From Safety.BLR.com:

This year, the United Nations will be implementing the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS)–a new global system that will standardize definitions, data sheets, classification of materials, and labeling around the world. U.S. agencies will be making decisions about adopting these requirements in the U.S.

While this is ultimately good news for all concerned, in the short term the implementation of the GHS will require changes in all American workplace hazard communication programs–including all new labels and safety data sheets…

Here is a timeline of OSHA regulatory activities regarding GHS…

• Goal for publishing the proposed rulemaking is October 2008.
• Final rule could be published 12 months to 18 months after that.
• Compliance is likely to be phased in over several years.

Click on the above link for more information.

Nexreg has more information on GHS at the following link:

• GHS Strategic Planning (English)

To speak to a Nexreg representative about how GHS will impact your company, please call or e-mail Nexreg at:

Nexreg Toll Free: 1-866-361-3032
E-mail:info@nexreg.com

Relevant Nexreg Compliance Links: Nexreg, GHS Consulting.

The California Air Resources Board has called a public meeting “to discuss and evaluate technical issues surrounding potential Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emission reduction opportunities from Paint and Lacquer Thinners, Multi-purpose Solvents and so called “Packaged Solvents”.

The meeting can be attended in person or via teleconference on Wednesday August 26th.

A PDF of the meeting is available here.

From the Air Resources Board:

The following tables provide the results of the 2006 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (survey) for select categories. This table lists the total tons of VOC per day (VOC includes fragrance) reported by survey category.

The categories are as follows:

• Double-phase Air Fresheners
• Glass Cleaner (nonaerosol)
• General Purpose Cleaner (nonaerosol)
• General Purpose Degreaser (nonaerosol)
• General Purpose Degreaser
• Furniture Maintenance Product (aerosol)

From CBC News:

Despite ongoing safety concerns from parents, consumer groups and politicians, a chemical used in baby bottles, canned food and other items is not dangerous, federal regulators in the U.S. said Friday.

Food and Drug Administration scientists said the trace amounts of bisphenol A that leach out of food containers are not a threat to infants or adults. The plastic-hardening chemical is used to seal canned food and make shatterproof bottles. It also used in hundreds of household items, ranging from sunglasses to CDs…

The agency previously declared the chemical safe, but agreed to revisit that opinion after a report by the federal National Toxicology Program said there was “some concern” about its risks in infants. Based on a review of animal studies, the government working group said bisphenol can cause changes in behaviour and the brain, and that it may reduce survival and birth weight in fetuses…

Canada has announced its intention to ban the use of the chemical in baby bottles. In the spring of 2008, many retailers in Canada said they were ridding their stores of products containing bisphenol A.

U.S. lawmakers have introduced legislation to ban bisphenol in children’s products.

Click on the above link for the full story. A PDF of the draft report is available here.

An article from RSC suggests that there may be a far larger number of REACH pre-registrations than expected:

The process of pre-registration of chemicals under Reach is now accelerating amidst concerns that the Helsinki-based European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), which is responsible for running the EU scheme to regulate the production and use of chemicals, may not have enough resources to do its job properly.

The agency had problems with its IT system for pre-registration when the six-month procedure started on 1 June. Substances produced in quantities of 1 tonne or more will have to be taken off the market in the EU if they have not been pre-registered by 1 December this year.

Initially ECHA insisted the IT glitch – which prevented bulk pre-registrations – would be put right by mid-June. But the tool for submitting files of up to 500 substances was not functioning until 22 July.

By late July, 4,627 companies had made 32,191 registration covering 13,883 substances on the agency’s Reach-IT online site, according ECHA figures. ECHA has calculated that there will be around 200,000 pre-registrations, for which it has taken on 200 staff to handle. However, in the next three to four months before the pre-registration deadline expires, the pace is expected to pick up considerably so that the numbers could far exceed the agency’s own estimates.

‘We think there will be at least 500,000 and even as many as 1 million,’ says Jo Lloyd, technical director at REACHReady, the Reach service set up by the UK’s Chemical Industries Association. ‘A lot more companies than expected are preparing to pre-register.’

Click on the above link for more information.

Nexreg has more information on REACH at the following link:

• REACH Compliance Consulting

To speak to a Nexreg representative about how REACH will impact your company, please call or e-mail Nexreg at:

Nexreg Toll Free: 1-866-361-3032
Non-Toll Free: (519)488-5126 (London, ON, Canada)
E-mail:info@nexreg.com

From FlexNews:

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA has been working since 2007 on a comprehensive evaluation of flavouring substances currently in use in the European Union.

Flavourings are divided into 48 chemical groups and EFSA is evaluating each group separately, focusing on the implications of individual flavourings for human health. Since EFSA’s update in January, the former AFC[1] Panel looked at a further 15 flavouring groups. The Panel identified data gaps for some of the flavourings including carvone-5, 6 oxide (FL-no: 16.042), butyramide (FL-no:16.049), aminoacetophenone (FL-no:11.008), 5-methylfurfural (FL-no:13.001), 2-benzofurancarboxaldehyde (FL-no:13.031). These flavourings are currently used in different types of foods, including dairy products, confectionary, meat and fish products and alcoholic beverages

The Panel concluded that data currently available were insufficient to exclude genotoxic potential of these substances and is requesting that applicants provide information that will confirm that these flavourings are safe to use in foods.

Since the beginning of the evaluation, the Panel has discussed and adopted some 70 opinions on food flavourings. Some of these 70 opinions have been published and some are now undergoing final editorial changes and will be shortly published on the EFSA website. EFSA intends to complete the evaluation of all flavourings by mid-2009.

Click on the above link for the full story. More in Future not so bright for food colourants:

But i July the European parliament took a very bold step towards that ban, by adopting a legislative package that will compel the makers of products containing any of the six artificial colours named in the Southampton study to include a health warning for children on the label.

They are tartrazine ,E102, quinoline yellow, E104, sunset yellow, E110, carmoisine, E122, ponceau 4R, E124, and allura red, E129.

The warning will read: “May have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children”.

Manufacturers have 18 months to comply with the new labelling requirements.

More on the CPSC Reform Act we discussed last week. This from InjuryBoard.com:

Both the United States Senate and House of Representatives voted to pass a bill that provides for the reauthorization of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The bill includes many safety protections, including ATV (all-terrain vehicle) standards, whistleblower protection for employees of manufacturers and distributors, a ban on phthalates in children’s toys, and other mandatory toy standards. It also authorizes additional federal funding for the Commission to carry out investigations.

The American Association for Justice has been working on this legislation for the better part of a year. They worked to include language that clarifies requirements under such bills as the Consumer Product Safety Act and the Federal Hazardous Substance Act do not preempt causes of action under State or local common law, nor do they preempt State statutory law concerning damage claims. The language of the bill specifically states that the CPSC is to refrain from including any language regarding preemption in its statement of policy and executive branch orders. The legislation also states certain state laws, for example California’s Proposition 65, are not preempted. The bill is now being sent to the White House for the President’s approval, which he is expected to sign.

Click on the above link for more information.

The San Francisco Chronicle on a potential new law for workplace exposure limits in California:

An Assembly leader is pledging a down-to-the-wire fight for legislation that would require the state to adopt worker exposure standards for all known cancer-causing chemicals.

Assembly Speaker Pro Tem Sally Lieber says the measure is needed because a state board responsible for setting industrial safety standards has been guilty of “a reprehensible level of inaction” regarding California workers who are exposed to dangerous chemicals on the job.

The Mountain View Democrat’s measure, which is opposed by a powerful coalition of business groups, has stalled in past sessions, and it now languishes in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. Opponents say it is an overly broad, anti-business measure.

The legislative showdown over the bill, AB515, comes less than a month after The Chronicle published a series describing workers’ angry concerns about cancer-causing chemicals at a chemical plant in the Mojave Desert, Searles Valley Minerals. After the series appeared, several lawmakers, including Lieber, called for the state to investigate the matter.

Click on the above link for more information. The full text of AB515 is available here.

From the OEHHA:

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) of the California Environmental Protection Agency is adding gallium arsenide to the list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer and hexafluoroacetone, nitrous oxide and vinyl cyclohexene dioxide to the list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity for the purposes of Proposition 65. The listing of gallium arsenide, hexafluoroacetone, nitrous oxide and vinyl cyclohexene dioxide is effective August 1, 2008…

Cancer:

Gallium arsenide – CAS No. 1303-00-0

Reproductive Toxicity:

Hexafluoroacetone – CAS No. 684-16-2 – Male reproductive toxicity

Nitrous oxide – CAS No. 10024-97-2 – Developmental toxicity

Vinyl cyclohexene dioxide – CAS No. 106-87-6 – Female and male reproductive toxicity

Click on the above link for more information.

The Guardian has a fairly standard article on the burden REACH is placing on companies. One interesting discussion is the number of pre-registrations that have been sent in:

Dancet’s agency has around 200 staff and aims to add an additional 50 before the year end to handle the flurry of enquiries and pre-registrations that will have to be submitted before 1 of December this year.

“There are enormous numbers of questions coming to our helpdesk … it has been a rather difficult issue to manage over the past year,” Dancet told Reuters in an interview.

Already some 40,000 pre-registrations have been submitted and Dancet expected some 150,000 to 200,000 before the year end.

“We will discuss with our network of national helpdesks how to tackle the continuing increase of questions — potentially it will only get worse,”

Click on the above link for more information.