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 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.

ECHA Submits New CLP Report

Posted on by

Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) Regulation (CLP overview here) update:  the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) submitted its study on communication of information on the safe use of chemicals to the general public.  Submissions go to the European Commission (EC).

This CLP study provides insights on how to further improve hazard communication to EU citizens.  Here are highlights and key points of the :

  1. Awareness among the general public of the new international hazard labels which appear on the packaging of chemical substances is mostly low but consumers rarely purchase these chemicals, the labels are relatively new and awareness will surely grow. However, work is needed at national, industry and EU level both to raise awareness and, crucially, understanding of what the labels mean.
  2. The perception of hazards varies among countries as well as between specific sub-groups of the general public. Awareness-raising activities therefore need to address national hazard perception patterns as well as the differing approaches to hazards exhibited by specific audiences such as families, single households, workers, school children, etc.
  3. Most people make their choices on the safe use and storage of household chemical products on the basis of their acquaintance with the product as well as other emotional drivers which rely more on experience than on information found on the package. Awareness-raising activities therefore also need to take into account these emotional and experienced-based drivers.
  4. Further analysis of the impact of the hazard labels on EU citizens’ behavior and understanding could be useful after 2015 – the date by which new labels must have replaced the old ones on all chemical mixtures like paint and glues for example.

CLP and product packaging

CLP timeline

The CLP report by ECHA specifies that industry should be encouraged to bring product appearance and packaging more in line with the hazard information on labels, making use of behavioral drivers to amplify the label’s message, thereby promoting the appropriate safety behavior in consumers.  Interestingly, this comes in conjunction with MEPs in Europe voting “no” to relaxing food labelling opportunity for food manufacturers: On Feb. 2 MEPs voted to ditch a European Commission plan for giving food producers new choices to promote products as having less fat, sugar or salt.

Changes to the CLP labels themselves are not recommended in the report.  The study concluded there’s more benfit to allowing the public to get used to the new labelling system – now in use globally – steadily improving the overall understanding of hazards posed by chemicals and encouraging safer use of chemicals, household chemicals in particular.

Follow up According to CLP Regulation Article 34, the European Commission will, on the basis of the study, submit a report to the European Parliament and the European Council in order to, if justified, present a legislative proposal to amend the Regulation.

Salaries in Environmental Risk Management and Related Fields

Posted on by

The median annual salary for a Certified Industrial Hygienist in the USA is $72,356, according to good sources.*  It’s $76,000 per year according to other good sources.**  And some sources, like www.Indeed.com, said it’s $100,000/year.

Given that Environmental Risk Manager is a hot term for — well — someone responsible for a large part of the EHS responsibilities, we researched that title.  Notably, we discovered that Risk Management salaries in general are skyrocketing – as this graphic shows.  But more specific to us, we discovered that the average salary for an Environmental Risk Manager is around $75,000/year ($80,000/year in Chicago).

Then we wondered how this figure was arrived at, and some interesting components came up.  The following graphic is interesting on three levels:  One, because of the salary numbers.  Two, because of the parts deemed associated with an Environmental Risk Manager. And three, because key terms can bolster a bio or CV, anyone freshening up a resume might notice the words “process” and “engineer” are worth some money.

Another salary breakdown: an Environmental Standard Risk Management Development Manager Salary in Chicago, IL averages $90,000/year.  An obscure title, good, because we can look at its parts and get a lot of data.  Do note that the midwest tends to be the lowest geographical segment according to pay scale surveys that break down this kind of thing.

Analysis:  the salary gap  A background in EHS has probably given any professional a perspective on Risk Management.  You might consider re-orienting your bio in that direction for 2012.  That phrase on your CV may put you in a different category where more hiring is happening and the salaries are comparable.

It’s important to emphasize the word “environment,” but always with a “risk management” appendage, to show potential employers that you care about environment, health and safety but you wear shoes, not sandals (but not combat boots either)!

Of course, you can’t call yourself an “engineer” if you aren’t one, but remember that a process can be “engineered.” Also someone has to “engineer” a quality or compliance program.  Just saying.

Another key word for a higher salary we noticed is “strategy.”  If you can “strategize” and “create and drive programs,” you may be wordsmithing your way into a higher tax bracket.  Use these words in 2012!

Finally, one suggestion is to scan the above salary lists and also job descriptions online, like this CIH job post from PepsiCo, and see what other phrases are being used.  Use them.  Then talk your way into a higher salary in 2012.

Happy New Year, everybody.

Guest blogger K.M. Hurley is the Director of Corporate Communications at Actio Corporation.

References

* http://www1.salary.com/Industrial-Hygienist-Salary.html

** http://ohshub.com/average-salaries-industrial-hygienist-certified-safety-professional-ehs-manager/

List of Lists: State by State Chemicals of Concern

Posted on by

The eternal quest for the constantly updated, fact-checked and inter-regional management of chemical data in today’s industry (without paying for it) has just taken a small step forward.  New England’s Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association or NEWMOA has produced a Chemicals of Concern List-of-Lists, if you will.  It’s live, accurate, and includes data from three states: Washington, Minnesota and Maine — three of the hardest working states on the issue of chemical contamination, particularly as it affects, or potentially affects, children’s health.  (Sources say NEWMOA plans to add California chemicals of concern later this year.)

Meanwhile, the current NEWMOA list of lists is here.

Have a look, and share this blog post with colleagues.  Get the message out.

The Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association (NEWMOA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan interstate association whose membership consists of the hazardous waste, solid waste, waste site cleanup, and pollution prevention program directors for the environmental agencies in New England states plus a few, like New York and New Jersey.

NEWMOA’s Mercury Reduction Program, for instance, provides useful information and resources regarding mercury reduction in industry, schools and at home.

Free chemical lists. In the past, managing lists of lists has proven so complex and time consuming that only private companies have been able to stay with it over time.  Such companies sell chemical lists and compliance management capabilities for tens of thousands of dollars in annual subscription rates.  Some nonprofits like NEWMOA are wrangling chemical regulatory lists so the public can use them — for free.  Kudos.  Not an easy job due to the constantly-changing nature of the beast(s).

Washington Chemicals of Concern. To implement the Children’s Safe Products Act (CSPA), Washington Ecology developed a High Priority Chemicals list consisting of chemicals identified by a state agency, federal agency, or accredited research university, or other scientific evidence deemed authoritative by the department on the basis of credible scientific evidence as known to do one or more of six criteria outlined in CSPA (70.240.010 (6)).

Washington Ecology, in consultation with the WA Department of Health, then developed a refined list of High Priority Chemicals that manufacturers must report on under the CSPA. This list, the Reporting List of Chemicals of High Concern to Children, includes chemicals that are toxic and have either been found in children’s products or have been documented to be present in human tissue (blood, breast milk, etc.). Of course, the mere presence of these chemicals in children’s products doesn’t necessarily indicate risk of harm; but Washington figured the potential danger to children is worth using these instances as a start point.

Maine Chemicals of Concern. As directed by Maine law, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in concurrence with the Department of Health and Human Services, Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has published a list of Maine Chemicals of Concern. A chemical may be included on the list if it has been identified by an authoritative governmental entity on the basis of credible scientific evidence as being known as a carcinogen, a reproductive or developmental toxicant or an endocrine disruptor; persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic; or very persistent and very bioaccumulative.

In June 2011, the law setting forth criteria for the designation of chemicals of high concern was amended by passage of LD 1129. The list of Chemicals of High Concern will be published July 2012.

Minnesota Chemicals of Concern. The Minnesota Chemicals of High Concern list contains a variety of chemicals such as pesticides, dyes, solvents, plasticizers, flame retardants, and many others. Each chemical has at least one hazard characteristic that causes it to qualify for the list, such as being neurotoxic, immunotoxic, or being persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic.

California Chemicals of Concern. More on California Prop 65 Chemicals List is available, scroll down page at link for a viewable and downloadable PDF document to have on hand for your records.

REACH Is Rolling: 20 New SVHCs With 1 Endocrine Disruptor

Posted on by

There are four key takeaways from today’s REACH news that 20 new chemicals have been added to the Candidate List for a total of 73:

  1. Companies need to notify ECHA of uses around 20 new chemicals, deadline: June 2012
  2. Endocrine disruptor chemicals are making the List, thus are now targets for restriction (so look out BPA and the like)
  3. Chemicals can be put directly on the REACH Candidate List without a comment period (so be ready!)
  4. Companies need to be ready for the likelihood of SIN listers being restricted soon and without much warning.

Endocrine disruption. Today, officially, 4-tert-octylphenol was added to the REACH Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) Candidate List.  4-tert-octylphenol was added to the Candidate List along with 19 other chemicals (listed below) for a total of 20 new substances of very high concern, octylphenol has a unique significance because it is the first Endocrine Disrupting Chemical (EDC) to be added to the REACH SVHC list.

The inclusion of 4-tert-octylphenol on the Candidate List opens the doors for the increased regulation of other EDCs.  A number of other chemicals can be classified as EDCs including:

  1. Dioxin and dioxin-like compounds
  2. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
  3. DDT and other pesticides
  4. Bisphenol A and other plasticizers

The endocrine system includes glands and hormones which regulate vital functions including growth, sexual development and behavior, metabolism, and reproduction. According to some, such as the National Institute on Environmental Health Sciences, EDCs are chemicals that may interfere with the body’s endocrine system and produce adverse effects — developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune system — in both humans and wildlife.  (View a comprehensive list of chemicals linked to endocrine disruption here.)

Companies can help ensure they’re prepared for any changes to the SVHC list by collecting supplier data on chemical ingredients as part of their quality assurance systems.

SVHC List REACHes 73. With 73 chemicals now listed, companies may have new legal obligations resulting from the inclusion of substances in the Candidate List. The obligations may apply to the listed substances on their own, in mixtures or in articles.  For starters:

Producers and importers of articles have six months from today to notify ECHA by 19 June 2012 if both of the following conditions apply:

  • the substance is present in those articles in quantities totaling over one tonne per producer or importer per year and
  • the substance is present in those articles above a concentration of 0.1 % weight by weight

There are exemptions from the notification obligation if the substance is already registered for the use or when exposure can be excluded.

Among the recent 20 additions, 12 substances have been included in the Candidate List following the unanimous agreement of the Member State Committee, while the other eight did not receive comments challenging the identification as SVHC during public consultation, but were added to the list directly.

The 20 new chemicals on the REACH Candidate List are:

  1. Zirconia Aluminosilicate Refractory Ceramic Fibres
  2. Calcium arsenate
  3. Bis(2-methoxyethyl) ether
  4. Aluminosilicate Refractory Ceramic Fibres
  5. Potassium hydroxyoctaoxodizincatedichromate
  6. Lead dipicrate
  7. N,N-dimethylacetamide
  8. Arsenic acid
  9. 2-Methoxyaniline; o-Anisidine
  10. Trilead diarsenate
  11. 1,2-dichloroethane
  12. Pentazinc chromate octahydroxide
  13. 4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)phenol
  14. Formaldehyde, oligomeric reaction products with aniline
  15. Bis(2-methoxyethyl) phthalate
  16. Lead diazide, Lead azide
  17. Lead styphnate
  18. 2,2′-dichloro-4,4′-methylenedianiline
  19. Phenolphthalein
  20. Dichromium tris(chromate)

Companies can refer to the ECHA website for potential legal obligations resulting from the inclusion of substances in the Candidate List. If handling REACH is becoming too onerous, consider a REACH software solution or contact one of the many consultants on the subject. Consider joining an online forum of experts such as this LinkedIn Group — and communicating with colleagues about best practices in solving REACH. A little planning and foresight goes a long way, especially as REACH gets bigger and bigger.  A pandemic, as someone we all know called it.

This article was co-authored by Pat King, who holds a bachelor’s in environmental science from Saint Laurence University.