Author Archives: Kal

About Kal

Kal Kawar, CIH, PE, has a bachelor's in chemical engineering and a master's in industrial hygiene. His professional experience includes serving as staff industrial hygienist for IBM's New York semiconductor manufacturing facility, and as industrial hygienist for IBM’s US headquarters. Now executive vice president of Actio, Kal taps more than 20 years' worth of chemical engineering, industrial hygiene, and environmental engineering experience. His far-reaching expertise with global regulatory challenges created by EPA, TSCA, REACH, RoHS, WEEE – and hundreds of others – aid in developing Actio software solutions for MSDS management, raw material disclosure compliance, and product stewardship in a supply chain.

Nanomaterial Assessment: Case by Case

Posted on by

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines a nanomaterial as “an ingredient that contains particles that have been intentionally produced to have at least one dimension that measures between approximately 1 and 100 nanometers.” Nanomaterials seem bursting with potention for technological breakthroughs. Alongside, safety concerns have been bursting forth, too.

The European Commission (EC) and the EPA both say that there is no cause for concern about nanomaterial safety at this stage. At issue seems to be that there is a shortage of technologies to reach into the nano world to test the nanomaterials for safety and health & environmental hazards.

It’s all too new, too small and too tricky.

So in fact, based on the evidence, there is “no real cause for concern” around nanomaterial safety. But obviously there’s “no significant safety testing” being done to establish whether there’s cause for concern or not.  So, use your nanostuff with caution, and that includes everything from lip balm, paint and paper to polymers.

Meanwhile, policy makers have to contend with how to regulate nanomaterials. For instance, nanomaterials under REACH have thus far been covered by the term “substance.”  But the EC is realizing a policy review is in order.

Regulating nanomaterials: under review  Announced October 3, 2012, the European Commission (EC) is initiating a regulatory review for nanomaterials. Focus is on a systematic analysis of all relevant EU legislation to determine three key points:

  1. Whether current legislation is appropriate to ensure the safe use of nanomaterials
  2. Whether and what regulatory gaps need to be filled
  3. How this can be done without jeopardizing their contribution to innovation, growth and job creation for the European economy

The total annual quantity of nanomaterials on the global market is around 11 million tonnes (just over 12 million US tons), with a market value of roughly 20 billion euros (which equals $20.29 billion US dollars at this writing).

“Traditional” high volume nanomaterials  Contrary to what is often implied in public debate, more than 99.9% of all nanomaterials on the market are produced in quantities above 1 tonne per year (in terms of production volumes and sales). Many of the highest volume nanomaterials on the market are widespread in application and have been on the markets for decades, and longer.

Examples of such “traditional” high volume nanomaterials include carbon black (a filler in tyres, rubber and polymer materials) and synthetic amorphous silica: used in a wide variety of applications, including as a filler in tyres and polymers, to provide anti-slip properties in paper, in paints and adhesives, in the food industry as a widely used anti-coagulant in food powders, as an aid to clear beer, wine, and fruit juices, in tooth paste, in the construction industry as an insulation material. [Source: EC documentation]

Nanomaterials attracting attention  Examples of nanomaterials oft-discussed include: nano-titanium dioxide, nano-zinc oxide, fullerenes, carbon nanotubes and nanosilver. Those materials are marketed in much smaller quantities than the traditional nanomaterials. Many of those have been developed more recently and the use of some of those materials is quickly increasing, although not necessarily at the pace of some earlier projections.

An aside: the Swedish Karolinska Institute conducted a study in which various nanoparticles were introduced to human lung epithelial cells. The results, released in 2008 and referenced by Wikipedia, showed that:

  1. Iron oxide nanoparticles caused little DNA damage and were non-toxic
  2. Zinc oxide nanoparticles were slightly worse
  3. Titanium dioxide caused only DNA damage
  4. Carbon nanotubes caused DNA damage at low levels
  5. Copper oxide was found to be the worst offender, and was the only nanomaterial identified by the researchers as a clear health risk

Nano-titanium dioxide and nano-zinc dioxide can be used as a UV-filter in sunscreens (currently subject to an evaluation by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety and US FDA), in paints and varnishes and in self-cleaning surfaces in the construction industry.

Carbon nanotubes are mainly used to impart electrical conductivity to plastic materials, e.g. in disk drive components or automotive plastic fuel lines and fenders. Other uses include polymer additives, paints and coatings, fuel cells, electrodes, electrolytes and membranes in batteries, especially lithium batteries.

Fullerenes are very often confused with carbon nanotubes and are used in high market applications requiring particular strength such as tennis rackets and golf balls, but also in cosmetics, fuel and solar cells. However due to their high cost, their market is rather limited.

Nanosilver can be used as a disinfectant and anti-odour substance in textiles. However, its use seems relatively limited (estimated at roughly 20 tonnes worldwide).

More information:

  1. EC recommended definition of nanomaterials can be found here:  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/nanotech/index.htm#definition
  2. EC press release on the subject: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/12/732&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
  3. EPA definition:  “an ingredient that contains particles that have been intentionally produced to have at least one dimension that measures between approximately 1 and 100 nanometers.”
  4. Go deeper into nano: Chemicals, REACH, CLP and nanomaterials: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemicals/reach/nanomaterials/index_en.htm
  5. Glimmers of nanotechnology policy in the US

Revision of General Product Safety Directive

Posted on by

The European Union (EU) is set to revise its General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) before the end of 2012. The revised GPSD would introduce stricter market surveillance measures, reports STR and others.

The more strict market surveillance measures include random inspections, monitoring, enforcement and sanctions. Plus procedures to bring noncompliant products into compliance. The published resolution suggests these changes would eliminate legal uncertainty for businesses and provide more adequate protection for consumers.

Under the GPSD, a “safe” product is defined as a product that when used under normal circumstances does not propose risk to product users (or the risks are minimized/compatible with the product’s use). The product will undergo a safety assessment, and only when the product is deemed ‘’safe’’ will it be allowed to be placed on the European market. Producers must provide information on the product, such as warnings of risks associated with the product.

The point of the GPSD, it’s said, is to ensure a high level of product safety throughout the EU for consumer products that are not covered by specific sector legislation. Examples of its domain includes:

  1. toys
  2. chemicals
  3. cosmetics
  4. machinery

This directive seeks also to fill in gaps vis a vis sector legislation.

For instance, often there are holes with regard to producers’ obligations and the authorities’ powers and tasks in sector legislation.  Enter GPSD.

Stay tuned here for updates as (or if) anything becomes final.

It’s Official: US Conflict Mineral Rule

Posted on by

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has voted in favor (3-2) of a final conflict minerals regulation.

Good as gold? Overall, the final regulation is an improvement over the proposed rule. IPC, the electronics association, says the modified rule addresses 80% of IPC’s voiced concerns about the proposed version.

The SEC has not posted the final regulation text, but is expected to do so shortly. [Update August 27, 2012: click to see Final Rule, a 356-page PDF.]

Compliance will still be a significant burden for industry. But in fairness, the final rule makes reasonable efforts to lower the burden while achieving Congressional intent.

The final rule provides burden relief to industry by:

  • establishing a unified reporting schedule
  • creating an indeterminate category
  • implementing a phase-in period
  • removing the requirement that a CMR report is required for any recycled or scrap materials contained in a product

At the center of the final rule are three key amendments from proposed rule:

  • Following a reasonable country of origin inquiry, companies unable to determine the origin of the conflict minerals in their product may report the source of their conflict minerals as indeterminate for 2 years. Small companies have 4 years (the SEC did not define a small company as far as we know).
  • Unlike the proposal which would have required a CMR for all recycled or scrap sources of conflict minerals, companies need only conduct, disclose and describe a reasonable inquiry to verify that the conflict minerals come from scrap or recycled sources. A CMR is required only if the reasonable inquiry indicates that the source may not be from scrap or recycled sources.
  • CMR reports will be filed as part of a new SD form. The deadline for submitting the SD will be May 31 of each year, with data from January to December reported. The first report will be due May 31, 2014 for data from January 2013-December 2013. The SEC had originally proposed that each company would file according to their fiscal year. By providing a uniform reporting deadline, the burden on the supply chain will be reduced.

The Rule itself If adopted by the Commission, the final rule would apply to a company that uses any of the four designated minerals— gold, tin, tantalum or tungsten— if:

• The company files reports with the SEC under the Exchange Act.

• The minerals are “necessary to the functionality or production” of a product manufactured or contracted to be manufactured by the company.

Contracting to manufacture. A company would be considered to be “contracting to manufacture” a product if it has some actual influence over the manufacturing of that product. This determination would be based on the facts and circumstances, taking into account the degree of influence the company exercises over the product’s manufacturing.

A company would not be deemed to have influence over the manufacturing if it merely:

• Affixes its brand, marks, logo, or label to a generic product manufactured by a third party.

• Services, maintains, or repairs a product manufactured by a third party.

• Specifies or negotiates contractual terms with a manufacturer that do not directly relate to the manufacturing of the product.

Requirements apply equally to domestic and foreign issuers.

Determining if conflict minerals originated in the DRC or other covered countries

Under the final rule, a company that uses any of the designated minerals would be required to conduct a reasonable ‘country of origin’ inquiry that must be performed in good faith and be reasonably designed to determine whether any of its minerals originated in the covered countries or are from scrap or recycled sources.

If the inquiry determines either of the following to be true:

• The company knows that the minerals did not originate in the covered countries or are from scrap or recycled sources.

• The company has no reason to believe that the minerals may have originated in the covered countries and may not be from scrap or recycled sources.

… then the company must disclose its determination, provide a brief description of the inquiry it undertook and the results of the inquiry on a new form (Form SD) filed with the Commission.

Then the company also would be required to:

• Make its description publicly available on its Internet website.

• Provide the Internet address of that site in the Form SD.

If the inquiry otherwise determines both of the following to be true:

• The company knows or has reason to believe that the minerals may have originated in the covered countries.

• The company knows or has reason to believe that the minerals may not be from scrap or recycled sources.

… then the company must undertake “due diligence” on the source and chain of custody of its conflict minerals and file a Conflict Minerals Report as an exhibit to the Form SD.

Then the company also would be required to:

• Make publicly available the Conflict Minerals Report on its Internet website.

• Provide the Internet address of that site on Form SD.

What must be included in the Conflict Minerals Report. Under the final rule, companies that are required to file a Conflict Minerals Report would have to exercise due diligence on the source and chain of custody of their conflict minerals. The due diligence measures must conform to a nationally or internationally recognized due diligence framework, such as the due diligence guidance approved by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

DRC Conflict Free – then what? If a company determines that its products are “DRC conflict free” – that is the minerals may originate from the covered countries but did not finance or benefit armed groups – then the company would have to undertake the following audit and certification requirements:

• Obtain an independent private sector audit of its Conflict Minerals Report

• Certify that it obtained such an audit.

• Include the audit report as part of the Conflict Minerals Report.

• Identify the auditor.

Not “DRC Conflict Free” – If a company’s products have not been found to be “DRC conflict free,” then the company in addition to the audit and certification requirements would have to describe the following in its Conflict Minerals Report:

• The products manufactured or contracted to be manufactured that have not been found to be “DRC conflict free.”

• The facilities used to process the conflict minerals in those products.

• The country of origin of the conflict minerals in those products.

• The efforts to determine the mine or location of origin with the greatest possible specificity.

DRC Conflict Undeterminable – For a temporary two-year period (or four-year period for smaller reporting companies), if the company is unable to determine whether the minerals in its products originated in the covered countries or financed or benefited armed groups in those countries, then those products would be considered “DRC conflict undeterminable.”

Then, in that case, the company must describe the following in its Conflict Minerals Report:

• Its products manufactured or contracted to be manufactured that are “DRC conflict undeterminable.”

• The facilities used to process the conflict minerals in those products, if known.

• The country of origin of the conflict minerals in those products, if known.

• The efforts to determine the mine or location of origin with the greatest possible specificity.

• The steps it has taken or will take, if any, since the end of the period covered in its most recent Conflict Minerals Report to mitigate the risk that its necessary conflict minerals benefit armed groups, including any steps to improve due diligence.

For those products that are “DRC conflict undeterminable,” the company would not be required to obtain an independent private sector audit of the Conflict Minerals Report regarding the conflict minerals in those products.

Recycled or scrap due diligence. There are special rules governing the due diligence and Conflict Minerals Report for minerals from recycled or scrap sources. If a company’s conflict minerals are derived from recycled or scrap sources rather than from mined sources, the company’s products containing such minerals are considered “DRC conflict free.”

About gold sources If a company cannot reasonably conclude after its inquiry that its gold is from recycled or scrap sources, then it would be required to undertake due diligence in accordance with the OECD Due Diligence Guidance, and get an audit of its Conflict Minerals Report. Currently, gold is the only conflict mineral with a nationally or internationally recognized due diligence framework for determining whether it is recycled or scrap, which is part of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance.

For the other three minerals if a company cannot reasonably conclude after its inquiry that its minerals are from recycled or scrap sources, until a due diligence framework is developed, the company will be required to describe the due diligence measures it exercised in determining that its conflict minerals are from recycled or scrap sources in its Conflict Minerals Report. Such a company is not required to obtain an independent private sector audit regarding such conflict minerals.

Conflict mineral deadlines Under the final rule, the issuer would be required to provide the disclosure on the new Form SD. All issuers will file for the same period – a calendar year – regardless of their fiscal year end. Companies would be required to file their first specialized disclosure report on May 31, 2014 (for the 2013 calendar year) and annually on May 31 for each calendar year thereafter.

References:

SEC relevant page: http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2012/2012-163.htm

IPC relevant page, with kudos to Stephanie Castorina for consistently providing well-crafted messages on the subject: http://www.ipc.org/ContentPage.aspx?pageid=Conflict-Minerals

Software for conflict minerals compliance assurance: http://www.actio.net/default/index.cfm/products/material-disclosure/

For a list of likely-relevant softwares, mostly “cloud” solutions, click here: http://supply-chain-data-mgmt.blogspot.com/2012/08/35-will-outsource-to-saas-or-cloud.html

ECHA Modifies REACH Tonnage Calculations

Posted on by

In REACH news, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has modified its methodology for calculating “total tonnage” bands. Make a note of it if you haven’t already.

The shortcomings in the legacy calculation methodology, ECHA is saying, arose from the fact that the REACH Regulation is based on the concept of legal entities rather than companies. To make a long story short, in some situations the old way could lead to involuntary disclosure of confidential business information.

So the agency has decided to modify the envisaged methodology for calculating aggregated tonnages.

The modification removes the “four registrants rule” before publication of tonnage band data on the ECHA website. As it was, the tonnage data— claimed confidential by a given registrant— would still be included in the calculation of aggregated tonnages if there are four or more registrants in a joint submission. This would threaten the Confidential status.

Tonnage amendment already in place  The publication of tonnage bands on ECHA’s registered substances database that took place for the first time in June.  Repeat: ECHA already took the modifications in the calculation method into account.

The “total tonnage band” is published together with other substance-specific information on ECHA’s website.

Total tonnage bands will be displayed for substances on ECHA’s registered substances database from those listed in the following table:

Table source: courtesy ECHA

 

Tonnage data will be extracted from the latest disseminated dossier of each full (non-intermediate) registration, aggregated, converted to a total tonnage band, and published on ECHA’s registered substances database. The total tonnage bands will be published for joint submissions and for inpidual submissions. Tonnage data will not be extracted from dossiers for intermediate registrations under REACH Articles 17 or 18. Tonnage data will also not be extracted from dossiers for full (non-intermediate) registrations where the tonnage band is claimed to be confidential in accordance with REACH Article 119(2)(b).

Claiming confidential Registrants have had the facility to claim their tonnage band confidential in accordance with REACH Article 119(2)(b) since June 2008. If registrants have not done so but wish to claim confidentiality for their tonnage band, they should submit an updated dossier with a confidentiality claim on the tonnage band as soon as possible.

For confidentiality claims under REACH, please note that the claim must be justified in accordance with Data Submission Manual 16, and will attract a fee. Confidentiality will only be granted where the claim is accepted as valid by ECHA. Notably, tonnage data will not be extracted from dossiers where the tonnage band is claimed confidential while the confidentiality claim is under assessment.

Must the SDS be in French?

Posted on by

Someone wrote in to our company recently with a question. “I need to know if Canadian law states that the MSDS or SDS has to be in French if requested,” the writer asked. The answer is yes.

Ours is a software company, not an advice column (!) — so typically folks write to request a demonstration of the latest software for GHS, SDS or REACH or supplier management. That kind of thing.

We don’t often get a straight up regulations question like this one.  But why not answer it?  It’s always good to check back over basics, when “the basics” change so often these days.

“Does Canadian law state that the MSDS or SDS have to be in French if requested?”

Yes, Canadian (M)SDS must have French versions  So the answer is yes, in Canada you are required to have English and French versions of the (M)SDS. In Europe, the SDS must be authored in the official language of the country where you are selling or plan to sell your product. This applies if you’re selling in Asia, too.

Online there is a great case study about SDS in a global market—how one company solved the problem of creating MSDS documents in local language, in the 11th hour no less. Very dramatic, but they made it happen. Actually, that case study won an award from IDG ComputerWorld for its “forward thinking” aspects—take a look.

WHMIS is Canada’s national hazard communication system  The prime objective of WHMIS is to provide relevant safety and health information to Canadian workers, the idea being, like most safety initiatives, to avert injury, illness and premature death. The key elements of WHMIS are cautionary labelling, MSDSs and worker education and training programs.

Labels The precautionary information, including hazard symbols, which must be disclosed on a WHMIS supplier label are prescribed in section 19 of the Controlled Products Regulation or CPR. The information must be disclosed in both English and French, and it must look nice, that is, it must be enclosed within a “hatched” border as depicted in Schedule III of the CPR.

Note: There are software solutions for GHS SDS management and authoring, in any language.

Also note: There is a website reference for all things WHMIS and GHS.  And this page is helpful: a FAQ.

The Canadian Hazardous Products Act is available online and may be of interest.  Hope this clarifies things.

Cal Prop 65 List + 2

Posted on by

California’s chemical law known as Cal Proposition 65 requires the State of California to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.  Manufacturers and/or distributors selling products in CA must label products with a Toxicity Warning if the product contains any chemical on the list.

The updated Cal Prop 65 list can be downloaded here, in full. The list below was updated on July 24, 2012, and updates can be viewed in red at the top of the image.  The latest listed chemicals are:

  1. Isopyrazam (CAS No. 881685-58-1)
  2. 3,3′,4,4′ Tetrachloroazobenzene (CAS No. 14047-09-7)

About Prop 65.  Not all 800+ chemicals on the Prop 65 list should be avoided at all costs (and in some cases they might save your life, as with aspirin to thin the blood).  The Prop 65 list seeks to publish the identity of every chemical that can be a danger and to require products containing it or traces of it be clearly labeled as potentially toxic.  Labels are mandatory, although enforcement is spotty.

The idea, it’s said, is to alert consumers of possible dangers and let consumers decide whether to act on that knowledge.

US Senate EPW approves Safe Chemicals Act

Posted on by

The Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee has approved the “Safe Chemicals Act,” which was introduced last year. The legislation is intended to protect Americans from dangerous toxic chemicals that are found in everyday consumer products.

The measure is expected to move forward along party lines.  That is to say, it’s “unlikely to advance without bipartisan support” (Tribune).

“This vote is a major milestone in our effort to fix America’s broken system for regulating toxic chemicals,” said Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ). Lautenberg, who chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health, introduced the “Safe Chemicals Act of 2011” last year in an effort to modernize the “Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976” (TSCA).

The bill aims to provide the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the tools it needs to require health and safety testing of toxic chemicals and places the burden on industry to prove that chemicals are safe.

Under current law, the EPA can call for safety testing only after evidence surfaces demonstrating a chemical is dangerous. As a result, EPA has been able to require testing for just 200 of the more than 80,000 chemicals currently registered in the United States, and has been able to ban only five dangerous substances.

Where the chemicals are. Scientists and environmental groups have expressed concern about chemicals that are used in the production of a wide-range of consumer products.  NJToday’s list of such products includes:

  1. Rug cleaners and stain-resistant carpet
  2. Non-stick cookware
  3. Vinyl products
  4. Dishwashing liquids
  5. Fabric softeners
  6. Upholstery
  7. Insulation, and
  8. Hair dyes

The Safe Chemicals Act would:

  1. Require manufacturers to develop and submit safety data for each chemical they produce, while avoiding duplicative or unnecessary testing.
  2. Prioritize chemicals based on risk, so that EPA can focus resources on evaluating those most likely to cause harm while working through the backlog of untested existing chemicals.
  3. Place the burden of proof on chemical manufacturers to demonstrate the safety of their chemicals.
  4. Restrict uses of chemicals that cannot be proven safe.
  5. Establish a public database to catalog the information submitted by chemical manufacturers and the EPA’s safety determinations.
  6. Promote innovation and development of safe chemical alternatives, and bring some new chemicals onto the market using an expedited review process.

Actio’s position on the Safe Chemicals Act is that it would be much easier to establish policies at a federal level than have the tangle of state and sector parameters in place now.

However, cheekily we might point out that Actio software exists to untangle those compliance webs — so maybe as a company we should have mixed feelings towards federal level policy!  (Truly: this one US federal law passing would not eliminate the need to Actio software — the need exists as long as there are international regulations, supply chain transparency needs, and unique declarable substances lists within discrete market sectors.)

The fact is that policy watchers see no real reason to believe the Safe Chemicals Act will gather serious momentum in the near future.  But you never know.  We’ll keep watching.

New EU RoHS 2 Guidance FAQ

Posted on by

Guidance document in the form of a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for the RoHS Recast has been published. The RoHS Recast entered into force on July 21, 2011, and requires Member States to transpose the provisions into their respective national laws by January 2, 2013, less than 6 months away.

Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances (RoHS) started as a UK directive and has been adopted by the EU. (It’s up to member states to determine compliance details such as implementation and enforcement.) The Directive is part of the European Union’s lateral waste management legislation. RoHS applies to equipment as defined by a certain section of the WEEE directive.

RoHS applies to the following categories:

  1. Large household appliances
  2. Small household appliances
  3. IT & Telecommunications equipment (infrastructure equipment is exempt in some countries)
  4. Consumer equipment
  5. Lighting equipment—including light bulbs
  6. Electronic and electrical tools
  7. Toys, leisure, and sports equipment (including video games)
  8. Medical devices (exemption removed in July, 2011)
  9. Monitoring and control instruments (exemption removed in July, 2011)
  10. Automatic dispensers
  11. Semiconductor devices

One of the prime objectives of RoHS 2 is to address concerns related to the increasing volume of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) arising in the EU.  Hazardous substances in this type of equipment could be released during waste management processes and could give rise to damage to human health and the environment.  The most effective way to address this concern is to restrict the use of the hazardous substances at the point of manufacture.

The new RoHS 2 FAQ  This new Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document aims to help economic operators interpret the provisions of RoHS 2 in order to ensure RoHS 2 compliance. However, as the Directive being addressed only to the Member States, the rights and obligations for private parties exclusively flow from the measures enacted by the authorities of the Member States to implement it.

The FAQ is considered a ‘living document’ and may be revised in the future, according to the experience with the implementation and review of RoHS 2. The FAQs reflect the views of DG Environment and as such are not legally binding, it’s important to note that binding interpretation of EU legislation is the exclusive competence of the Court of Justice of the European Union. These FAQs should be read in conjunction with the general principles of the New Legislative Framework (NLF) and the Commission’s guide to the implementation of directives based on the New Approach and the Global Approach also known as the Blue Guide.

Where to get the RoHS 2 FAQ  Seems obvious but it’s important to say it: the FAQ document may undergo significant changes moving forward, as events warrant.  But it’s a solid start. As far as the new guidance goes, remember to submit your comments by September 14, 2012.

Get the document here:  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/pdf/faq.pdf

 

Green Chemistry, Oregon

Posted on by

Green Chemistry simply means: using chemistry to reduce or eliminate the use and generation of hazardous materials.

The California Green Chemistry Initiative is where it all began.  It applies to goods that are made or sold in a particular US state.  The green chemistry initiatives are similar to, in particular, Design for Environment and REACH.  It may be a great idea. But it has ignited a trend whereby chemicals in manufactured products are regulated at a state level. Enter Oregon.

On April 27, 2012, Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber signed a “green chemistry” executive order.  It’s listed as Number 12-05 and is titled “Fostering environmentally-friendly purchasing and product design.”

So add this to your working list of US Green Chemistry laws, state by state.

This green chemistry order directs the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to coordinate a statewide toxics reduction strategy and to build general awareness in the business community about the benefits of green chemistry.

This initiative is another sequin in the Green Chemistry gown.  There are many others.  More US states are adopting the “green” way of developing safer and more environmentally-friendly products.  The problem is that each state has its own focus, lists, and penalties.

Oregon toxic chemicals strategy

DEQ completed a draft of its Toxics Reduction Strategy in December 2011.  DEQ hopes to finalize the strategy in fall 2012.

The strategy includes a list of priority toxic chemicals.  Here’s the list:

Combustion & petroleum by-products:

  1. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
  2. Dioxins and Furans Napthalenes

Consumer product constituents:

  1. Phthalates
  2. Triclosan
  3. 4-Nonyphenol (and Nonyphenol Ethoxylates)
  4. Bisphenol A
  5. DEET

Pesticides:

  1. Diazinon
  2. Chlorpyrifos
  3. Atrazine
  4. Trifluralin
  5. Chlorothalonil
  6. Malathion
  7. Permethrin
  8. Carbaryl
  9. Pentachlorophenol
  10. Diuron
  11. Glyphosate
  12. Hexachlorocyclohexane
  13. (HCH), gamma- (Lindane) 2,4-D
  14. Propoxur (Baygon)
  15. Pendamethalin

Legacy pesticides:

  1. Dieldrin DDT (and metabolites)
  2. Chlordane (and metabolites)
  3. Aldrin
  4. Methoxychlor
  5. Heptachlor (& Heptachlor epoxide)
  6. Hexachlorocyclohexane, beta- (beta-BHC)
  7. Hexachlorobenzene
  8. Hexachlorocyclohexane, alpha- (alpha-BHC)

Flame retardants and industrial intermediates:

  1. Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs)
  2. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
  3. Ammonia

Metals:

  1. Mercury (and methylmercury)
  2. Copper
  3. Cadmium
  4. Chromium
  5. Arsenic
  6. Lead
  7. Nickel
  8. Manganese
  9. Silver

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs):

  1. Tetrachloroethylene
  2. Benzene
  3. Ethylbenzene
  4. Trichloroethylene
  5. Dichlorobenzene, 1,4- (Dichlorobenzene-p)
  6. Toluene
  7. Formaldehyde

Oregon DEQ says it takes an integrated approach to reducing toxic chemicals and pollutants in the environment. The organization points out that chemicals can readily transfer from one part of the environment to another (e.g. mercury, which can be released to the air, deposited on the land, and run off into water bodies).

Thus, DEQ’s Toxics Reduction Strategy is a four-pronged attack:

  • Making the most efficient use of agency resources by focusing on the highest-priority toxic chemicals in a coordinated way
  • Implementing actions that reduce toxics at their source whenever feasible
  • Establishing partnerships with other agencies and organizations to increase effective use of public and private resources
  • Using environmental outcome statistics to measure the effectiveness of strategy implementation where feasible

With one more prong: The Governor’s new Green Chemistry Order.

REACH News: 8 New SVHC Intentions

Posted on by

In REACH related news, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) announced recently that the Registry of Intentions of Substances of Very High Concern has been updated with eight new intentions.  The list of intentions lets companies prepare for commenting.  It also indicates it’s time to start internal process prep in the event that a listed chemical does become regulated.

The eight new intentions of SVHCs and their CAS numbers are:

  1.     Heptacosafluorotetradecanoic acid, CAS 376-06-7
  2.     Pentacosafluorotridecanoic acid, CAS 72629-94-8
  3.     Henicosafluoroundecanoic acid, CAS 2058-94-8
  4.     Tricosafluorododecanoic acid, CAS 307-55-1
  5.     Methoxy acetic acid, CAS 625-45-6
  6.     Cadmium sulphide, CAS 1306-23-6
  7.     Cadmium, CAS 7440-43-9
  8.     Cadmium oxide, CAS 1306-23-6

Obviously, cadmium is a featured intention for this, Europe’s influential chemical blacklist.  Interestingly, cadmium (along with lead) is also one of the most often requested exemptions under RoHS directive for electronics.  Just worth mentioning; may serve as reference if you’re thinking of commenting on the candidacy of cadmium for later in the process.

Pending SVHCs

As a rule, it’s important to know what is on tomorrow’s list of Substances of Very High Concern.  Best practice is know what’s pending as well as you know what’s certain.  Especially in times like these, when regulations are made bona fide and updated seemingly each week.

ECHA’s page on SVHC Intentions is here if you would like more information:  http://echa.europa.eu/registry-of-current-svhc-intentions.  Another possible action is to forward this blog post to your company’s risk management team — they will want to know.