elements contained in the SDS publicly available such as the REACH registration number and whether the substance meets some of the SVHC criteria.  However, ECHA noted that companies will be able to keep the information confidential, provided that a valid justification is given and accepted by ECHA.   According to the agency, providing this information will require significant revisions to ECHA’s databases so it is currently unable to commit to releasing the information in the immediate future.  ChemSec and ClientEarth have stated publicly that they find ECHA’s response inadequate and plan to proceed with their lawsuit.