From: Plastics & Rubber Weekly

There are currently six substances outlawed in the EU. However, the European Chemicals Agency has recommended to the EU Commission adding a further 13 chemical compounds to that list.

The new list includes chemicals used in paint production, pigments, ceramics, glazes and metal processing.

The additional chemical compounds proposed for a ban are:

• Seven chromium compounds (chromium trioxide, chromic acid, sodium potassium chromate, and sodium chromate);
• Five cobalt compounds (cobalt sulphate, cobalt dichloride, cobalt dinitrate, cobalt carbonate, and cobalt diacetate); and
• The solvent trichloroethylene.

Click on the links for more information.

From: ECHA

Today, the European Chemicals Agency has added eight chemical substances to the Candidate List of Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) for Authorisation. Companies are advised to check the potential obligations that result from this listing.

Following the unanimous agreement of the Member State Committee, ECHA is adding eight substances to the Candidate List, which now contains 46 substances in total. …Companies manufacturing, importing or using these substances may have legal obligations resulting from their inclusion in the List. These obligations can apply to the listed substances on their own as well as in mixtures and in articles.

These chemicals are: Cobalt(II) sulphate, Cobalt(II) dinitrate, Cobalt (II) carbonate, Cobalt(II) diacetate, 2-Methoxyethanol, 2-Ethoxyethanol, Chromium trioxide, and acids generated from chromium trioxide and their oligomers.

Click on the links for more information.

From: EVISA

EPA filed a complaint under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) against the world’s largest producer of chromium chemicals for failing to inform the agency of findings from an epidemiological study showing a “substantial risk” of injury to health among workers exposed to hexavalent chromium (CrVI).

The September 2, 2010 notice alleges that Elementis Chromium  failed or refused to submit to EPA a study conducted for an industry trade group that showed evidence of excess lung cancer risk among workers in chromium production facilities.

EPA asserts that Elementis Chromium’s violation of TSCA 8(e) began in October 2002. Only after receiving a subpeona from EPA in August 2008 did the firm submit the study to the agency. In the current notice, EPA explains its authority for assessing a civil penalty (as much as $32,500 per day) and procedures for the company to request a formal hearing to contest the appropriateness of the penalty, and admit, deny or explain the allegations contained in the agency’s complaint.

Click on the links for more information.

Relevant Nexreg Compliance Links: CPSC compliance, OSHA MSDS authoring, MSDS authoring

From the OEHHA:

On January 18, 2008 the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) published a notice in the California Regulatory Notice Register (Register 2008, No. 3-Z) soliciting information relevant to the assessment of the evidence of developmental and reproductive toxicity for five chemicals (bisphenol A, chlorpyifos, chromium (hexavalent), DDE, and sulfur dioxide). OEHHA will begin preparation of hazard identification materials for the five chemicals with the expectation of bringing them forward to the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee at future meetings for the Committee’s consideration for listing under Proposition 65.

OEHHA has received a request to extend the comment period for bisphenol A to allow for the submittal of complete and relevant scientific information. OEHHA hereby extends the public comment period for bisphenol A to 5 p.m., Thursday, April 17, 2008. Please note that the original 60‑day public comment period initiated on January 18, 2008 for the other four chemicals will close as announced on March 18, 2008.

More information is available at the above link.

Recent Release from the OEHHA:

Announcement of Chemicals Selected by OEHHA for Consideration for Listing by the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee and Request for Relevant Information on the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity of These Chemicals: Bisphenol-A, Chlorpyrifos, Chromium, DDE, Sulfur dioxide

The California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is the lead agency for the implementation of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986* (Proposition 65). The Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DARTIC) of OEHHA’s Science Advisory Board serves as the State’s qualified experts for rendering an opinion whether a chemical has been clearly shown through scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted principles to cause reproductive toxicity. The chemicals identified by the DARTIC are added to the Proposition 65 list, which must be updated annually.

OEHHA has selected five chemicals for the Committee’s review for possible listing under Proposition 65 and is initiating the development of hazard identification materials on these chemicals…

Chemical [ CAS No. ]

Bisphenol-A [ 80-05-7 ]

Chlorpyrifos [ 2921-88-2 ]

Chromium (hexavalent) [ 18540-29-2 ]

DDE [ 72-55-9 ]

Sulfur dioxide [ 7446-09-5 ]

For more information, click on the above link.

The NHPD Monthly Communiqué – Vol. 3, Issue 4 – December 2007 is out and contains (among other things) new NHP monographs:

Recognizing the important role monographs can play both in facilitating the review and processing of product licence applications and as reliable sources of product information for consumers, the NHPD is committed to developing new monographs as well as revising and updating existing monographs to reflect new research and evidence.

Revised Single Ingredient Monographs

Revised Beta-Carotene Monograph

Revised Calcium Monograph

Revised Copper Monograph

Revised Chromium Monograph

Revised Folate Monograph

Revised Iodine Monograph

Revised Iron Monograph

Revised Green Tea Monograph

Revised Magnesium Monograph

Revised Niacin Monograph

Revised Vitamin A Monograph

Revised Vitamin B6 Monograph

Revised Vitamin B12 Monograph

Revised Zinc Monograph

Revised Product Monographs

Revised Product Monograph for Antiperspirants

Click on the above link for the full monthly release.

Electronics Supply and Manufacturing on new regulations from Norway. The full article is an absolute must-read for anyone doing business in Norway; here are the hilights:

There are six hazardous substances that the electronics industry has been struggling to phase-out for a couple of years now: lead, cadmium, mercury, hexavalent chromium, and the flame retardants polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE). This is per the European Union’s Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directive, which restricted the use of the substances in electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) to certain maximum concentration values (MCV) in homogeneous material (0.01 % by weight for cadmium and 0.1% by weight for the other five substances).

Other jurisdictions followed or are following the European Community’s example, e.g. California (except for the flame retardants), Korea and China. Most recently, Norway created a proposal for new regulations restricting the use of not less than 18 substances in consumer goods…

Within the 18 restricted substances only two — lead and cadmium — are restricted under the EU RoHS directive. The 18 substances include:

• Brominated flame retardants : hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD) and tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA)
• Chlorinated paraffins
• Arsenic (and arsenic compounds)
• Lead (and lead compounds)
• Cadmium (and cadmium compounds)
• Organic tin compounds: tributyltin compounds (TBT) and triphenyltin compounds
• Fragrance substances: musk ketone and musk xylene
• Perfluorinated compounds
• Surfactants: DTDMAC, DODMAC/DSDMAC and DHTDMAC
• Bisphenol
• Diethylhexylphtalate (DEHP)
• Pentachlorphenol
• Triclosan

More information is availabel in the full article.

A Prop 65 annoucement by the OEHHA: Chemicals Submitted to the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee for Consultation:

The California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is the lead agency for the implementation of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). In this notice, OEHHA is announcing the list of chemicals identified through the “Process for Prioritizing Chemicals for Consideration Under Proposition 65 by the State’s Qualified Experts,” which was adopted in 2004. These chemicals have been identified for possible preparation of hazard identification materials. OEHHA will consult with the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DARTIC) at meeting of the DARTIC scheduled for Monday, December 10, 2007 concerning whether to prepare hazard identification materials for any of the following chemicals:

Bisphenol-A (CAS# 80-05-7)

Bromodichloromethane (CAS# 75-27-4)

Caffeine (CAS# 58-08-2)

Chlorpyrifos (CAS# 2921-88-2)

Chromium (hexavalent) (CAS# 18540-29-2)

DDE (CAS# 72-55-9)

Methylisocyanate (CAS# 624-83-9)

Sulfur dioxide (CAS# 7446-09-5)

For the full release, see: Chemicals Submitted to the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee for Consultation.

A piece in Forbes magazine discusses the recent controversy around hexavalent chromium:

Last month, when the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued final standards for exposure to the carcinogenic chemical hexavalent chromium–the substance made infamous by the movie Erin Brockovich–industry yelped about the almost $300 million-per-year cost. But it could have been a lot worse. The original rules OSHA proposed in 2004 were far tougher and would have cost ten times as much.

Now, however, the chromium industry faces a new risk: The Environmental Protection Agency has asked for documents that could lead it to investigate the chromium industry for withholding from the government a key study supporting a stricter standard for the potentially deadly metal, a person familiar with the EPA inquiry told Forbes.

Specifically, the EPA is considering filing suit under the Toxic Substances Control Act, which requires companies to report new substantial risk information about chemicals to the government in a timely manner. There’s a precedent here: Last December, DuPont agreed to pay $10.3 million–the largest civil administrative fine in EPA history–to settle claims it had failed to report data relating to a component of Teflon.

See the full article: Forbes.com.

(Washington, D.C. – March 22, 2006) Recent news reports of an analysis of EPA data have generated significant interest in toxic air pollution. EPA has not issued a new report; the data has been available on EPA’s Web site since Feb. 22.

The data in the second National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) is not a method for comparing one area of the country to another. Rather it is an important tool to guide further local, state and federal steps to cut toxic air pollution and build upon the significant emissions reductions achieved since 1990. It is a state-of-the-science screening tool that estimates cancer and other health risks from exposure to air toxics.

The United States has made significant progress in reducing air toxics from industry, fuels and vehicles, and indoor sources. Since the Clean Air Act was amended in 1990, EPA has issued 96 standards for 174 different types of industrial sources of air toxics, including chemical plants, oil refineries, aerospace manufacturers and steel mills. The agency also has issued regulations for 15 categories of smaller sources, such as dry cleaners, commercial sterilizers, secondary lead smelters and chromium electroplating facilities. Together, these standards are projected to reduce annual emissions of air toxics by about 1.7 million tons from 1990 levels when fully implemented. It is important to note that the NATA information was based on 1999 data. Thus it does not represent seven years of progress in air quality.

Source