Tag Archive for: New & Events

California DTSC Announces Two-Day Workshop on Alternatives Assessment

/in , ,

Green Chemistry/Alternatives Assessment:

The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has announced an upcoming two-day workshop on alternatives assessment, a key component of the department’s much-anticipated Safer Consumer Product Alternatives (SCPA) Regulations.  Those regulations are in turn a key component of the state’s vaunted Green Chemistry Initiative.  The timing of this announcement suggests that DTSC will soon release the official draft of the SCPA Regulations.  The workshop will be held in Chatsworth, California from June 4 -5, 2012. Registration information and other details are set out below.

______________

Alternatives Assessment 101

What: Two-Day Training

When: June 4-5, 2012

Where: Chatsworth, CA

California’s Safer Consumer Products draft regulation requires alternative assessments for certain priority chemicals and products. Would you like to know more about alternatives assessment?

 

 

If you have not performed an alternatives assessment-

 

 

This training is for you! Gain practical, hands-on experience and insights.

 

If you have already conducted alternatives assessments-

 

 

Strengthen your understanding, exchange experiences, and learn from your peers through this two day training from specialists in alternatives assessments.

This two day training from the University of Massachusetts (UM) is in partnership with California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Participants will be introduced to the process of assessing safer alternatives for chemicals and products through sharing experiences with researchers from UM’s Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI) and the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production. DTSC staff will lead a discussion on the role of alternatives assessment in California’s draft Safer Consumer Products Regulation.

 

 

 

Visit for more information and to register:

http://sustainableproduction.org/proj.summerinstitute.overview.php

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Irene Hantman to Moderate ABA Panel on Federal Suspension and Debarment Authority

/in ,

Enforcement:

Verdant Law is pleased to announce that Irene Hantman will be moderating a panel on the federal government’s suspension and debarment authority.  The program, “Suspension and Debarment an Administrative Tool for Addressing NonCompliance: Perspective from EPA,” is sponsored by the ABA Sections on Administrative Law and Environment, Energy, and Resources.  It will be hosted at EPA Headquarters Tuesday, May 15, 2012 from 12:00 – 1:30 EST.  Additional details are set out below, and available here.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Tuesday, May 15

Suspension and Debarment:   An Administrative Tool for Addressing NonCompliance: Perspective from EPA

The Section of Administrative Law, Environmental Law Committee and the Section of Environment, Energy and Resources In-House Counsel Committee invite you to attend a Brown Bag program 12:00-1:30 EST Tuesday, May 15, on the federal government’s suspension and debarment authority. Companies subject to these actions are unable to participate in government contracts, subcontracts, loans, grants, and other assistance programs. Being subject to such an action, or even the threat thereof, can have an immeasurable impact on a company, and can serve as a powerful incentive for a company to improve its compliance program. The effect of suspension and debarment by a Federal agency is government wide and can be extended to include subsidiaries and parent companies. Join SEER’s In-House Counsel Committee and EPA officials to learn how the Agency uses suspension and debarment as a tool for deterrence, what constitutes an actionable offense, and the regulatory framework. The program will also present industry perspectives and address control systems and remediation efforts.

Panelists are:

  • Stacey Dey-Foy, EPA
  • Irene Hantman, Verdant Law PLLC (Moderator)
  • Richard Pelletier, EPA
  • Steve Solow, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Washington, DC
  • Mike Walker, EPA

To Register:

To attend this brown bag on-site free of charge at EPA or for remote participation contact Alice Mims: (202) 564-6069 or mims.alice@epa.gov.

Final OSHA Rule Published on Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals

/in , ,

GHS/HazCom:

March 26, 2012, the Federal Register published OSHA’s final Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS).  With this rule OSHA has modified its Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) to be consistent with to the United Nations’ System. 

GHS Requirements

OSHA estimates that 880,000 hazardous chemicals are currently used in the U.S., and over 40 million employees are now potentially exposed to hazardous chemicals in over 5 million workplaces.  Approximately 75,000 firms create hazardous chemicals (i.e., products, substances, or mixtures) for which new labels and ‘safety data sheets’ (formerly material safety data sheets) will be required.

OSHA explains that implementation of the GHS will improve HCS by changing the performance requirements for labels to the GHS-specific requirements that labels include four standardized elements: a signal word; hazard statement(s); pictogram(s); and precautionary statement(s).  The appropriate label elements for a chemical are to be determined by the hazard classification.  Standardized label elements will better convey critically important hazard warnings, and provide useful information regarding precautionary measures that will serve to better protect employees than the performance-oriented approach of the current rule. 

Chemical manufacturers and importers will be required to re-evaluate chemicals according to the GHS criteria.  Chemicals must be classified based on the type and degree of hazards posed.  For health hazards, this will involve assigning the chemical both to the appropriate hazard category and subcategory (called hazard class).  For physical hazards new criteria are generally consistent with current DOT transportation requirements.  Preparation and distribution of modified labels and safety data sheets by chemical manufacturers and importers will also be required. 

Jurisdiction

The rule adopts only sections of the GHS within the scope of OSHA jurisdiction.  DOT, CPSC and EPA will implement GHS at a later date.  EPA and OSHA have worked together to develop a common position on coverage of pesticides and chemicals.  The GHS will not require additional labels on pesticides labeled under EPA requirements; that is, the final products that enter into commerce.  However, OSHA GHS requirements will apply to the other chemical ingredients of pesticides; the ‘inactive’ ingredients or cleaning products that are hazardous.  This is a continuation of current OSHA HCS worker protection requirements.  OSHA anticipates that EPA will provide guidance to their regulated community on how to develop an OSHA GHS-compliant SDS to avoid conflict with pesticide labeling requirements. 

Key GHS Elements

Hazard communication.  A key goal of the final GHS is to better communicate hazard information to those most at risk—the workers exposed to hazardous chemicals Hazard communication requirements are provided in 29 CFR § 1910.1200.  Appendix C, Allocation of Label Elements, details how specified label elements apply to each hazard class and hazard category.  Appendix D, Safety Data Sheets, specifies requirements for the 16 SDS elements.

Concentration limits.  OSHA announced it will require the most protective GHS concentration limits for hazard classifications.  For example, for sensitizers and reproductive toxins, the final rule requires information to be provided on labels and safety data sheets at concentrations above 0.1%.  (See e.g., Appendix C, Allocation of Label Elements.)

Precautionary statements.  In addition to hazard statements, the GHS requires precautionary statements that describe recommended measures that should be taken to protect against hazardous exposures, or improper storage or handling of a chemical.  (See Appendix D, Safety Data Sheets).  Precautionary statements must also address hazard information necessary to protect workers from “hazards not otherwise classified that have been identified during the classification process.” (See Table D.1.)

Mixtures.  Health hazards posed by mixtures should be addressed based on the risks posed by the mixture itself, rather than by the hazards posed by the component chemicals individually.  The GHS does allow alternative classification methodologies where primary data are unavailable, including extrapolation and bridging.  The rule specifies procedures for determining whether mixtures are covered by the Standard. 

Chemical manufacturers, importers, distributors, or employers who become newly aware of any significant information regarding the hazards of a chemical shall revise the labels for the chemical within six months of becoming aware of the new information.  New information about hazards and ways to protect against hazards must be added to the SDS within three months. 

OSHA has modified General Industry Standards containing hazard classification and communication provisions so that they will be internally consistent and aligned with the GHS modifications to the HCS. 

Implementation

Timeline.  Compliance with all of the provisions for preparation of new labels and safety data sheets is required by June 1, 2015.  Distributors will be allowed an additional six months to distribute containers received from chemical manufacturers and importers with the old labels and MSDSs in order to accommodate those they receive very close to the compliance date.  Workplace labels and training programs must be updated by June 1, 2016. 

State implementation.  OSHA intends to closely scrutinize amendments to previously approved State hazard communication standards to ensure equal or greater effectiveness, including assurance that any additional requirements do not conflict with, or adversely affect, the effectiveness of the national application of OSHA’s standard.

Guidance.  OSHA will be offering guidance materials such as quick cards and fact sheets to aid firms in developing and implementing the training requirements of this rule.  OSHA will also be releasing a small business compliance guide to provide additional guidance to small businesses, which will ease the economic impact and compliance burden. 

Next Steps

OSHA notes that the GHS is a living document, and the UN actively reviews it and considers possible changes based on implementation experiences and other information.  These changes are made on a two-year cycle, referred to as a biennium.  The OSHA proposal and the final rule are based on Revision 3 of the GHS.  OSHA will undertake future rulemaking as necessary to reflect new technological and scientific developments and UN revisions to GHS requirements.

Although not addressed in the rule, OSHA discusses interest in the development of a common classification database.  The European Union plan to deploy one.  Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and New Zealand have already done so.  However, classifications in these databases are not necessarily the same for the same chemical.  OSHA would like an international database of classifications developed and maintained.  A UN Sub-committee has been established to explore the issue further. 

 

EPA Releases Draft Chemical Regulation Priorities for Fiscal Year 2013

/in

Chemical Regulation:

Readers interested in EPA FY 2013 plans may wish to review the Agency’s draft National Program Manager (NPM) Guidance plans. The draft plan from the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) discusses priorities for the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), and regional priorities. Also addressed are OCSPP efforts with respect to environmental justice and plans for collaboration among EPA programs and offices.

The NPM stresses EPA plans for Sustainable Materials Management (SMM) and Pollution Prevention (P2). SMM efforts will work to reduce negative environmental and societal impacts across material life. P2 programs will facilitate the development of safer, “greener” materials and products. A key element of P2 efforts is the Agency’s green chemistry program. (See e.g., Design for the Environment–EPA’s Safer Product Labeling Program for further information on EPA’s Green Chemistry efforts.)

Hazard assessment and risk management will comprise OCSPP efforts to address disproportionate risks to children and other vulnerable populations. In addition, OCSPP plans to build on existing activities to meet environmental justice goals.

The NPM also reports that OCSPP and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) will continue efforts to enhance collaboration between the two offices to enhance Agency efforts to protect the public and environment from chemical risks.

France to require mandatory reporting of nanoscale materials in 2013

/in , ,

Nanotechnology:

France will implement a compulsory declaration scheme for the quantities and uses of nanoparticle substances or nanomaterials produced in, distributed in, or imported to France January 1, 2013. Information about material identity, quantity, uses, and users will be required from all companies producing, distributing and importing nanomaterials, and public and private research laboratories. The declaration scheme will be implemented by the Ministries of Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transport and Housing; Economic, Financial and Industrial Affairs; Labor, Employment and Health; and Agriculture, Food, Fisheries, Rural Affairs and Planning. Detailed information on reporting requirements will be published in the Official Journal of the French Republic.

The reporting mandate was published February 19, 2012 in Decree 2012-232 (available in French only) (the December 2011 draft decree is available in English). The decree explains that the purpose of the scheme is to improve knowledge of nanomaterials and their uses, to monitor the channels of use, to improve knowledge of the market and the volumes sold and to collect available information on toxicological and eco-toxicological properties.  Data on 2012 nanomaterial use must be submitted by May 1, 2013.

Reporting requirements affect materials that are at least 50 percent comprised of particles with one or more external dimension between 1 nm and 100 nm. When any such material is produced, imported or distributed in quantities of 100 grams, the user must declare identity of the producer, importer, or distributor; identity of the nanomaterial; quantity of nanomaterial produced, distributed or imported; intended uses, and identifying information about the professional users to whom the material has been distributed. Specifics of the reporting requirements include:

  • Identity of the producer, importer, or distributor:
    • business name, official address, VAT number; and
    •  apacity (manufacturer, importer or distributor) and field of activity.
  • Identity of the nanomaterial:
    • chemical identification of the substance,
    • potential presence of impurities,
    • average particle diameter and particle size distribution,
    • specific surface,
    • surface coating, and
    • surface charge.

 

EPA Fines Dover Chemical $1.4 Million for TSCA Violations – But Was EPA Really Looking for an Easy Way to Ban SCCPs?

/in , ,

TSCA Enforcement:

On February 7, 2012, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a settlement with the Dover Chemical Company to resolve alleged violations of the premanufacture notice (PMN) requirements in section 5 of the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  Section 5 requires companies to file a PMN and receive EPA approval before manufacturing a “new” chemical – i.e., one not listed on the TSCA Inventory of existing chemical substances.  EPA accused Dover of failing to file PMNs before manufacturing various chlorinated paraffins at the company’s facilities in Ohio and Indiana.  Although the settlement is noteworthy in demonstrating EPA’s willingness to reinterpret the TSCA Inventory and enforce that reinterpretation, it is perhaps more noteworthy because it suggests EPA is willing to use enforcement as a shortcut to banning substances, as described in the last paragraph of this posting.  A copy of the settlement agreement is available here, and the EPA press release is available here. 

As part of the settlement, Dover will pay $1.4 million in civil penalties, and the company will stop manufacturing short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs).  Dover is the only domestic producer of those substances.  In addition, Dover will file PMNs for certain medium-chain and long-chain chlorinated paraffins (MCCPs and LCCPs) in hopes of receiving EPA approval.  Whether the company will receive approval – and if so, under what terms – remains to be seen.

Dover appears to have fun afoul of EPA’s nomenclature guidance and ever-evolving interpretation of the TSCA Inventory.  When EPA first established the TSCA Inventory, the agency arguably required less precision with substance identification.  Over time, however, that has changed.  The agency would certainly disagree, arguing it has been consistent over time, but experience suggests otherwise.  In 1995, EPA published nomenclature guidance – available here – – for complex reaction products, UVCB substances, mixtures, and substances containing varying carbon chain lengths (such as some SCCPs have).  In certain cases, that guidance conflicted with earlier agency statements, requiring some companies to seek Inventory corrections, pursue exemptions or file PMNs for substances they had been manufacturing for years.  Since 1995, EPA has reinterpreted the Inventory status of statutory mixtures and activated phosphors, among others.  It’s almost certain that more changes are on the horizon with the current Administration’s aggressive and expansive use of the TSCA statute.

Perhaps of greatest interest to cynics is the agency’s apparent use of the enforcement mechanism to essentially achieve a ban on SCCPs.  In December 2009, EPA published a Chemical Action Plan for SCCPs , proposing to ban or restrict SCCPs under section 6(a) because the chemicals are thought to be persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT), a set of hazard traits that regulatory agencies are particularly concerned about.  The Plan also identified Dover as the only known domestic producer.  According to the settlement agreement, December 2009 was the same month that Dover received a NOV for alleged violations of the PMN requirements for SCCPs and other chemicals.  It is doubtful that this timing was coincidental.  While Dover’s agreement to cease production of SCCPs doesn’t apply to other manufacturers/importers, by shutting down the only domestic production and publicly questioning the Inventory status of many SCCPs, EPA effectively achieved a ban.   This is a cynical conclusion perhaps, but the publicly available facts suggest it’s a reasonable one to draw.  Did EPA initiate enforcement to achieve a result that would have been more difficult to achieve under section 6(a)?  You decide.

US EPA and California DTSC Form Green Chemistry Partnership

/in , , , ,

Sustainable Products/Green Chemistry:

On January 12, 2012, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) announced their Green Chemistry Partnership.  The agencies’ agreement is memorialized in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that outlines principles by which the agencies will cooperate to reduce toxic chemicals in consumer products, create new business opportunities in the emerging safer consumer products economy, and reduce the burden on consumers and businesses struggling to identify what’s in the products they buy for their families and customers.

The agrement supposedly will allow DTSC and EPA to minimize duplication of effort and promote consistency in their assessment methodologies, potentially providing increased environmental protection. The agreement sets up a framework for the agencies to collaborate on Green Chemistry issues so that California’s innovative “Green Chemistry” program can grow.

Jim Jones, EPA’s acting assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention said:  “This partnership will build and harmonize common tools and practices used to conduct alternative assessments to promote safer products ….  These alternative assessments inform and speed the adoption of safer chemicals for use in products, homes, schools, and workplaces, which produce significant environmental and economic benefits.”

In its press release, EPA said:  “The agreement represents a major advance for Californians looking to buy safer children’s toys, personal care products, household cleaners and other products. By shifting the question of an ingredient’s toxicity to the product development stage, concerns raised by … consumers can be addressed early on. The approach results in safer ingredients, and provides an opportunity for California industry to once again demonstrate its innovative spirit by making products that meet consumer demand throughout the world.”

EPA and DTSC signed the agreement in a ceremony at California’s Kaiser Permanente Sidney R. Garfield Health Care Innovation Center in San Leandro. Kaiser Permanente is nationally recognized as an industry leader in safer products, using its purchasing power and a sustainability scorecard to press suppliers for safer chemicals in medical products. 

FDA Regulation of Nanotechnology

/in , ,

Nanotechnology:

Readers interested in learning about FDA’s regulation of nanotechnology might want to download the free book available here:  FDA REGULATION OF NANOTECHNOLOGY .  Verdant attorney, Philip Moffat, and many others authored the book over the course of the past several years.  This book is a valuable resource to those wanting to learn about regulation in the United States of foods, cosmetics, drugs, medical devices and many other products that have been enhanced with nanotechnology.  Further information about FDA’s role in the regulation of nanotechnology may be found on the agency’s website, here.  Enjoy!

Reminder: Upcoming Workshop on California's Green Chemistry Regulations

/in , ,

Green Chemistry Regulations:

For readers interested in learning more about California’s latest revision of the so-called Green Chemistry Regulations, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is convening a public workshop on December 5, 2011, to discuss the latest proposal.  Details of the workshop are set out below.

________________________________________________________

DTSC: Green Chemistry Initiative

Please join us for the Workshop on Safer Consumer Product Regulations:

December 5, 2011

9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Cal/EPA Headquarters Building

Byron Sher Auditorium

1001 “I” Street, 2nd Floor

Sacramento, CA 95814

As a reminder, if you have questions about the informal draft Safer Consumer Product regulations that you would like to have addressed at the workshop, please submit them via e-mail to gcregs@dtsc.ca.gov by November 28, 2011.  You may submit comments or questions in real time during the workshop and, as time allows, DTSC staff will read and respond to them aloud.  Submitting your questions in advance will ensure your questions will be addressed at the workshop.

Additionally, if you plan to speak at the workshop, please let us know by December 1, 2011, via e-mail at gcregs@dtsc.ca.gov.  Include in the e-mail: (1) affiliation, (2) subject of your comments/questions, and (3) the amount of time you are requesting.  This information will assist DTSC staff in planning the workshop and will place you in the speaker?s queue.  Please note, however, that DTSC cannot guarantee that each speaker will get the full amount of time requested. 

The December 5, 2011, Workshop Notice may be found at:

http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/LawsRegsPolicies/Regs/upload/SCP-Workshop-Notice-10312011.pdf

The regulations and other related documents may be found at:

http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/LawsRegsPolicies/Regs/SCPA.cfm  and http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SCPRegulations.cfm

Phil Moffat Will Participate on ABA Panel Concerning California's Green Chemistry Regulations

/in , , , ,

Green Chemistry Regulations:

Verdant is pleased to announce that Philip Moffat will participate on a “quick teleconference” program sponsored by the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources, titled “California Dreaming, Reality, or Nightmare?  California’s New Paradigm in Chemicals and Products Regulation Is Coming to a Store Near You.”  The December 13, 2011, teleconference will discuss the substantially revised regulations recently proposed by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to implement AB 1879, a new California Green Chemistry Initiative law designed to “accelerate the quest for safer products” in the state.  In addition to discussing the law’s requirements and its implementation, the teleconference will provide both industry and public health perspectives. 

Other speakers include:

  • Philip Crowley, Assistant General Counsel, Johnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, NJ
  • Dr. Joseph Guth, UC Berkeley Center for Green Chemistry; and the Science and Environmental Health Network, Berkeley, CA
  • Dr. Jeff Wong, Chief Scientist, DTSC, Sacramento, CA
  • Ann Grimaldi, McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, San Francisco, CA

There are two ways to participate in this program, either attending a host site location or individual dial-in.  Participation at a host site location is free of charge for ABA members, and $110 for non-members.  Registration with the host site contact is required, however.  The host sites are:

  • San Francisco, CA
    McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, 101 California St., # 41
    RSVP: Cynthia Kelly, (415) 267-4051 or ckelly@mckennalong.com
  • Washington, DC
    McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, 1900 K Street, NW
    RSVP: Debbie Leitner, (202) 496-7372, dleitner@mckennalong.com

The teleconference will begin promptly at 1:00 pm EasternTime, Tuesday, December 13, 2011, and last for 105 minutes.

  • 1:00 p.m. – 2:45 p.m. Eastern Time / 12:00 p.m. – 1:45 p.m. Central Time
  • 11:00 a.m. – 12:45 p.m. Mountain Time / 10:00 a.m. – 11:45 a.m. Pacific Time

Additional information about the teleconference is available here.