Despite the continuing debate about which chemicals are toxic and which aren’t, the EPA is issuing new chemical notices. Two such notices were recently issued in the Federal Register determining that 28 new chemical notifications are “not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment (82 Fed Reg. 19044 and 19046). Yet some 700-800 pre-manufacture notices (PMN) are generated annually; those 28 substances represent a drop in the bucket. It’s good that the EPA is managing to get some scientific results finalized, not so good that they appear to be avoiding PMNs that might require restrictions.

This snail’s pace is not really the EPA’s fault. President Trump’s election and subsequent dramatic budget cuts to EPA programs have sown confusion throughout the agency.

The Chemical Safety Act spent years being argued and revised before finally being signed into law in June 2016. It was designed to replace the existing and woefully out-of-date Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) with contemporary science, new safety standards, increased chemical transparency and consistent funding to drive a cleaner, safer environment. Yet TSCA is virtually on hold, frozen in a mire of budget controversy.

The Chemical Safety Board (CSB) is on the verge of elimination, not because it is not valuable, but because it points out poor industry risk management activities that result in accidents and death. President Trump wants to sweep the CSB and its findings under the rug.

The EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program, which assesses the risks of toxic chemicals, is also targeted for elimination. In an IRIS assessment, the agency provides expert scientific judgments on how much exposure to a particular chemical is safe. EPA regulators in the U.S. and abroad use these numbers to establish cleanup levels for pollution in air, water and soil. In the U.S., IRIS values affect the affordability and degree of cleanups as well as a polluter’s financial liability. But it too is on the chopping block.

The list goes on, slashing program after program, removing bans on toxic substances (such as lead in bullets), removing corporate accountability, removing scientific scrutiny. President Trump’s dislike (and lack of understanding) of science and the regulatory environment appears to be the motivation for the budget reductions. But if he thinks that reducing regulatory oversight is going to be good for U.S. business, he’s wrong.

As the world becomes a circular interconnected marketplace, the challenge of addressing global concerns has gained urgency, propelling standards such as the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) that ensure understanding and consistency worldwide. U.S. regulations are intimately tied into this global regulatory environment. Rolling back regulations will damage U.S. opportunities overseas. Products containing toxic materials will not be allowed into countries that have moved forward with their environmental laws. The European Chemical Agency’s (ECHA) REACH regulation, for instance, requires importers to provide comprehensive substance identification, encourages the use of safe chemical alternatives, and restricts the import of toxic Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC). Lead is on the list, which means that those lead bullets will not be allowed for sale in the European Union (EU). Other countries around the world are developing similar regulations and restrictions. Where’s the business benefit? There isn’t one for going backward, only forward. And this is not the direction the EPA appears to be going.

Approving substances such as those in the recent PMN notices is just one small part of the EPA’s responsibilities. The agency should be restricting toxic substances, such as lead, not removing restrictions that have the potential to make the entire U.S. a Superfund environment.

Published by Helen Gillespie

After many years of delay, the Canadian government recently announced that it will enact a comprehensive ban on asbestos and asbestos-containing products by 2018. The country’s long history of asbestos mining had ended when its two last asbestos mines closed in 2011. However, asbestos itself and its use in products was not banned, despite years of pressure from health advocates for the group of carcinogenic minerals to be outlawed.

Citing the need to protect the health and safety of Canadians, the government said it is developing new regulations that will ban the manufacture, use, import and export of asbestos under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CETA). Also planned are new federal workplace health and safety rules to drastically limit the risk of exposure to asbestos. In addition, an existing list of asbestos-containing buildings that are federally owned or leased will be expanded, and national, provincial and territorial building codes will be updated to prohibit the use of asbestos in new construction and renovation projects.

In April, the federal government took another step when it updated its international position on the listing of asbestos as a hazardous material and supported the listing of chrysotile asbestos to the Rotterdam Convention.

“By supporting the listing of chrysotile asbestos to the Rotterdam Convention, Canada is taking a concrete step to promote responsible management of this harmful substance globally,” said Catherine McKenna, minister of environment and climate change. “In Canada, we will also put in place regulatory measures to protect the health and safety of Canadians as we move forward toward a ban on asbestos.”

Now a consultation document has been published that outlines the proposed regulatory approach and solicits stakeholders’ views on the proposed measures.  The document asks for comments within 45 days of its publication. Following that, proposed regulations will be published by December 2017 and final regulations in the fall of 2018.

The proposed regulations would target asbestos, defined as any fibrous form of mineral silicates belonging to the serpentine or amphibole groups of rock-forming minerals including actinolite asbestos; amosite; anthophyllite asbestos; chrysotile; crocidolite; and tremolite asbestos. New stand-alone regulations under section 93 CEPA would prohibit the import, use, sale and offer for sale of asbestos, as well as the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale and import of products containing asbestos. The export of all types of asbestos and products containing asbestos would also be prohibited.

The consultation document can be viewed on Environment and Climate Change Canada’s website.

The challenges of defining and managing chemicals in today’s interconnected global environment are more difficult than ever before. Despite the publication of the TSCA (Toxic Chemical Substances Act) regulation in the United States, the recent political changes are casting doubt on how or what will be changed, despite the pressing need for change.

Regardless of what is happening in the US concerning chemical regulations, the European Commission (EC) has been intent on removing and reducing toxic substances from industrial products that are manufactured in and imported into Europe. To this end, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) was formed to draft and manage a new regulation for monitoring this process: REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals).

REACH establishes procedures for collecting and assessing information on chemical substance hazards and risks

It requires companies to register the substances they manufacture in, or import into, Europe above one tonne a year. The goal is to gather information on chemicals within the European Union (EU) in order to manage chemical risks in a meaningful way, as well as to promote the gradual substitution of the most toxic substances.

What makes the regulation different from most is that REACH is not a voluntary standard. It places the burden of proof on industry to demonstrate that a substance is safe.

Rather than acting as a watchdog and demonstrating that a substance is unsafe, ECHA is evaluating the chemical data that the manufacturer provides. As a result, there is now a much better understanding of chemical substances, with the most dangerous substances being replaced with safer alternatives.

One of the greatest hurdles REACH is addressing is the cost to comply. It is not only expensive to reconfigure a product or substitute a less toxic substance, it is also expensive and time-consuming to provide the information to REACH. Historically, businesses have been more focused on profits than product safety so any additional cost that impacts their bottom line is met with resistance.

The REACH regulation and the challenges and issues surrounding chemicals management will be addressed at the upcoming Helsinki Chemicals Forum (HCF), the leading international discussion forum for chemicals safety and sound chemicals management.

HCF not only provides a forum to examine the REACH standard within Europe, but also how it fits within the global community of new standards that many countries are implementing to better manage chemical safety and reduce exposure to toxic substances.

HCF 2017 will be held from 8-9 June, 2017 at the Messukeskus Helsinki Convention Centre in Helsinki, Finland. The two-day event addresses opportunities and challenges for chemicals regulation, with panels covering the United Nation’s 2020 goals on chemicals management, sustainable development, chemical assessments, chemical risk and much more. An international collection of speakers from regulatory bodies, industry associations and NGOs will provide insights, with speakers from ECHA, the US EPA, Environment Canada, CEFIC, OECD and many more.

For more information about HCF, visit http://www.helsinkicf.eu.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new Administrator Scott Pruitt is supporting an industry request to delay and further review the amended chemical safety regulation. This regulation came about in response to the 2013 West, Texas chemical-related explosion and imposes stricter requirements for industry-prepared risk management plans. The amendment, called the Chemical Storage rule, zeroes in on accidental release prevention requirements by specifically focusing on safe chemical storage.

Regulations already exist to reduce chemical management risk, but these haven’t prevented lack of safety procedures, safety plans or accidents. When these occur, it is not necessarily the business that suffers but everyone else. For instance, the West, Texas explosion caused by poorly stored ammonium nitrate may have destroyed the plant and put the fertilizer company out of business, but it had a deeper impact on the surrounding community because it not only resulted in the deaths of 15 workers, but also damaged buildings for miles around. Greater oversight would have unearthed and corrected the problem and reduced risk.

The delay in implementing the Chemical Storage rule was pushed by chemical industry lobbyists who complained that the rule could make it easier for terrorists and other criminals to target refineries, chemical plants and other facilities by requiring companies to make public the types and quantities of chemicals stored on site. This is nonsense. Such information is already required by chemical management rules, including the Department of Homeland Security’s Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standard (CFATS), 6 CFR Part 27, which provides just such oversight already but only if the chemical exceeds threshold quantities. If those quantities aren’t reported – which is often the case – then either CFATS should be strengthened or the Chemical Storage rule should be implemented.

Frankly, businesses do not provide enough information now about chemicals on site. Many of these chemical substances are not stored correctly or kept in areas where they should not. Take, for instance, the 2014 chemical spill of crude 4-methylcyclohexamenthanol (MCHM) that was released into the Elk River in West Virginia upstream of the principal water intake and treatment plant for the region. Oops. Not only was the MCHM stored in an aging compromised container (bad), it was stored in an inappropriate location (very bad). It would have cost Freedom Industries, the company that stored the MCGM, money to either replace the storage container or move the substance to a different location. That’s what the lobbyists are really objecting to, that poor chemical management will be revealed and that businesses will need to improve their chemical management activities. Which will cost money to implement. Money that’s not been budgeted and which will cut into profits.

Hazardous chemical incidents occur frequently. More than 1,500 chemical releases or explosions were reported from 2004 to 2013, causing 58 deaths and more than 17,000 injuries, according to the Environmental Justice Health Alliance, an advocacy group. That’s an accident rate of almost 14 a month or every other day. How can this possibly be acceptable?

The public is the one who pays after an incident, not the perpetrator. Right now businesses are already required to submit reports concerning the types and quantities of chemicals stored on site. Many different regulations already require this, but it is difficult to ensure compliance when there is little oversight. For instance, Fire Code regulations require that this information be provided annually in order for first responders to accurately respond to any incidents. The proposed Chemical Storage rule simply tightens the safety requirements. Any claims that it impedes business is a smokescreen for non-compliance. All such facilities already have security measures in place to prevent unauthorized access. Delaying the EPA Chemical Storage rule would not divert resources from existing safety programs if those programs aren’t in fact ensuring safety in the first place.

Posted by Helen Gillespie