I will continue to provide commentary about TSCA, REACH, product stewardship, sustainability, environmental marketing claims and more as part of the redesigned EHS Strategies, Inc. website.

Georjean Adams

EPA is showing some gumption in using the extensive authorities it already has under TSCA with more SNURs, extended information-gathering under the Chemical Data Reporting rule and “Work Plans.”  I think they are still too timid (not that they can’t go too far sometimes). If they would just work their work plan based on opportunities for real risk-reduction priorities, a lot could be accomplished – although not the massive chemical bans desired by the NGOs.  (Hmmmm… could it be they can’t prioritize risk-reductions because there aren’t significant risks out there?)

It is sad that EPA’s TSCA program seems to need detailed legislative instructions to get down to work.  Unfortunately, that just encourages Congress to get into the business of writing detailed regulations instead of legislation.  Instead of knowledgeable scientists and bureaucrats, we get a handful of behind-the-scenes Congressional staff and special interest ghost writers effectively issuing regulations born of political deals, not public notice and comment rulemaking.  Instead of being able to initiate new rulemaking to change a regulation to respond to new information or learnings, we will be again stuck with the decades-long political process of new legislation.

The same goes for all the state legislation – except multiplied by 50 (or more if you count city-state efforts of the likes of SF and NYC).  At least you can get changes a little faster in than Congress to fix things.

We’ll see….

Nice industry perspective articles from ICSIS.com here and here

Make sure you are reviewing these for possible applicability – especially if the use is not “new” to you.

Also make sure your vendors are notifying you if there are restrictions on the use of their products.  TSCA compliance is not only an issue of being listed on the Inventory.

Contact EHS Strategies, Inc. for help.

If I’m reading the numbers right, they have declassified about 20% of the 4,025 claims made.  3,242 claims were deemed actually legitimate.  Another 11, 508 studies had made no claims in the first place.  Only 532 of the chemicals were made over 25,000 lb per IUR reporting. Play whatever games you want with the numbers.

Regardless, these numbers don’t indicate massive fraud to me.  Good that EPA tightened up on knee-jerk claims, made without serious thought.  But the “secret toxics” issue has been overblown.

Reminder: Imported articles are exempt unless intended to release a chemical substance.  (Notification, not registration, and customer communication can be triggered, regardless of volume, for articles with >0.1% Substances of Very High Concern.)

“EPA has released the non-confidential Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) information on chemical manufacturing, processing and use in the United States.

The 2012 non-confidential database and search tool are available at www.epa.gov/cdr. Users can download the database or search the database by chemical name, CAS number, or company name to retrieve company and site-specific information about chemicals in commerce and to view information on specific uses of chemicals, such as those used in products intended for children. This website also includes more information about the CDR data results, as well as fact sheets.”

Interesting Fact Sheet on uses and reduction in CBI claims.  ”The EPA received reports on 7,674 chemicals, including 354 that were reported as used in children’s products. 1,704 chemicals were reported as used in consumer products and 3,073 were used in commercial applications or products. The remaining chemicals reported were for industrial use only.”  Makes the scary 85,000 chemicals in commerce number that is used by NGOs look a little silly.  Also have to question whether some of the chemicals listed as being in children’s products were misclassified – gases propane and ethane? butane? ethyl benzene? These would be industrial intermediates at most and not used by children.

Make sure your reports are correctly represented.

Contact EHS Strategies, Inc. for help.

“EPA recommends the public follow product label directions and take precautions that can reduce exposures, such as using the product outside or in an extremely well ventilated area and wearing protective equipment to reduce exposure.”

- even though the draft risk assessment says there is no concern for ATO and HHCB.

The chemicals are assessed for risks based on consumer products uses:

methylene chloride or dichloromethane (DCM) and n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) in paint stripper products – potential concern for human health acute and chronic risks

trichloroethylene (TCE) as a degreaser and a spray-on protective coating - potential concern for human health for  small commercial and hobbyist degreaser users

antimony trioxide (ATO) as a synergist in halogenated flame retardants – low human exposure, low concern for ecological health

1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8,-hexamethylcyclopenta-[γ]-2-benzopyran (HHCB) as a fragrance ingredient in commercial and consumer products - negligible human health risks of concern, low concern for ecological health

Read the detailed reports here.

EPA says it will get aggressive in using existing TSCA authorities on the assumption legislative TSCA reform isn’t going to be resolved this Congress.  We’ll keep watching….

Companies need to keep on top of new listings (about every 6 months) and be prepared to find out whether articles you make, sell or buy contain >0.1% adding to more than 1 metric tonne/yr.  You can also see what’s likely to come up by looking at the list of “intentions” to add to the Candidate list here.

Also track whether any of the chemicals reach the “Authorization” (14 so far) stage that will restrict use.

EHS Strategies, Inc. can help you with the implications for your company.

On December 3, 2012, EPA published an immediate final rule requiring the reporting of existing and unpublished health and safety data for cadmium and cadmium compounds used in consumer products pursuant to section 8(d) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Based on several letters asking questions and raising concerns about the scope and extent of the immediate final rule that indicate that there is significant confusion and uncertainty within certain industrial sectors concerning the rule, EPA has decided to withdraw the immediate final rule and will sign a Federal Register notice announcing this decision no later than the January 2, 2013, effective date of the immediate final. EPA will be considering the questions and concerns raised in response to the immediate final rule and next steps with regard to this rule. EPA will also continue to work with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to reduce exposure to cadmium in consumer products generally, and especially those consumer products used by or around children, such as children’s metal jewelry.

EPA appears to be trying to push the envelope of their TSCA authorities – which they should – but this was a tad too far for a direct final (no public comment) rule.