Life Cycle Thinking Blog - TSCA

EPA has convinced itself it can’t use TSCA to do risk management, even though it has plenty of authority. It just needs to do its homework and do some rulemaking.

Flame retardants set for 2013 TSCA focus

EPA has published another batch of 37 Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) on chemicals that had been premanufacture noticed (PMN’d). Only 17 of them had consent orders. Isocyanates, siloxanes, nanocarbons predominate.

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

EPA declassified chemical identities in a few more health and safety studies and made some pretty graphs: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/transparency-charts.html

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.

EPA news item:

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.

Draft risk assessments have been announced by EPA under their new Work Plan to begin tackling 83 chemicals. These are open for public comment and will be peer-reviewed. EPA may or may not take action to restrict uses under TSCA after the assessments are completed. In the meantime, the press release says:

“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.

As expected, the direct final rule requiring reporting “health and safety studies” under TSCA 8(d) for anything with cadmium in it was too controversial.

EPA has withdrawn this final rule as of Dec 14, 2012 – too controversial!

ATTENTION ARTICLE MAKERS!

EPA today released a final rule that requires reporting of “health and safety studies” under TSCA section 8(d) for cadmium and its compounds in consumer products. This is a little broader than the lead rule that focused on children’s products (40 CFR 716.21(a)(8)).

EPA is on a tear issuing Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) under TSCA. Mostly for new chemicals that hit triggers under PMN reviews. Make sure you are reading notifications from suppliers – often on MSDS – that may affect how you can use the chemical (e.g., workplace protections and disposal restrictions) and trigger export notifications to EPA under section 12.

Updated TSCA e-CFR (electronic Code of Federal Regulations) links can be found on EHS Strategies, Inc.’s webpage TSCA Quick Links. The Government Printing Office seems determined to move around the urls for TSCA.

Even EPA can’t keep up with the changes on their websites! EPA’s page on section 8(d) health and safety studies reporting links 40 CFR 716 to

PART 407—CANNED AND PRESERVED FRUITS AND VEGETABLES PROCESSING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY