Category Archives: Green Thoughts

Environmental compliance expert Kal Kawar’s blog

China Chemical Registration

Posted on by

As of March 1, 2013, the following must obtain an appropriate Registration Certificate for Environmental Management Registration for Hazardous Chemicals in China:

  • newly established companies that produce hazardous chemicals
  • companies using hazardous chemicals for production purposes
  • companies importing or exporting hazardous chemical.

Registration Certificates will be issued by China’s Environmental Protection divisions and will be valid for three years. Existing companies that produce or use hazardous chemicals for production purposes have a three-year transition period to complete registration— this registration is separate from the registration required by the State Administration of Work Safety and it is said to aim at better tracking of the environmental impact caused by hazardous chemicals, rather than the health and safety impact.

Perhaps the biggest concern with the new Chinese chemical policies overall is how they add to the larger international weave of chemical restrictions, standards and regulations. The way to handle China’s hazcom rules— all of them, new and future— is to make sure that the way your company handles REACH, RoHS, Prop 65, GHS and TSCA also handles any Asian restrictions as well, from South Korea to Japan to India and China.

Newbies, look out. Newly established manufacturers must register their hazardous chemicals before completion and final acceptance of their project, while importers must register before they import a hazardous chemical for the first time. And the Registration must be complete before the final acceptance of any new construction projects or expansion projects of hazardous chemical manufacturers and users.

Legacy. Entities in China that manufacture or import hazardous chemicals must register their hazardous chemicals with China’s State Administration of Work Safety and China’s Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP), while entities that use hazardous chemicals must register with China’s Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP). Hazardous chemical manufacturers and users must also engage in material disclosure, that is, public disclosure of information regarding their hazardous chemicals production and use.

Information to submit when registering includes:

  1. classification and labeling information
  2. physical and chemical properties
  3. primary use
  4. hazardous characteristics
  5. safety information for storage, use and shipment
  6. emergency response measures.

In addition, hazardous chemical manufacturers must maintain a 24-hour domestic telephone hotline to provide users with emergency consulting services and technical instructions and other assistance with respect to hazardous chemical accidents. Another option is to assign the hotline to the Chinese government.

Action. In light of these regulations, the legal firm Baker & McKenzie suggests that entities in China who are manufacturing, importing, or using hazardous chemicals should consider: Designating certain employees, or creating a specific department, to be in charge of hazardous chemical registration and ongoing compliance requirements Conduct due diligence on suppliers in China who may be subject to these requirements as part of

Supply Chain Management (SCM). Rather than setting up an entire department to manage these changing compliance requirements in Asia, we would suggest subscribing to a secure SaaS software that manages compliance for you. In the end, it’s the most cost-effective way to manage fluctuating global regulations and supplier relations around them.

About Purchasing Mining Rights in Africa’s Congo

Posted on by

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) voted last summer in favor (3-2) of a final conflict minerals regulation. This affects companies who report to the SEC and who source raw materials from areas of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) as well as certain areas in neighboring countries. As quality and data are sometimes easier to trace and manage if you own the supply, some companies are looking towards buying mining rights in the region. This is usually done on a geographical basis; but it can also be done in regards to a specific deposit.

Purchasing mining rights in the Congo

Administrative procedure. Any private party can engage in non-artisanal research or exploitation of mineral substances in the DRC provided he or she is the holder of a valid mining right (research or exploitation), which is obtained upon completion of the corresponding administrative procedure.

First come, first served. The granting of mining titles is based on a first-come, first-served basis.

By area, except when…  Applications for mining rights for a given “perimeter” (demarcated surface area with indefinite depth) composed of quadrangles or “squares” are registered in the chronological order of their filing. In exceptional cases, the minister of mines may submit to tender, open or by invitation, mining rights relating to a specific deposit.

Begin within 6 months. To maintain the validity of its mining rights, the holder must commence exploration within six months (research permit) or commence development and construction works within three years (exploitation permit) as of the date the title evidencing its right is issued, and pay the surface duty per square relating to its title at the counter of the Mining Registry. If he or she fails to fulfill any of these obligations, the holder may be deprived of its right.

Foreign vs. domestic. There are no stated distinctions between mining rights that may be acquired by domestic parties and those that may be acquired by foreign parties, except for:

  1. artisanal diggers and traders, who can only be individual DRC nationals
  2. foreign companies that are requested to incorporate a local company before they apply for an exploitation permit

Foreign parties must elect domicile with an authorized domestic mining and quarry agent and act through its intermediary.

We hope this helps give a general perspective on how possible it is or isn’t for your business to purchase DRC mining rights if needed. For some, software for supply chain traceability will do the compliance and quality trick. But others may want to go deeper into ownership of their supply chain. For more information on purchasing mining rights, may we refer you to this excellent document on the subject:

http://www.mcguirewoods.com/news-resources/publications/international/mining-drcongo.pdf  

CA Cap-and-Trade: It’s Official

Posted on by

Breaking news: the much-discussed greenhouse gas regulation known as “cap-and-trade” has arrived in the US. Chem.Info online reports that California will now require its biggest greenhouse gas offenders/emitters to start purchasing permits for emissions.

Then, the cap, or number of allowances, will decline over time in an effort to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Almost $1 billion. Roughly 39.5 million allowances are being pre-sold Nov. 14 for 2015 emissions. Roughly 23 million allowances will be sold for 2013 emissions.

The California Air Resources Board or ARB has estimated that businesses will pay a total of $964 million for allowances in fiscal year 2012-2013.

CA cap-and-trade  The program addresses refineries, power plants, industrial facilities and transportation fuels. The regulation includes an enforceable GHG cap that will decline over time, reports the AP. California’s ARB will distribute allowances, which are tradable permits, equal to the emission allowed under the cap. The ARB will monitor the program as well.

This “cap-and-trade” system is designed to do four things:

  1. control emissions of heat-trapping gases
  2. spur investment in clean technologies
  3. show that cap-and-trade can be done in the world’s ninth-largest economy
  4. provide a blueprint for other governments, nations and (inevitably) US states to follow

For the first two years of the program, large industrial emitters will receive 90% of their allowances for free. The gentle start hopes to give companies time to reduce emissions through new technologies or software-driven analysis and process improvements or other means.

Environmental laws seem to start in California and trickle eastward.  (Remember how people used to smoke cigarettes in New York City?)  So mind the cap…

New RoHS Exemption Consultation

Posted on by

There is a new consultation for RoHS exemptions going on now. It started on Friday, Nov. 9. This stakeholder consultation runs for 12 weeks from now through Feb. 1.

From Philips to Toshiba Semiconductor and Xerox, the list of interested stakeholders in the RoHS exemptions assessment is formidable, although a bit thinner than you’d expect. Note: some companies chose to remain unidentified on the public list.

Four exemption requests are covered in this new consultation:

  1. Exemption request 12 “Leaded solder utilized in stacked, area array electronics packaging within ionizing radiation detectors including CT and X-ray”
  2. Exemption request 13 “Lead in platinized platinum electrodes for measurement instruments”
  3. Exemption request 14 “Lead in solders for the ignition module and other electronic engine controls mounted directly on or close to the cylinder of hand-held engines (classes SH: 1, SH: 2, SH: 3 of 2002/88/EC)”
  4. Exemption request 15 “Hand crafted luminous discharge tubes (HLDT) used for signs, decorative or general lighting and light-artwork”

The new RoHS project hopes to minimize compliance burdens.

Go to http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/index.php?id=152 for guidance on the new exemption consultation. [A good overview of RoHS 2 is here.]

Next steps Unconfidential information submitted during the consultation will be posted on the EU CIRCA website (Browse categories > European Commission > Environment > RoHS 2012 Exemptions Review, at top left, click on “Library”). Further exchange with stakeholders will be held after the consultation has ended for those issues where further need for information and / or need for (technical) discussion has been identified.

My 2 cents It would behoove most companies to be stakeholders in this type of discussion. But the fact is that we’re all busy right now, if not “stretched.” You have to choose your battles wisely from a time management point of view— which is the main reason why every major RoHS-affected company isn’t listed as a stakeholder.

For more on this consultation, go to http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/.

Also, a Thank You to John Sharp of TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc for passing along this information.  Kudos.

Nanomaterial Assessment: Case by Case

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More information:

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

Revision of General Product Safety Directive

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s Official: US Conflict Mineral Rule

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

The final rule provides burden relief to industry by:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requirements apply equally to domestic and foreign issuers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then the company also would be required to:

• Make its description publicly available on its Internet website.

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

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

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

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

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

Then the company also would be required to:

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

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

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

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

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

• Certify that it obtained such an audit.

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

• Identify the auditor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

ECHA Modifies REACH Tonnage Calculations

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table source: courtesy ECHA

 

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

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

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

Must the SDS be in French?

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cal Prop 65 List + 2

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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