Tag Archive for: Transparency

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.

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.

Leading Consumer Products Companies Explain How and Why They Share Chemical Data Along the Supply Chain

/in , , , ,

Green 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.

EPA Denies Protection for Chemical Identities in TSCA 8(e) Reports

/in , , ,

TSCA:

As part of EPA’s initiative to increase transparency under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), on February 10, 2011, the Agency sent a letter to five companies informing them that the identities of 14 chemicals contained in certain health and safety studies were ineligible for protection from public disclosure.  The studies are “substantial risk” reports that the companies submitted to EPA to fulfill their obligations under section 8(e) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. § 2607(e)).  Readers will recall that substantial risk reports disclose information that reasonably supports the conclusion that a chemical substance or mixture (collectively “chemicals”) presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment.  EPA reasons that the public has a right to know the identities of chemicals posing such risks.  In contrast, industry frequently contends that disclosure of identities could reveal commercially valuable information about formulations or manufacturing processes.  To stop the disclosure of the identities of its chemicals, a company would need to initiate a legal challenge within 30 days of receiving the Agency’s February letter.

The letters comprise the Agency’s first serious attempt to implement a new transparency policy announced on January 21, 2010.  (The scope of the policy was subsequently expanded in May 2010.)  As announced in January, EPA will deny Confidential Business Information (CBI) protection for the identities of chemicals included in section 8(e) reports when those chemicals are listed on the public version of the TSCA Inventory.  EPA contends that substantial risk reports are a type of health and safety study, as defined under section 3(6) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. § 2602(6)) and the regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 2.306(a)(3).  The Agency also asserts that a chemical’s identity is either part of a health and safety study or the data included within such study, as explained in various TSCA regulations such as those at 40 C.F.R. § 716.3; § 720.3(k).  And because section 14(b)(1) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. § 2613(b)(1)) “does not prohibit disclosure of” health and safety studies (and their data) concerning chemicals offered for commercial distribution, EPA concludes that a chemical’s identity would be eligible for disclosure when it is listed on the public version of the TSCA Inventory and it is the subject of a substantial risk report.

According to EPA’s letter, the chemicals fit squarely within the Agency’s policy.  Each of the chemicals is currently listed on the public version of the TSCA Inventory of “existing” substances.  (The Inventory is EPA’s official list of chemicals that can be lawfully imported or manufactured for commercial distribution without first submitting a premanufacture notice under section 5 of TSCA – the public version lists those chemicals whose identities are not confidential.)  And each of them supposedly was the subject of a substantial risk report.

However, section 14(b)(1) prohibits disclosure of data from health and safety studies when such disclosure would reveal “processes used in the manufacturing or processing of a chemical substance or mixture or, in the case of a mixture, the release [would disclose] the portion of the mixture comprised by any of the chemical substances in the mixture.”  These exceptions are designed to prevent the disclosure of trade secrets and other sensitive business information.  EPA’s letter seems to anticipate this objection from the companies, noting “that the [chemical] identity itself, as well as any information that might be derived from it about processes or portions, has already been disclosed” and therefore neither exception applies.

Whether the companies will seek judicial review remains to be seen.  Many challenged CBI claims are withdrawn, and judicial review is expensive.  If the companies seek judicial review, they may challenge EPA’s statutory interpretion or its conclusion that neither disclosure exception applies.  (If a challenge(s) is brought, look for a future blog post discussing the various arguments.)

Regardless of whether there’s a challenge, the Agency’s decision is somewhat controversial – applauded by some and criticized by others.  Unless there’s a successful legal challenge or some other restraint imposed, look for EPA’s continued release of unredacted substantial risk reports and possibly other health and safety studies.  The Agency has clearly signalled its intention to increase the amount of publicly-available information concerning chemical risks.  When balancing commercial interests against environmental and health interests, EPA’s current administration plans to favor the latter at the expense of the former, raising the question:  “Could a better balance be achieved?”  Perhaps – EPA could release the reports with a descriptive generic name in lieu of the chemical’s specific name, a practice the Agency’s used elsewhere under TSCA. 

OSHA to Adopt Final GHS Rule by August 2011

/in ,

Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS):

On December 20, 2010, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) released its Fall 2010 Unified Agenda.  75 Fed. Reg. 79604.  The Agenda sets August 2011 as the date for publishing a final rule that will modify the current hazard communication standard (HCS) at 29 CFR 1910.1200 to incorporate elements of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS).  Readers will recall that GHS is a system the United Nations (UN) developed for standardizing and harmonizing the classification and labeling of chemicals to help ensure their safe use, transport and disposal.  Publication of the final rule is the culmination of a five-year process that has left the United States behind many countries in its implementation of GHS. 

The UN first published the GHS in 2003 in response to the diverse and sometimes inconsistent hazard classification and communication systems in use around the world.  Governments, industry, and labor, working through the UN, hoped that a harmonized system would increase safety and reduce the regulatory burden associated with the global trade in chemicals.  Under the GHS, labels would include signal words, pictograms, and hazard and precautionary statements and safety data sheets would have a standardized format.  

When the GHS system was first adopted, the goal was implementation in each country by 2008.  However, that has not happened.  Some countries met the deadline while others did not.  Japan required compliance in 2006, and New Zealand and Korea required at least partial compliance in 2008.   The European Union’s GHS regulation entered into force in January 2009.   (Information on other countries’ adoption is available here.)

Adoption in the US has been slower, possibly because several agencies are involved, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), and the Department of Transportation (DOT).  Each agency is evaluating its existing regulations and guidance, and making the necessary changes.  OSHA’s adoption of GHS has been particularly slow.  The Agency first published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking in September 2006, 71 Fed. Reg. 53617, and then waited almost three years before proposing a rule, 74 FR 50279, and finally initiated several public hearings thereafter.   Some question whether US industry, particularly smaller businesses, have been hurt by the delay since smaller companies sometimes cannot afford to comply with multiple countries’ hazard communication systems and therefore avoid significant international trade.

Multiple aspects of OSHA’s current HCS will be affected by the impending rule.  According to OSHA’s website, the following major areas are subject to significant changes.

  • Hazard classification: Specific criteria for classification of health and physical hazards, as well as classification of mixtures will be adopted.
  • Labels: Chemical manufacturers and importers will be required to provide a label that includes a harmonized signal word, pictogram, and hazard statement for each hazard class and category. Precautionary statements must also be provided.
  • Safety Data Sheets: A prescribed 16-section format will be required for all safety data sheets.
  • Information and training: The GHS does not address training. However, the proposed rule will require workers to be trained on GHS within two years of the publication of the final rule to facilitate recognition and understanding of the new labels and safety data sheets.

Additional details about the proposed changes are available in the Federal Register notices cited above.  For those interested in learning more, OSHA has published a lengthy comparison of the GHS and HCS, and a comprehensive discussion of the GHS also is avaialble on OSHA’s website.

 

EPA Requires Testing of 19 High Production Volume (HPV) Chemicals

/in , ,

TSCA/HPV Chemicals:

On January 7, 2011, EPA published a final rule under section 4(a)(1)(B) of theToxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), (15U.S.C. 2603(a)(1)(B)), requiring manufacturers, importers, and processors to test 19 high production volume (HPV) chemicals.  The rule, which takes effect on February 7, 2011, requires these persons to obtain screening level data for health and environmental effects and chemical fate, and then provide that data to the Agency.  The rule is one of a series of actions that EPA is taking to ensure that it has the data necessary to adequately review priority chemicals.  In addition, now that the Agency has issued a final test rule, any person (including those required to test) who exports, or intends to export, any of the 19 chemicals will be subject to the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.  The chemicals are listed below:

CAS No.

Chemical Name

75-07-0

Acetaldehyde

78-11-5

1,3-Propanediol, 2,2-bis[(nitrooxy)methyl]-, dinitrate (ester)

84-65-1

9,10-Anthracenedione

89-32-7

1H,3H-Benzo[1,2-c:4,5-c’]difuran-1,3,5,7-tetrone

110-44-1

2,4-Hexadienoic acid, (E,E)-

118-82-1

Phenol, 4,4′-methylenebis[2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-

119-61-9

diphenylmethanone

144-62-7

Ethanedioic acid

149-44-0

Methanesulfinic acid, hydroxy-, monosodium salt

2524-04-1

Phosphorochloridothioic acid, O,O-diethyl ester

4719-04-4

1,3,5-Triazine-1,3,5(2H,4H,6H)-triethanol

6381-77-7

D-erythro-Hex-2-enonic acid, g-lactone, monosodium salt

31138-65-5

D-gluco-Heptonic acid, monosodium salt, (2.xi.)-

66241-11-0

C.I. Leuco Sulphur Black 1

68187-76-8

Castor oil, sulfated, sodium salt

68187-84-8

Castor oil, oxidized

68479-98-1

Benzenediamine, ar,ar-diethyl-ar-methyl-

68527-02-6

Alkenes, C12–24, chloro

68647-60-9

Hydrocarbons, C > 4

The 19 chemicals were originally included in the voluntary High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program, which “challenged” companies to make health and environmental effects data publicly available on chemicals produced or imported in the United States in the greatest quantities.  HPV chemicals are classified as those chemicals produced or imported in the United States in quantities of 1 million pounds or more per year.  EPA has determined that HPV chemicals account for approximately 95% of total chemical production in the United States.  As of June 2007, companies sponsored more than 2,200 HPV chemicals, with approximately 1,400 chemicals sponsored directly through the HPV Challenge Program and over 860 chemicals sponsored indirectly through international efforts.  However, no data were provided for the 19 chemicals, making a mandatory test rule necessary.

More information on EPA’s HPV Challenge Program is available here.

TSCA CBI – New Practices Adopted at EPA While Further Changes Are Debated in Congress

/in ,

TSCA, TSCA Reform: 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) continues to be a focal point of the debates over improving implementation of the current version of TSCA, as well as amending the statute.  Here’s a short update on where those debates currently stand.

EPA Adopts New Practices under TSCA

On May 27, 2009, EPA announced in a Federal Register notice that the Agency will begin a “general practice” of reviewing CBI claims for chemical identities in health and safety studies and related data, submitted under TSCA in accordance with EPA regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart B.  According to the notice, “Section 14(b) of TSCA does not extend confidential treatment to health and safety studies, or data from health and safety studies, which, if made public, would not disclose processes used in the manufacturing or processing of a chemical substance or mixture or, in the case of a mixture, the release of data disclosing the portion of the mixture comprised by any of the chemical substances in the mixture.” If the chemical identity does not clearly reveal mixture portions or process information, EPA is unlikely to find the information eligible for confidential treatment.  EPA will apply its new practice to both newly submitted and existing claims, beginning August 25, 2010. 

Stakeholders supporting or opposing this new practice are likely to submit comments to the Agency in advance of the August implementation.

Congressional Debate over the Bills to Modernize TSCA

Both the Senate and House bills would revise and narrow the protections for CBI.  The bills would require all CBI claims to be justified up front.  EPA would have to review the claims within a prescribed time period.  Only those that withstood the review – applying standards that EPA would adopt within one year of enactment of the legislation – would be eligible for protection.  Approved claims would receive protection for up to five years. 

Similar to the current version of Section 14, the bills would not allow “the release of any data which discloses processes used in the manufacturing or processing of a chemical substance or mixture or, in the case of a mixture, the release of data disclosing the portion of the mixture comprised by any of the chemical substances in the mixture.” Nonetheless, the chemical industry remains concerned about the negative impact the new CBI provisions would have on innovation, jobs, and the U.S. industry’s general competitiveness.   ICIS reports that the CEOs from 30 different chemical companies planned to meet this past Wednesday with 50 different members of Congress or their staff to discuss the bills, and the CBI provisions concerning chemical identities were on the top of their list of concerns. 

* * * *

Watch for future postings as the debates over CBI evolve.

 

EPA Expands Public Access to Information on Chemicals

/in

TSCA:

On May 17, EPA issued a press release, announcing that it had added more than 6,300 chemicals and 3,800 facilities, regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), to the public database known as Envirofacts.   The Agency said its action further demonstrated Administrator Lisa Jackson’s commitment to increasing public access to information on chemicals.   

The Envirofacts database is available on EPA’s website.  The database is designed to provide information on facility activities that may affect air, water, and land in the United States.   Included in the database is information such as facility name and address, aerial imagery, maps, and links to other records such as those available on the Agency’s Enforcement Compliance History Online (ECHO) database, which provides inspection and compliance reports.

In the press release, EPA stated that it has conducted a series of efforts to increase public access to chemical information including reducing confidentiality claims by industry and making the public portion of the TSCA inventory available for free on its website.  EPA supposedly intends to take additional actions in the months ahead to further increase the amount of information available to the public.  Additional details regarding EPA’s plans are available here.

I plan to continue following and reporting on EPA’s public-access initiative, as well as the confidential business information (CBI) provisions in the Congressional bills proposing to modify TSCA.  Stay tuned for future postings here at The Green Chemistry Law Report!