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.

EPA Provides Searchable Databases on Chemical Toxicity

Posted on by

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released two databases — the Toxicity Forecaster database (ToxCastDB) and a database of chemical exposure studies (ExpoCastDB) — making chemical toxicity and exposure data more available to scientists, industry and the public.  This is yet another step in the inevitable march towards greater material disclosure.

ToxCastDB uses advanced scientific tools to predict the potential toxicity of chemicals. The database also:

  1. helps determine which chemicals need further testing
  2. lets users download data from over 500 rapid chemical tests conducted on more than 300 environmental chemicals (data on an additional 700 chemicals will be available in 2012)

ExpoCastDB uses chemical measurements from homes and child care centers to consolidate human exposure data, including chemical amounts in:

  1. food
  2. drinking water
  3. air
  4. dust
  5. indoor surfaces
  6. urine

A data warehouse connects ToxCastDB and ExpoCastDB, providing one online resource of animal chemical toxicity studies from the past 30 years. The data warehouse, called Aggregated Computational Toxicology Resource (ACToR), collects data on more than 500,000 chemicals from over 500 public sources. ACToR links both exposure and toxicity data, which are required when considering potential risks posed by chemicals.

The ability to link and compare these different types of data better informs EPA’s decisions about chemical safety.  Arguably, it will help industry make better decisions in manufacturing.

“Chemical safety is a major priority of EPA and its research,” said Dr. Paul Anastas, assistant administrator of EPA’s Office of Research and Development. “These databases provide the public access to chemical information, data and results that we can use to make better-informed and timelier decisions about chemicals to better protect people’s health.”

Is Flat the Next Big Thing?

Posted on by

The Human Media Lab at Queen’s University, Canada and Arizona State University’s Motivational Environments Research group have teamed up to create what’s been dubbed the “PaperPhone.”  The phone was created with the same e-ink technology found in the Kindle e-book reader and in flexible printed circuits featuring an array of bend sensors.

E-history: the world is flat, but bendy. The first electronic paper, developed in the 1970s in Palo Alto, was called Gyricon and consisted of polyethylene spheres between 75 and 106 micrometers across. In the 1990s another type of electronic paper was invented by Joseph Jacobson, who later co-founded the E Ink Corporation.

In an electrophoretic display, particles with a diameter of one micrometer are dispersed in a hydrocarbon oil with a dark-colored dye with surfactants and charging agents. This mixture is placed between two parallel, conductive plates. With applied voltage, the particles will migrate electrophoretically to the plate bearing its opposite charge.  Arranging this movement into patterns — in this case pixels — is the basis for a paper thin display.

Although called the “PaperPhone”, the name doesn’t quite do the prototype justice. “SmartPaperPhone” may be more fitting. The device can perform several tasks, depending on what shape you form it into.  Want to make a phone call? Bend the paper into a concave shape. Have a favorite e-book? Bend the page corner to turn to the next page. You’ll even have an mp3 player that’s much thinner than your current iPod.

E-regulatory compliance. As far as regulating something like this is concerned “the electronic components and lithium batteries are not regulated as hazardous waste. The entire electronics assembly is RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances) compliant and marked as such on the printed circuit board in the cover. All of it can be recycled through your local municipal waste program in the same manner as you dispose of household batteries. (Check local regulations for any further restrictions.) The paper can go in your paper recycling, and the protective foam in your plastic recycling.”

E-exciting or e-issues? While exciting, there are some issues with the PaperPhone. Batteries are still fairly clunky and won’t easily bend. The memory has to be kept somewhere as well. What good is a flexible electronic paper phone if most of is has to stay stationary to accommodate the required working innards?

It could be that buying a ream of cellphones at your local big-box retailer may not be that far off.

Learn more about the technology below:

http://www.hml.queensu.ca/paperphone
http://www.circuitsassembly.com/cms/magazine/209/9557/
http://www.esquire.com/features/how-e-ink-was-made
http://supply-chain-data-mgmt.blogspot.com/2011/05/green-chemistry-sleeper-hit-in-supply.html

Adam Baer (guest-blogger for Kal Kawar) manages materials regulation data and reports at Actio Corp.  He holds a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maine.

RoHS Recast — Regulatory Update Made Official

Posted on by

The Council of the European Union (“the Council“) officially revised the RoHS directive on hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment.  The chemical restrictions will now apply to all electrical and electronic equipment, as well as to cables and spare parts, and to medical devices, medical equipment, control and monitoring equipment – which were previously exempt from RoHS compliance but are not exempt now.

Further, this recast will harmonize the directive across the European Union.

The product categories affected by RoHS include large household appliances, computer equipment, TVs, lighting, toys and video games, and vending and ATM machines – as well as the categories listed at the top of this article.  You can imagine then that almost all discrete manufacturing sectors are affected – as most use computer equipment in parts, components or assemblies.  RoHS creates a notable data management challenge in terms of supplied parts and compliance certification.

RoHS Recast provisions. Provisions are included in the recast to allow time for the market to adjust.

A three-year transitional period is allowed for some devices:

  • monitoring
  • control
  • medical

A five-year transitional period is allowed for:

  • in vitro medical devices

A six-year transitional period is allowed for:

  • industrial control appliances

Nanomaterials under RoHS. Everyone wants to know how nanomaterials will be regulated.  It’s a grey area.  Rightly, the European Commission says that work towards a common definition of nanomaterials is necessary (yes!) and ongoing. The EC intends to adopt a Commission Recommendation on a common definition “in the near future.”

The Commission considers that the RoHS provisions cover different forms (including nanoforms) of the substances which are currently banned. The Commission also considers that these RoHS provisions cover forms subject to a priority review under RoHS in the future.

RoHS Recast next steps. Next steps include:

  • Signatures and Journal publication
  • Transposition into EU member state laws
  • Industry implementation

There are a few good resources for more information. Design Chain Associates (DCA) has a good article and some (reasonably priced) on-demand webinars for more in depth review.

Would you accept this RoHS? It may be a good idea to review why we are gathered here today. While the ins and outs of regulations can be like jungle hacking – a look from the air is a good idea from time to time.

There are measurable environmental benefits to a well-executed and enforced RoHS program. Reported environmental benefits include:
•    reduction of lead (Pb) use in products by 82,700 tons in the EU
•    reduction of cadmium (Cd) use in products by 14,200 tons
•    reduction of mercury (Hg) use in products by 9,500 tons due to changes in copiers and fluorescent light bulbs
•    reduction of mercury in waste streams by 6,900 tons

RoHS restricted substances. RoHS focuses on six hazardous substances: lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium and two types of flame retardants in plastics (PBB and PBDE). The restrictions have not changed since last November, but additional hazardous substances are now expected, whereas the list of substances of concern under the previous version of RoHS was considered more stable. Click here for the current list/threshold amounts.

To wit, RoHS is a directive, not a regulation. The difference is that a directive cares only about the result. With RoHS, for example, the required result is the restricted use of certain toxic metals in electronics manufacturing. A regulation, on the other hand, delineates to each entity under the umbrella of the regulation how to get the result.  A good example is the REACH regulation, which has a detailed process for substance registration, use, and data sharing.

ECHA to Add 7 Chemicals to REACH SVHC List

Posted on by

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) will shortly add seven new chemical-substances to REACH regulation’s Candidate List of Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC). The comment period was slated to last through July 4, but ECHA says that the consultation period is now over.

The seven candidates for SVHC are as follows:

  1. 2-ethoxyethyl acetate
  2. strontium chromate
  3. 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C7-11-branched and linear alkyl esters
  4. Hydrazine
  5. 1-methyl-2-pyrrolidone
  6. 1,2,3-trichloropropane
  7. 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C6-8-branched alkyl esters, C7-rich
  8. Cobalt dichloride

The list shows eight substances because it includes cobalt dichloride. The status of cobalt dichloride is actually up for re-evaluation, due to its revised classification as both carcinogenic and toxic for reproduction. Cobalt chloride was originally identified in October 2008 as SVHC solely on its carcinogenic properties, says REACHtracker.

REACH update

The Candidate List is growing. There are now 46 SVHCs. The next ECHA consultation is planned for August, and that will kick off a busy time as the European Commission expects to have reviewed and listed 135 SVHCs by the end of 2012. The goal is to have reviewed, listed and regulated all relevant known SVHCs by 2020.

In the meantime, expect bi-annual updates to the Candidate List.

Further reading

For more on these chemicals, see Chemical Watch (pay site).

For detail on each chemical, here’s a good page from Safe Packaging.

The Actio chemical databases will be updated to reflect the change as soon as the Candidate List is updated; for now these chemicals are flagged as “probable SVHCs.” Wishing you good luck with quality assurance efforts and product development in this era of digital chemical management. It’s not easy!

Cadmium Banned in Europe in November

Posted on by

The European Commission announced May 20 that the European Union will ban cadmium in jewelry, brazing sticks and plastics beginning this November. A Commission press release states that the new legislation, which will be adopted as an amendment under the EU’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation, will prohibit the use of cadmium in all types of jewelry products, except antiques; brazing sticks, which are used to join dissimilar materials; and — in theory — all plastics.  

We say “in theory” in regards to the cadmium ban in “all plastics” because the Commission notice on the updated cadmium restriction appears to have inconsistencies regarding plastics.

The notice on World Trade Interactive suggests that cadmium will be banned in all plastics (with the exception of some recycled PVC).  But an article in British Plastics & Rubber points out semantic oddities in the Commission’s draft document.

The draft references the proposed amendment to Restriction 23 of Annex XVII, which covers cadmium and its compounds.  However, the Commission’s report contained no changes from the 2010 document regarding the list of materials that would be affected.  The wording of the recent statement says “all plastics” would be affected by the ban, but the itemized list of named plastics remains the same.

This leaves the door open for some agents to interpret that plastics not itemized on the list are exempt.

This language snarl is worth being aware of.  In the long view however, while it may delay a revision, it likely won’t stop the fact that cadmium use in virtually “all plastics” will be banned in the EU either in Q4 of this year or shortly thereafter.

And that, of course, is the “heads up.”  (For more on the language snarl, see article, Cadmium — banned or not?)

Cadmium backstory. Cadmium has many uses. It’s used in paint as a pigment, for starters. Or was. EPA and regulatory bodies around the world have been trying to restrict or prohibit cadmium use in paint for years. Often trace amounts of cadmium result in public-perception denigration and expensive product recalls that affect the bottom line; such events are arguably more of a deterrent for industry than the anti-cadmium regulations themselves.

Last summer, for instance, REACH compliance watchdogs found traces of cadmium in Shrek glasses for children. The glasses were manufactured to be sold at McDonald’s as part of the Shrek film promotion. McDonald’s had to recall over 12 million of the glasses that would have retailed for $2 each; that’s a loss of $24 million, plus the operational costs of the recall.

Many think recall events due to substances like cadmium are primarily a supply chain communication failure. While that is true, recalls also point to a regulatory gap and a supply chain that quite naturally tries to cut corners.

The EU appears to be ready to send a clear message:  no cadmium. And to many manufacturers — although probably not to the manufacturers of cadmium pigment — a clear regulation is a welcome regulation. Last year, EPA moved on this item as well when cadmium turned up in kids’ jewelry.

Cadmium alternatives. There’s no reason we need to be using cadmium in this day and age, right?  Problem is, especially for industrial uses, cadmium is very effective as a plating over steel as it’s remarkably resistant to corrosion.

A cadmium alternative for components must be, among other things:

  1. A panacea: act as a general corrosion coating for all seasons
  2. Specific protection: provide good salt spray and scribed corrosion protection
  3. Non-crackable case: cannot succumb to hydrogen embrittlement or stress corrosion cracking.

As a coating, the cadmium alternatives must, among other things:

  1. Retain thread profile/detail underneath, especially in jewelry
  2. Be solderable
  3. Be usable in electrical equipment in terms of conductivity and heat-effect limits.

At minerals.usgs.gov, the government says that coatings of zinc or vapor-deposited aluminum can substitute for cadmium in plating applications.

In 2002, a group published an evaluation of cadmium replacement alternatives for aircraft with notable results. Typically aircraft are exempt from cadmium legislation because of a “no known alternative” clause. In other words, nothing works as well so it is allowed for now.

This still creates a cost and a wrench in manufacturing process, however, due primarily to the problem of disposal of this known-toxic material at end-of-life. Where does cadmium go to die? We’ve all heard of the aircraft boneyard.  Aircraft manufacturers are responsible for end of life disposal of all parts and components (and substances).  The costs associated with end-of-life makes alternatives to cadmium look better and better.  For more on aircraft and replacements, see the Rowan Technology Group 2002 report on cadmium replacements.  It’s an interesting document.  Spoiler alert:  the report concludes that aluminum (Al) is the best cadmium replacement for uses in aerospace, automotive and electronic components in terms of behaving most like cadmium.

The point is that there are alternatives to cadmium — depending on application. For the most part, the replacements are sister- or cousin-metals.

For more on the cadmium ban coming in November under REACH regulation, review the European Commission’s press release.  Also, keep an eye on this blog as we’ll keep you posted on the critical cadmium (and similar) regulatory update status as we go through 2011.

China REACH Newsbyte: 8 New Substances of Concern

Posted on by

China is moving forward with what many call, “China REACH.”  As reported by the REACHspotter blog and Chemical Watch last week, China notified standards for eight substances.

China’s eight substances of concern. Back in January of 2010, The Chinese Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) released a new chemical registration scheme.  It’s called, “Measures on Environmental Management of New Chemical Substances.”  Also known as Order 7, the measure appears similar to Europe’s REACH regulation.

Last week, 8 substances came to attention. “The Standardization Administration of China (SAC) has notified standards for eight substances to the World Trade Organization (WTO),” reported REACHspotter. “Chapters 3 and 5 of each standard are mandatory, the rest are recommended.”

Mandatory contents relate to quality requirements, packaging, labels, transport and safety.

The standards — if approved — would be adopted 90 days after their circulation by the WTO Secretariat, which would be August, and enter into force six months after adoption, which would be February 2012.* Comments deadline is early July 2011.

The eight substances are:

  1. imidacloprid
  2. gibberellic acid
  3. pyridaben
  4. chlorotoluron
  5. chlorsulfuron
  6. thiosultap-monosodium
  7. deltamethrin
  8. fluoroglycofen-ethyl

*Updates to deadlines and related details as events warrant…

REACH Penalties: Belgium Found Guilty

Posted on by

Belgium is the first EU Member State to be condemned by European Court of Justice for breach of REACH.  This is the result of a May 5 judgment in Case 265/10 Commission vs. Belgium.

REACH has been very clear from the beginning that Member States have their own responsibilities and their own penalty structures.  For instance, the chart (above) shows comparative REACH compliance fines between countries across Europe.  Belgium has among the highest penalties in the EU.  Moreover, the chart shows the incredible discrepancies between how Member States choose to implement and moderate REACH compliance.  (The chart is from the EC December report on penalties, from a study conducted by Milieu Ltd. for the European Commission.)

Brussels fails to comply. REACH Article 126 imposes the obligation on EU Member States to adopt whatever measures necessary to ensure sufficient and correct enforcement of REACH.  Crucially, EU Member States were obligated to notify their enforcement/sanctions-systems to the Commission by Dec. 1, 2008.

Brussels-based Peter Kugel, Partner at Kugel Legal, a firm specializing in EU Law & Litigation, reports that “Belgium evidently failed to comply with that obligation because the Regions of Wallonia and Brussels-capital had not yet adopted any measures to comply with Article 126 REACH.”

REACH “cooperation agreement.” The Commission argued that Belgium failed to comply with Article 126 because there was no “cooperation agreement” in place between the Federal Government and the Regional governments.  A “cooperation agreement” would be an agreement that paves the way for cooperation between the different inspection services in a Member State, largely by implementing modalities of cooperation and information exchange pathways.

The Court dismissed the argument that lack of such an agreement would necessarily lead to lack of compliance.

The court found that, yes, such an agreement could certainly be an appropriate instrument towards the implementation of an effective sanctions-system in connection with violations of REACH (as foreseen by Article 126).

“However,” points out Kugel, “the Court ruled that neither Article 126 REACH nor any other provision of REACH oblige Member States to engage in such domestic ‘cooperation agreements’ for a correct implementation of Article 126 REACH.”

In other words:  it’s each country’s responsibility to figure out its compliance infrastructrue.  It is not up to any outside (federal) agent to coordinate or install procedures to ensure clear compliance processes for a Member State.

REACH breach ruling insight. Many were surprised that Belgium was the first to receive a judgement against their REACH compliance efforts.

Politically, in the longer term, to crack down on Belgium first could be a smart decision.  It shows lack of favoritism when it comes to compliance breach judgements.  In the short term, though, Belgium comes away with a bruised ego and a bruised Public Relations team.  Overall?  It’s nothing a month or two and a few more condemnations in other directions won’t fix.

In saying that, however, we must not be glib.  Businesses in America are watching compliance rulings on REACH like hawks.  Rightly so.  As court action heats up, so will fines, and then all import/export companies will really begin take REACH compliance risk management more seriously.

Apparently, and refreshingly perhaps, the “we didn’t know how to do it; we didn’t know what was going on” argument isn’t flying far in European courts.

Regs in Space

Posted on by

The 30-year US space shuttle program is drawing to a close. The final shuttle launch is scheduled for June 28, when Atlantis is slated to embark on its last voyage.  The last launch is likely to attract more people than this one, estimates run one million and up. 

This blogger intends to watch. Respect, Salute, Cheers. Perhaps every engineer in my age group owes part of their passion to the inspiring space program of the late 60s.

Programs focusing on humans in space now belong to other countries.  But the aerospace industry still booms at home.

Regs in aerospace. From a regulatory standpoint, the aerospace industry is a unique beast.  In 2005, the FAA published “Aviation and Emissions, a primer,” which was largely about the flight and emissions.  More a logistics concern at the time, it’s worth reminding ourselves that this modern era of manufacturing considers waste and downstream emissions reporting in design, supply and build phases.

On February 3, the Office of Management and Budget approved the Section 114 Information Collection Request (ICR) for the aerospace manufacturing and rework industry.

For more on managing compliance with emissions standards, Actio technology can help, or try reviewing EPA documents such as Risk & Technology Review.  Hazardous Air Pollutants or HAPs are a key component of related emissions reports.

In term of pending deadlines, it’s worth noting that by May 4, Major and Synthetic Minor sources must supply all remaining data on the ICR (see Allowable Forms).

Electronic components as exemption. So what is the definition of electronic components for the purposes of completing the information collection request (ICR) for the aerospace source category?  The aerospace rule provided an exemption for electronic components but it did not provide a definition or guidance for “electronic component”.

EPA suggests using common sense on what constitutes an electronic component.  (We’d all like to believe this will work!)

“If you have a solid justification, that any reasonable person would accept, for the part or component being an electronic component then please do not report the activities associated with that part or component on the ICR,” says EPA.  “However, if you question whether or not it would be considered an electronic component then you should report the activities associated with that part or component.”

Docket, Federal Register and National Emissions Standards. There are three key rivers that merge in a delta to form a gulf of aersospace emissions standards.

The Docket: Air and Radiation Docket The Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (The Docket) contains information on Air and Radiation rules and proposed rules. The Docket is composed of Federal Register Notices, the rules, and supporting documentation, and public comments.

The federal register states that the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities were proposed on June 6, 1994, and promulgated on September 1, 1995.

National Emission Standards applies to owners and operators of new, reconstructed, and existing aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities where the total hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted are greater than or equal to 10 tons per year of any one HAP; or where the total HAP emitted are greater than or equal to 25 tons per year of any combination of HAP.

Operations covered include such activities as:

  1. cleaning
  2. primer and top coat application
  3. depainting
  4. chemical milling maskant application
  5. handling and storage of waste.

The information is to be used by enforcement agencies to verify that sources subject to the standard are meeting the emission reductions mandated by the Clean Air Act.  Owners and operators of aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities are required to submit initial notification, performance tests, and periodic reports.

Aersopace manufacturing, being largely for military purposes, is often exempt from industry standards and regulations.  However, often companies have their own lists, because tracking chemicals is critical even if there really were “No Rules.”  Thus, many custom lists of chemicals apply in aerospace manufacturing and supplier compliance.  Boeing and Lockheed attend their own hazardous substance lists, for instance.  Then of course Canada, China and Europe have their own as well.  This litany of unique sets of parameters makes communications and disclosure practices for suppliers more complicated.

But that’s another subject for another day.  To find out more about streamlining supplier disclosure practices, examine the information at Material Disclosure.com.

Aerospace standards. Key standards organizations are SAE, RTCA, and EUROCAE.  Specifically, these originating organizations and ISO-recognized international aerospace standards include:

1. SAE
www.sae.org/SAE AS 755 C
Aircraft Propulsion System Performance Station Designation and Nomenclature

/SAE AS 4893
Generic Open Architecture (GOA) Framework

/SAE MA 4872
Paint tripping of Commercial Aircraft – Evaluation of Materials and Process

/SAE ARP 4150
Procedure for Inspection of Inservice Airborne Accumulators for Corrosion and Damage

2. RTCA
www.rtca.org/RTCA/DO-178B
Software Consideration in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification

3. EUROCAE
www.eurocae.net/EUROCAE/ED-12B
Software Consideration in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification (published in December 1992)

For more, see ISO.

Sacramento Protocol. The Sacramento Protocol is worth mentioning.  “Sacramento Protocol” Final Report of November 24, 1997 provides results of an effort by the California Air Resources Board (CARB or State), the EPA, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD or District).  The joint effort sought to determine whether identified State and District air pollution control requirements in California are technically equivalent to the requirements found in five MACT standards, including the Aerospace NESHAP, and has bearing on emissions standards.  To download a copy, see EPA link here: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/sacrorpt.html

Reviving TSCA: Safe Chemicals Act Revision 2011

Posted on by

On April 14, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) proposed “The Safe Chemicals Act, Version 2” to Congress.  Reception is lukewarm and the legislation is not expected to pass.  However, all industry persons should be familiar with the basics of the proposal.

SCA 2011 E-Z: articles, mixtures and nanos. In common language, SCA 2011 differs from SCA 2010 in three key ways.

In terms of articles, the new revision would not specifically amend the definition of chemical substance to include chemicals in articles.  “Articles” typically means “finished goods,” like a table, chair, electronic device or other saleable manufactured item for the market.  Under SCA 2011, chemical substances imported as part of an article would be subject to the same requirements as if they had been imported in bulk, with some exceptions.

Mixtures are again a hot topic:  current TSCA allows testing and reporting rules and control actions to be issued for mixtures, although EPA rarely implements related procedures.  SCA 2011 unloads many of last year’s mixture requirements so that it more closely resembles the current TSCA status quo.  SCA 2011 would let EPA take actions relating to mixtures in the same manner as actions relating to chemical substances — in the event that EPA determined that doing so would be reasonable and efficient.

In the realm of nanomaterials, SCA 2011 is similar to SCA 2010 in that it lets EPA determine whether nanoscale versions of existing macroscale chemicals are new chemicals.

SCA 2011 E-Z: in context. The esteemed Washington, DC, environmental law in Beveridge and Diamond aptly commented on the upshot of SCA 2011 by pointing out, “With the Republican majority in the House of Representatives unlikely to consider TSCA legislation this Congress, passage of SCA 2011 is unlikely. Nevertheless, SCA 2011 will probably stimulate efforts by stakeholders to educate Congress and each other on a variety of approaches to overhauling TSCA that can address the deficiencies in the current statute while obtaining sufficient support to be enacted.”

The SCA 2011 aims to endow EPA with sufficient information to judge a chemical’s safety.  It requires manufacturers to develop and submit a minimum data set for each chemical they produce, while also preventing duplicative or unnecessary testing and encouraging the use of rapid, low-cost, non-animal tests that provide high quality data.  Again, the onus of chemical evaluation and disclosure is intended to fall on chemical manufacturers, not manufacturers in general.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC) and its members have announced they support efforts by the US Congress to modernize chemical management. A modern system, says the ACC, should place protecting the public health as its highest priority, and should include strict government oversight.

 

2011 Salary Data for Chemical Professionals

Posted on by

Salaries, pay raises and bonuses for chemical processing engineers are on the rise, according to a new 2011 Salary and Job Satisfaction Survey from Chemical Processing.  Managing Editor Amanda Joshi reports that an increasing number of chemical processing professionals say they received a salary increase this year.

Survey respondents point out that pay raises for 2011:

  1. hover around 4.3%
  2. are not making up for the past year or two of salary freezes and benefit cuts.

Salary chart for chemical industry professionals:

The patterns are easy to see: last year was a terrific backslide with moderate but respectable increases this year.

To read through the entire article, well-written it must be said, go the the Salary Report 2011 on the Chemical Processing website.