Category Archives: Green Thoughts

Environmental compliance expert Kal Kawar’s blog

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.

EPA Finalizes List of 28 Chemicals for Monitoring

Posted on by

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on May 1, 2012, that the agency will work with drinking water systems to monitor unregulated contaminants.

EPA has finalized a list of 28 chemicals and two viruses for monitoring:

If you wish to download a PDF copy for your records, download here.  The list includes 28 thus-far-non-regulated substances to be monitored in drinking water from 2013 to 2015.

Compare them to the list of proposed contaminates for monitoring put forth by EPA a year ago, available for download here.

It’s said that approximately 6,000 public water systems will take part in the new effort to monitor these 28 (+2 viruses).  The effort itself is part of EPA’s “unregulated contaminant monitoring program” — which collects data on contaminants suspected to show up in drinking water but that do not have health-based standards set under the Safe Drinking Water Act.  Under the Act, EPA is required to regulate 30 new chemicals every five years.

EPA intends that the data collected about the frequency and levels at which these contaminants are found in drinking water systems across the United States will help determine whether additional protections are needed to ensure safe drinking water for Americans.

State participation in the monitoring is voluntary. EPA will fund small drinking water system costs for laboratory analyses, shipping and quality control.

The list of contaminants to be studied includes total chromium and hexavalent chromium, also known as chromium-6 in drinking water lingo.  Addressing hexavalent chromium in drinking water is a priority, as EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson has said many times.

EPA has standards for 91 contaminants in drinking water, and the Safe Drinking Water Act requires that EPA identify up to 30 additional unregulated contaminants for monitoring every five years.

For more information, visit: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/ucmr3/index.cfm There you’ll find information on a new tool for pollutant visibility called the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Pollutant Loading Tool.  EPA bills it as “a new tool designed to help you determine who [what company] is discharging, what pollutants they are discharging and how much, and where they are discharging.”  It’s basically a searchable database.

New SNUR for PBDEs

Posted on by

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 5(a). Already California and Washington passed legislations to ban PBDEs. Not to mention others. EPA and OSHA are playing catch-up in many ways with environmental and health issues. This latest news on flame retardants from EPA should be exciting but it has a laggard’s feel to it, rather like the soft “thud” made last week when OSHA published GHS.

Question: Is late better than never? Or are rules best set while momentum is still hot?

What EPA is proposing is a Significant New Use Rule, or SNUR.  Also a Test Rule.  Formally, this is regarding certain Polybrominated Diphenylethers, which are commonly known as PBDEs.  PBDE is pronounced phonetically as an acronymn.  To wit:  it starts to sound like “Peabody” if you turn the word around in your head too many times in a row. (One of many ah-ha moments achieved while writing this article.)

What you’ll want to know about EPA’s proposal to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 5(a).

On the chopping block: polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs).

Execution style:

  • Designating processing of six PBDEs, or any combination of these chemical substances resulting from a chemical reaction, as a significant new use
  • Designating manufacturing, importing, and processing of a seventh PBDE, decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE) for any use which is not ongoing after December 31, 2013, as a significant new use
  • Making inapplicable the article exemption for SNURs for this action — in other words, no exemptions

A person who intends to import or process any of the seven PBDEs included in the proposed SNUR, as part of an article for a significant new use would be required to notify EPA at least 90 days in advance to ensure that EPA has an opportunity to review and, if necessary, restrict or prohibit a new use before it begins.

EPA is also proposing a test rule under TSCA that would require any entity manufacturing or processing in any articles for any use either:

  • Commercial pentabromodiphenyl ether (cpentaBDE)
  • Commercial octabromodiphenyl ether (c-octaBDE), or
  • Commercial decaBDE (c-decaBDE)

after December 31, 2013 must conduct testing on health and environmental effects.

EPA is proposing to designate all discontinued uses of PBDEs as significant new uses.  The test rule would be promulgated if EPA determines that there are persons who intend to manufacture, import, or process c-pentaBDE, c-octaBDE, or cdecaBDE, for any use, including in articles, after December 31, 2013.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 1, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–1039

FOR MORE on EPA’s plans for PBDEs, HBDEs and related chemicals please refer to the Actio Blog March 20, 2012.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 5(a).  Already California and Washington passed legislations to ban PBDEs.  Not to mention others.  EPA and OSHA are playing catch-up in many ways with environmental and health issues.  This latest news on flame retardants from EPA should be exciting but it has a laggard’s feel to it, rather like the soft “thud” made last week when OSHA published GHS.

Question: Is late better than never?  Or are rules best set while momentum is still hot?

What EPA is proposing is a Significant New Use Rule, or SNUR.  Also a Test Rule.  Formally, this is regarding certain Polybrominated Diphenylethers, which are commonly known as PBDEs.  PBDE is pronounced phonetically as an acronym. To wit:  it starts to sound like “Peabody” if you turn the word around in your head too many times in a row.  (One of many ah-ha moments achieved while writing this article.)

What you’ll want to know about EPA’s proposal to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 5(a).

On the chopping block: polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs).

Execution style:

  • Designating processing of six PBDEs, or any combination of these chemical substances resulting from a chemical reaction, as a significant new use
  • Designating manufacturing, importing, and processing of a seventh PBDE, decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE) for any use which is not ongoing after December 31, 2013, as a significant new use
  • Making inapplicable the article exemption for SNURs for this action — in other words, no exemptions

A person who intends to import or process any of the seven PBDEs included in the proposed SNUR, as part of an article for a significant new use would be required to notify EPA at least 90 days in advance to ensure that EPA has an opportunity to review and, if necessary, restrict or prohibit a new use before it begins.

EPA is also proposing a test rule under TSCA that would require any entity manufacturing or processing in any articles for any use either:

  • Commercial pentabromodiphenyl ether (cpentaBDE)
  • Commercial octabromodiphenyl ether (c-octaBDE), or
  • Commercial decaBDE (c-decaBDE)

after December 31, 2013 must conduct testing on health and environmental effects.

EPA is proposing to designate all discontinued uses of PBDEs as significant new uses.  The test rule would be promulgated if EPA determines that there are persons who intend to manufacture, import, or process c-pentaBDE, c-octaBDE, or cdecaBDE, for any use, including in articles, after December 31, 2013.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 1, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–1039

FOR MORE on EPA’s plans for PBDEs, HBDEs and related chemicals please refer to the Actio Blog March 20, 2012.

IPC: Unconflicted about Scrap Material Disclosure

Posted on by

As detailed in IPC’s* March 2, 2011, comments in response to the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed rule on Conflict Minerals, IPC has a clear, unconflicted stance on conflict minerals and disclosure requirements.

Recently the issue of whether scrap and recycled materials need to have Conflict Minerals Reports have resurfaced. And with some form of conflict minerals legislation likely to be approved by end of the third quarter this year, new seems a good time to profile IPC’s position on same.

IPC maintains that recycled or scrap sources should not be required to furnish a Conflict Minerals Report, including a certified independent private sector audit.  

IPC maintains that the SEC)final rule should include an alternative approach for recycled or scrap sources that is “practicable and does not overly burden recycled materials so as to discourage their use.”

Given other government efforts to encourage recycling in electronics and other industries it’s imperative that the SEC does not diminish these efforts by adding significant disclosure or regulatory burdens to the use of recycled or reclaimed conflict minerals, IPC said in supplemental comments in response to the SEC proposed rule on Conflict Minerals (S7-40-10) and the panel discussion held on October 18, 2011.

“An issuer using a recycled material containing conflict minerals will not be able to provide any of the details required in a Conflict Minerals Report. The traceability of the reclaimed metals is [challenging] to track due to the various forms of recycling and thousands of consolidators, reclaimers, and scrap dealers both foreign and domestic. Instead, issuers should have a reasonable basis for believing the material is recycled and maintain auditable records to support the determination. IPC believes that due diligence is the appropriate requirement for verifying recycled or reclaimed conflict minerals.

We believe recycled conflict minerals should have parity with conflict minerals originating from a conflict-free mine so as to encourage manufacturers to use recycled  and scrap materials, to reduce the demand for minerals that would support armed groups in the DRC and adjoining countries, and to maintain a fair market for metals and minerals.”

All this could be accomplished, IPC believes, by providing that — after a manufacturer conducts a reasonable inquiry into the source of its conflict minerals — no further action is required if either:

1.  the minerals were determined to originate not from the DRC or adjoining countries, or

2.  the minerals originated from a scrap or recycled source

> Read how the final conflict material disclosure law (Dodd-Frank) is expected this summer (2012).

> Read more about IPC’s position on conflict minerals online.

EPA to Require Companies to Report ‘All Uses’ of PBDEs, HBCD

Posted on by

Printing companies, paint and coatings companies and those using flame retardants in manufactured goods should take note: The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed that companies be required to report to EPA all new uses — including in domestic or imported products — of five groups of potentially harmful chemicals:

  1. polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs)
  2. benzidine dyes
  3. a short chain chlorinated paraffin
  4. hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD)
  5. phthalate di-n-pentyl phthalate (DnPP)

The agency is also proposing additional testing on the health and environmental effects of PBDEs.

Although a number of these chemicals are no longer manufactured or used in the U.S. they can still be imported in consumer goods or for use in products,” said Jim Jones, EPA’s acting assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Over the years, these chemicals have been used in a range of consumer products and industrial applications, including paints, printing inks, pigments and dyes in textiles, flame retardants in flexible foams, and plasticizers.

The idea appears to be largely one of protecting American consumers from international supply chains with — shall we say — different ideas about the hazards of chemicals in these 5 groupings.

The proposed regulatory actions are known as significant new use rules (SNUR) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The proposed rules would require that anyone who intends to manufacture, import, or process any of the chemicals for an activity that is designated as a significant new use to submit a notification to EPA at least 90 days before beginning the activity. This notification means EPA can evaluate the intended new use and take action to prohibit or limit that activity, if warranted. For PBDEs, the agency will also issue simultaneously a proposed test rule under section 4(a) of TSCA that would require manufacturers or processors to conduct testing on health and environmental effects of PBDEs.

Today’s proposed SNURs were previously identified in action plans the agency issued on these and other chemicals during the last two years.

More:  www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/ 

OSHA Targets Multi-location Enterprise Companies

Posted on by

Is the US Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) unfairly targeting multiple-location enterprise companies? Some say yes. National retail stores, grocery chains, manufacturers, and hotel chains would be potentially at risk for increased OSHA scrutiny if inspection /penalty trends continue. According to attorney Eric Conn at the law firm Epstein-Becker-Green, enterprise companies need to be aware of three recent OSHA enforcement trends in particular:

  1. A rise in follow-up inspections and Repeat violations at sister facilities within a corporate family
  2. OSHA’s increasing pursuit of company-wide abatement provisions in settlement agreements
  3. OSHA’s recent requests for enterprise-wide relief from the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

“Despite what seems to be settled law that abatement called for in an OSHA citation must be limited to the location where the violation was identified,” said Conn, “OSHA has recently begun to pursue enterprise-wide mandatory abatement.  For example, OSHA has begun to request the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission grant such enterprise-wide relief in its rulings.”

Exhibit A:  In a Jan. 18 press release, OSHA reported that the Department of Labor sought enterprise-wide relief at more than 60 separate locations of one enterprise — based on hazards issued at only two of its stores.  OSHA reasoned that the employees at the approximately 58 stores that did not receive citations “were exposed or likely to be exposed to” similar hazards.  (Both cases are currently contested.)

In an excellent blog on the subject, Conn and Alexis Downs wrote:

Often the first citation is issued with an innocuous characterization (e.g., Other Than Serious) and a low or no penalty, or OSHA agrees in a settlement to reduce more serious violations to lower characterizations and penalties.  Employers must be careful to weigh the benefit of a low penalty citation or settlement against the potentially high cost of Repeat violations and costly company-wide abatement that may arise during follow-up inspections at related facilities.

This is a reminder that tools and operational processes for compliance should be enterprise-wide and should handle multiple facilities.  Kudos to Conn & Downs — despite surnames that seem ripe for a comedian’s arsenal of jokes about lawyers — for a great post and their part in what is a very good blog on hazards, workers and safety.

 

Ed.: Join us this week at PCB Chat, where Kal will moderate a chat on MSDS management, raw material disclosure compliance and product stewardship. The chat takes place March 8 from 2 to 3 p.m. Eastern at Printed Circuit University. There is no cost to participate.

ECHA Reveals 90,000 Chemicals

Posted on by

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has launched the Public Classification and Labeling (C&L) Inventory database.  Quite notably, this is the world’s largest database of self-classified chemical-substance data. Information in the database is threshed from REACH registrations and CLP notifications so far received by the Agency.

The public can freely browse or search the C&L Inventory now: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory-database

But first a warning: in these first days of the new database tool, it’s recommended you begin by searching on a few chemicals you are very familiar with. This will give you a feel for the accuracy of search returns.

Another warning:  be alert to multiple and inaccurate chemical classifications.  For more on that and how errors happen, see details at asterisk at bottom, below the database preview.*

References for further reading, courtesy of REACHspot:

  1.     Public C&L Inventory: http://echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory
  2.     C&L Inventory Factsheet: http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/17242/factsheet_public_classification_labeling_en.pdf

Preview:

You’ll notice the chemical inventory database is searchable by 1)substance identity or 2)substance classification.  ECHA says it expects to improve search functions — so if C&L searches seem unreliable at first, continue to check back with the database, and by all means continue to send notes to ECHA stating how helpful improved search capability would be (so their IT department can prioritize).

The Inventory is maintained by ECHA and the data will be refreshed on a regular basis with incoming and updated C&L information.

The C&L Inventory database and CLP and REACH  So you may be wondering, how does it all connect?  The C&L Inventory is a database which contains classification and labeling information on substances notified under Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 — known as the CLP Regulation — and registered under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (the REACH Regulation).  Plus, it will also contain the list of legally binding harmonized classifications (Annex VI to the CLP Regulation).

The C&L Inventory database aspires to serve multiple purposes:

  1. It is a tool for hazard communication and a source of basic information on substances placed on the market which meet the criteria for classification as hazardous or are subject to registration, for suppliers of substances, the general public and Member State Competent Authorities (MSCAs)
  2. It reveals differences in the classification and labeling of the same substance applied by different suppliers, thus pointing to the need for further discussion among companies to explore the reasons for differences and/or agree the most correct classification, evaluation needs or the need for a legally binding harmonization of a particular classification and labelling of a substance
  3. It is an important tool for hazard communication and risk management, e.g. when MSCAs assess the need for potential authorizations and restrictions of hazardous substances under REACH

Asterisk * Different classifications within C&L Inventory

ECHA says a primary goal of the C&L Inventory is to promote uniform classification of substances.  However…

However, for many substances different classifications will have been notified.  Over time this will be corrected.

Some instances of multiple or inaccurate classifications can be explained by technical errors made during the notification process (e.g. not assigning all labeling elements correctly) or slight differences in seemingly identical notifications (e.g. affected organs or route of exposure differs). However, different notifiers can also disagree on the classification of a substance based on different interpretation of scientific studies or different access to those studies.

In any case, notifiers have the legal obligation to make every effort to come to an agreed entry to be included in the inventory and inform ECHA accordingly.  (See Article 41 of the CLP Regulation, which says “each SIEF should agree on classification and labelling where there is a difference in the classification and labeling of the substance between potential registrants”…and again…. “the notifiers and registrants shall make every effort to come to an agreed entry to be included in the inventory.”)

Additionally, sometimes there are different (legitimate) reasons for why notifications for the same substance have different classifications. Different compositions or impurity profiles often lead to different classifications.  Also, of course, the physical state and form of a substance is often very important when the hazards of a substance are assessed. The Public C&L Inventory displays the notified state and form but does not contain any information on composition or impurities.

And finally, technical errors made when notifying to the C&L Inventory can also lead to different classifications assignments that are inauthentic.

For awhile, these quirks will be “fair enough,” but over time they must be ironed out.  Else, there is little use in having a database at all.  Time will tell.  The potential is there, though, for a truly remarkable public tool to help solve the challenges of the chemicals in our modern world.

 

Join Kal for a moderated chat March 6 at www.printedcircuituniversity.com.