Verdant Law
Washington, DC
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Recent News
Phone
202-828-1233
Washington, DC
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
OKLearn moreWe may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.
Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.
These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.
Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.
We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.
We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.
These cookies collect information that is used either in aggregate form to help us understand how our website is being used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customize our website and application for you in order to enhance your experience.
If you do not want that we track your visit to our site you can disable tracking in your browser here:
We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.
Google Webfont Settings:
Google Map Settings:
Google reCaptcha Settings:
Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:
The following cookies are also needed - You can choose if you want to allow them:
You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.
Disclaimer
New EPA Rule for Carbon-Nanotubes
/in Nanotechnology, News & Events, TSCAReaders engaged in nanomaterial applications may be interested in EPA’s new Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) for multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs). Enterprises wishing to manufacture, import, or process MWCNTS are now potentially subject to Significant New Use Notice (SNUN) regulatory procedures which include the submission of ‘appropriate’ health and safety data. This rule is incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR § 721.10183.
EPA evaluation of MWCNTs, and carbon nanotubes generally, has established that exposure may cause lung effects (pulmonary toxicity, fibrosis, carcinogenicity), immunotoxicity, and mutagenicity. More information on toxicological effects is reported in the Summary of EPA’s Current Assessments of Health and Environmental Effects of Carbon Nanotubes (available in the MWCNT SNUR Docket).
EPA recommends SNUNs provide detailed information on the following:
EPA notes that upon review of a SNUN, the Agency has the authority to require additional testing. Any manufacturers, importers, or processors who intend to conduct testing or submit a SNUN are encouraged to contact EPA to determine ‘appropriate’ testing methods. Substantial detail about this and other governing TSCA provisions is provided in the FR notice (76 FR 26186 (available in the MWCNT SNUR Docket)). More information on SNUN requirements generally is available here and information on requirements for test data is available from EPA and the ACC.
This SNUR is specific to MWCNTs of a specific structure. However, confidentiality claims preclude a more detailed description of the identity of this MWCNT. To determine whether a specific CNT, MWCNT, or single-wall carbon nanotube is on the TSCA Inventory, manufacturers should submit a bona fide intent to manufacture or import to EPA.
Exempt from the rule are MWCNTs that are completely reacted (cured), incorporated or embedded into a polymer matrix that itself has been reacted (cured), or embedded in a permanent solid polymer form that is not intended to undergo further processing except for mechanical processing.
Reminder: Upcoming ABA Conference on the Governance of Nanotechnology
/in Nanotechnology, News & EventsNanotechnology:
For readers interested in the environmental regulation of nanotechnology, you ought to seriously consider this program. The speakers are top-notch and the topics are timely and interesting. Enjoy!
___________________________
ABA Webinar Thursday May 19
Nano Governance: The Current State of Federal, State, and International Regulation
Program: 1-5:30 p.m.
Networking Reception Immediately Following (DC site only)
No cost for in-person attendance
Washington, DC (register)
San Francisco, CA (register)
Durham, NC (register)
Webinar (register)
Overview:
The program will explore the new and creative applications of existing regulatory tools and governance approaches to address the potential risks of nanotechnologies, implement new risk assessment approaches to evolving technologies, and maximize the potential benefits of these materials. Speakers will discuss the approaches various government agencies are pursuing to accommodate evolving nanotechnologies and address potential public health and environmental impacts.
Panelists:
Jim Alwood, Program Manager, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S.
Raj Bawa, M.S., Ph.D., President of Bawa Biotechnology Consulting LLC, Ashburn, VA
Richard A. Denison, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., Washington,
Steffi Friedrichs, Ph.D., Nanotechnology Industries Association, Brussels, Belgium
Steve Froggett, Ph.D., Froggett & Associates, Seattle, WA
Thomas R. Jacob, Coordinator, California Nanotechnology Initiative
William Jordan, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Neena Sahasrabudhe, Ph.D., Office of Pollution Prevention and Green Technology, California
Treye A. Thomas, Ph.D., Toxicologist, Directorate for Health Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Rosalind Volpe, Ph.D., Executive Director, Silver Nanotechnology Working Group A Program of Silver Research
Impacts of Silver Nanoparticles on Wastewater Treatment
/in Nanotechnology, News & EventsReaders involved with industrial and commercial uses of nanomaterials may be interested in the Water Environment Research Foundation’s new report, Impacts of Silver Nanoparticles on Wastewater Treatment.
According to the report, silver nanoparticles from manufacturing and consumer products enter sewers and wastewater treatment plants in unknown quantities. For example, because silver nanoparticles are water soluble, as much as 100 percent of these particles might be able to leach out of clothing in just a few washes. In areas where industrial processes use these materials, concentrations of 0.1mg/L have been observed in municipal wastewater treatment plants.
Wastewater treatment processes generally reduce effluent levels to 10 percent or less of influent concentrations. This means that very low concentrations of silver may be reaching the receiving waters. However, because nanoparticles are more reactive than other forms of silver, many scientists and environmentalists are concerned about toxicity and environmental impacts. (See e.g., Silver Nanoparticles and Silver Nitrate Cause Respiratory Stress in Eurasian Perch, Aquatic Toxicology, January 2010; Nanometals Induce Stress and Alter Thyroid Hormone Action in Amphibia at or below North American Water Quality Guidelines, Environ. Sci. Technol., October 2010; Silver Nanotechnologies and the Environment: Old Problems or New Challenges, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, 2008)
WERF investigated the effects of these particles on activated sludge and anaerobic digestion. The research found that the nitrifying bacteria essential to removing ammonia from wastewater treatment systems were especially susceptible to inhibition by silver nanoparticles. Silver ions and silver nanoparticles concentrations as low as 0.4 mg/L inhibited the growth of nitrifying bacteria. In addition, anaerobic microbial activity in biomass (i.e., sewage sludge) was inhibited at silver nanoparticles concentrations of 19 mg/L.
WERF notes that the presence of nanoparticles during sludge treatment can have beneficial results. Recent WERF research has found that nanomaterials reduce the potential for odors in wastewater treatment and improve solids processing. (See Use of Nanomaterials for Biosolids Odor Reduction and Improved Dewaterability.)
Reminder: Upcoming Meeting of the DTSC Green Ribbon Science Panel
/in Green Chemistry RegulationGreen Chemistry Regulations:
Quick reminder: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) will convene the Green Ribbon Science Panel (GRSP) on Thursday, May 5 in the afternoon, and Friday, May 6th, all day, 2011, in Sacramento, California and via webcast. The public is invited to attend and provide comments on agenda items.
This is the first meeting of the GRSP to discuss the Safer Consumer Product Alternatives (SCPA) Regulations since the California EPA announced on December 23, 2010, that it would ignore a statutory deadline and delay their adoption. This is also the first full meeting of the GSRP since it decided on February 4, 2011, to reorganize itself into three subcommittees to improve its overall efficiency and the usefulness of its advice to DTSC. The subcommittees have each met twice since their formation.
A quick review of the agenda suggests this meeting could be quite lively. Several hot-button topics in the SCPA Regulations are slated for discussion. These include: the regulation of de minimis and unintentionally-added chemicals; and the identification and prioritization of chemicals and products.
Readers interested in the future of the SCPA Regulations should log in to the live webcast. Although DTSC has in the past made available an archived version for those who were unable to attend, there’s no mention of making one available for this hearing.
Meeting notice:
http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/GreenChemistryInitiative/upload/GRSP_PN_Safer-Alternatives.pdf
Meeting agenda:
http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/GreenChemistryInitiative/upload/GRSP_Agenda_Safer-Alternatives.pdf
Design for the Environment–EPA’s Safer Product Labeling Program
/in Green Chemistry, News & Events, Sustainable Products, TransparencyGreen Chemistry/Design for the Environment:
Readers interested in EPA’s Safer Product Labeling Program may want to look through the list of products now authorized to carry EPA’s Design for the Environment (DfE) label. The list is available here.
On April 20, in anticipation of Earth Day, EPA announced that 2,500 products are now approved to carry the DfE label, including all-purpose cleaners, laundry and dishwasher detergents, drain line maintainers, and car and boat care products. DfE-labeled products do not contain known chemicals of potential concern, like carcinogens, reproductive or developmental toxicants. Even minor product components, like dyes and fragrances, are screened for safety. In fact, according to EPA, before allowing the DfE logo to be used on a product label, the Agency conducts a scientific evaluation to ensure that candidate products are formulated from the safest possible ingredients. The Agency’s press release explains that “[t]he DfE label means that EPA has screened each ingredient for potential human health and environmental effects and that the product contains only ingredients that, in EPA’s scientific opinion, pose the least concern among chemicals in their class.”
EPA also announced that DfE labeled products will soon be required to disclose their ingredients (other than trade secrets) to consumers. In addition, new DfE-approved products will need to meet additional life-cycle requirements such as sustainable packaging and limits on volatile organic compounds. The new disclosure and life-cycle requirements will be phased in for existing DfE products, but some companies are already moving to comply with those standards.
Instructions on the application process for DfE labeling are available here.
Click here for the DfE home page.
Green Chemistry Law Report Selected as a LexisNexis Top 50 Environmental Law & Climate Change Community Blog for 2011
/in News & EventsToday LexisNexis announced its selection of the Top 50 Environmental Law & Climate Change Community Blogs for 2011. Verdant Law, PLLC was pleased to learn that the Green Chemistry Law Report was chosen from among a large, diverse, and competitive field of candidates. According to LexisNexis, the award “recognizes preeminent thought leaders in the blogosphere…. Most good blogs provide frequent posts on timely topics, but the authors in this year’s collective take their blogs to a different level by providing insightful commentary that demonstrates how blogs can—and do—impact the practice of environmental and climate change law.”
Philip Moffat, the Firm’s founder, said “The Firm owes a debt of gratitude to its readers. Without their support, the Green Chemistry Law Report may not have received the recognition it deserves. Verdant is a boutique law firm specializing in product risk management with a particular emphasis on sustainability and other environmental challenges. As such, I feel the Firm has a unique perspective to offer on the evolving debate over chemical regulatory reform and the green chemistry movement in the United States and elsewhere.”
A complete list of the 2011 winners is available here.
EPA Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee
/in FIFRA, News & EventsFIFRA:
For readers looking for an update on US EPA FIFRA regulatory, policy and program implementation efforts, consider attending the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) Meeting: Wednesday April 20 & Thursday April 21, 2011.
PPDC meetings provide a forum for a diverse group of stakeholders to provide feedback to the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs on various pesticide regulatory, policy and program implementation issues.
The PPDC meeting is open to the public. Attend in person at EPA’s Potomac Yard Conference Center (2777 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA) or dial-in to the meeting (Conference Line: 1-866-299-3188; conference Code: 703-308-4775#).
The agenda, information about workgroups and past meetings can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/.
Topics to be discussed at this week’s meeting include:
Tuesday April 20, 2011
• Integrated Pest Management (see e.g., http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/ipm.htm)
• Spray Drift (see e.g., http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/2010/dec2010/session5-drift.pdf )
• Inerts Disclosure (see e.g., http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/inerts/inertdisclosure.html)
• Water Quality/Drinking Water (see e.g., http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/dwstrategy/index.cfm)
• Pollinator Protection (see e.g., http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/ecosystem/pollinator/index.html)
• Children/Worker Risk Protection (see e.g., http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/worker-rsk-assmnt.html)
• OPP Strategic Directions (see e.g., http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/testing-assessment.html)
• Improving Regulations (see e.g., http://epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/csb_page/updates/2011/ppdc-regreview.html)
• Comparative Safety Statements (see e.g., http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/compara-safety/index.html)
• Public Health Issues—Bed Bugs, Lyme Disease Prevention (see e.g., http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/public-health/index.html)
Wednesday April 21, 2011
• Endangered Species (see e.g., http://www.epa.gov/espp/, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/consultation/pesticides.htm)
• Clean Water Act Pesticide General Permit (see e.g., http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=410) (Also note, the ABA is hosting a program focused solely on this permit April 27–The NPDES Pesticide General Permit: Perspectives from the Hill, EPA, the Regulated Community, and Environmental Advocates. For registration information see http://www2.americanbar.org/calendar/the-npdes-pesticide-general-permit/Documents/Final_Flyer.pdf.)
• 21st Century Science Activities (see e.g., http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/testing/index.html) (Also note, the EPA Science Advisory Panel Meeting May 24-26, 2011 will focus on toxicity testing—Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment Strategies: Use of New Computational and Molecular Tools. More at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2011/052411meeting.html.)
EPA Publishes Chemical Action Plans For Diisocyanate Compounds
/in News & Events, TSCATSCA:
On April 13, 2011, EPA published chemical action plans for methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI), toluene diisocyanate (TDI) and related compounds. According to EPA, diisocyanates are well known dermal and inhalation sensitizers in the workplace and have been documented to cause asthma, lung damage, and in severe cases, fatal reactions. Worker exposures are already subject to protective controls in occupational settings, but EPA is concerned about potential health effects that may result from exposures to the consumer or self-employed worker while using products containing uncured (unreacted) MDI, TDI, and their related polyisocyanates (e.g., spray-applied foam sealants, adhesives, and coatings) or incidental exposures to the general population while such products are used in or around buildings including homes or schools.
The Agency is proposing a number of regulatory actions under the Toxic Substances Control Act. These include promulgation of significant new use rules (SNURs) under Section 5(a)(2) for TDI and its related polyisocyanates in consumer products; Section 4 test rules requesting certain exposure monitoring; reporting and data call-ins under Section 8(c) and 8(d); and certain restrictions adopted pursuant to Section 6. The chemical action plan for MDI and related compounds is available here. The plan for TDI and related compounds is available here.
Senator Lautenberg Continues in His Quest to Reform TSCA
/in News & Events, TSCA ReformTSCA Reform:
Guest Columnist: Irene Hantman University of Maryland Law Fellow US EPA Office of Civil Enforcement Waste and Chemical Enforcement DivisionOn April 14, 2011, Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey introduced the 2011 Safe Chemicals Act (2011 SCA), almost a year after he introduced a similar bill (S. 3209) that failed to garner sufficient Congressional support. Senator Barbara Boxer of California, Senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken of Minnesota, and Senator Charles Schumer of New York co-sponsored the bill. The 2011SCA is intended “to modernize the ‘Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976’ (TSCA) and protect Americans from exposure to dangerous toxins.” Readers familiar with the bill introduced in 2010, S. 3209, will find many of the same concepts and requirements in the 2011 SCA. Whether this latest bill will progress further than its predecessor is unknown, but there are many reasons to believe that it will not, despite support from the high-ranking Democratic Senators Boxer and Schumer.
According to Senator Lautenberg, the 2011 SCA addresses many of TSCA’s weaknesses identified by the US Government Accountability Office in its 2005 Report to Congress, Options Exist to Improve EPA’s Ability to Assess Health Risks and Manage Its Chemical Review Program. It also adopts many of the recommendations for US Chemicals Management Policy advocated by the American Academy of Pediatrics, former EPA Associate Administrators for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, and National Institutes of Health officials. Readers unfamiliar with those recommendations should know that they stressed that efforts to modernize TSCA must: (1) ensure that chemicals in commerce demonstrate reasonable certainty of no harm, at all stages of human development, and through all possible exposure routes; (2) provide EPA practical tools to assess the safety of chemicals currently in use; and (3) establish public access to chemical safety information. Senator Lautenberg also emphasized that the 2011 SCA would require safety testing of all industrial chemicals, and put the burden on industry to prove that chemicals are safe in order to get on, or remain on, the market. In contrast, current TSCA parameters generally do not require chemical companies to test new chemicals for toxicity or to gauge exposure levels before they are submitted for EPA’s review.
Again, the 2011 SCA has many conceptual similarities to legislation the Senator sponsored in 2010 (S. 3209), but there are differences in some of the details of implementation. The 2011 SCA would:
In addition to maintaining a number of the conceptual changes to TSCA proposed in 2010, the 2011SCA includes new authorities regarding safety standard determinations and confidential information. For example, the amended Section 6 would establish a risk classification scheme for chemical substances currently in use.
No judicial review would be available for assignment to any priority class.
The 2011 SCA also specifies minimum considerations for safety standard determinations of both new and existing chemicals (see amended §6(b)). The legislation would require the Administrator’s risk assessment to include consideration of scientific literature relating to the effect of cumulative exposure to chemical substances. The Administrator would be permitted to find that a substance meets the safety standard only when there is a reasonable certainty that neither human health nor the environment would be harmed from aggregate exposure. Judicial review would not available for determinations that manufacturers have not established that chemical substances meet applicable safety standards.
The 2011 SCA would limit protections for confidential business information. Section 14 would also allow the Administrator to determine that particular information previously considered eligible for confidential treatment is no longer entitled to such treatment.
Lastly, 2011 SCA would have limited preemptive effect. States and their subdivisions would remain free to adopt or enforce any regulation, requirement, or standard of performance that was different from, or in addition to, a regulation, requirement, liability, or standard of performance established under TSCA, unless it was impossible to comply with both, in which case the TSCA requirement would control. Although the preemption provision was revised from the 2010 bill, Senator Lautenberg continues to prefer robust state involvement in chemicals management.
The website for Senator Lautenberg’s office provides summaries of and the text of the Safe Chemicals Act of 2010 and 2011 (2010 bill, 2010 summary, 2011 bill, 2011 summary).
* * * *
DISCLAIMER: This work is not a product of the United States Government or the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the author is not doing this work in any governmental capacity. The views expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily represent those of the United States or the US EPA.
Leading Consumer Products Companies Explain How and Why They Share Chemical Data Along the Supply Chain
/in Green Chemistry, News & Events, Right-to-Know, Sustainable Products, TransparencyGreen Chemistry/Sustainable Supply Chain Management:
The Green Chemistry and Commerce Council (GC3) recently published a report titled, Meeting Customers’ Needs for Chemical Data: A Guidance Document for Suppliers. The Guidance Document is designed to improve supply chain communication between suppliers and their customers concerning chemical identities and health and safety data. In the report, leading companies such as HP, Johnson & Johnson, Method, Nike, SC Johnson, and Wal-Mart explain why they want such data and how they interact with their suppliers to obtain it.
Readers unfamiliar with GC3 should know that it is a business-to-business forum for members to discuss and share information and experiences relating to the advancement of green chemistry, design for the environment, and sustainable supply chain management. GC3, which began in 2005, is a project of Lowell Center for Sustainable Production at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. GC3 prepared the Guidance Document with two goals in mind: “(1) to advance the efforts of companies trying to obtain the chemical data needed for regulatory and corporate sustainability programs and in response to market demands, and (2) to advance the efforts of suppliers to provide chemical data needed by their customers.”
The Guidance Document is a response to the growing demand for increased transparency concerning chemical-related data. Companies attempting to bring “green” or “safer” products to the market need chemical identity and health and safety data at the product design phase. Access to this information enables them to evaluate and manage market, regulatory, and tort liability risks, as well as respond to requests from their customers, including consumers, wanting more information.
The Guidance Document should prove helpful to suppliers less familiar with the trend toward greater transparency, the rationale supporting it, and the techniques used to sustain it. The document explains why fabricators and formulators are requesting chemical data, what chemical data are being sought, how suppliers can benefit from sharing data, why Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) often provide inadequate data, how companies are handling confidential business information, how fabricators and formulators collect data from their suppliers and what they are doing with the data, and where suppliers can obtain the data being requested. In addition to describing the chemical data collection practices of different companies, the Guidance Document also provides customizable letters and forms that companies can use to facilitate their communications.
More information about GC3 is available here.