Government Regulation
May 10, 2019
FR Debate in MA
Lawmakers restart flame retardant bill debate
BOSTON — Four months after a bill restricting chemical flame retardants died on Gov. Charlie Baker’s desk, its proponents are again making their health-related case to lawmakers as industry representatives continue to voice concerns.
“We hope this bill comes out early, really early, so we all have an opportunity to stand tall, and if we need to, override any vetoes,” Sen. Cynthia Creem told the Public Health Committee on Tuesday.
At the very end of the last two-year legislative session, on New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day, lawmakers worked to send Baker a bill that would prohibit the manufacture or sale of children’s products, household furniture and bedding that contain 11 chemical flame retardants. Despite a push by the 12,000-member Professional Fire Fighters of Massachusetts, Baker pocket vetoed the bill and said he would have returned it with an amendment had time not run out.
“Now we have another chance,” said Creem, who along with Rep. Marjorie Decker refiled a version of the bill (H 3500, S 1230) this year.
Supporters have said the flame retardants targeted by the bill are unnecessary and can pose health risks to firefighters and children.
Creem, a Newton Democrat, and Decker, a Cambridge Democrat, testified alongside Professional Fire Fighters of Massachusetts President Richard MacKinnon, who said firefighters now deal with “a far more toxic soot” than in years past and face higher risks of cancer diagnosis and cancer death than the general public. Cancer is the leading cause of death for firefighters, MacKinnon said.
“The hazards of these flame retardants presented are not new,” MacKinnon said. “However, we are learning more and more each day that these chemicals pose a greater risk than we ever thought we ever could have imagined. Exposure to these chemicals in performance of our duties and the resulting cancers associated with the exposure is the greatest threat to firefighters in Massachusetts and across the country.”
Baker wrote in a message to lawmakers in January that he looked forward to working with sponsors and stakeholders on a revised version. He said last session’s bill would have made Massachusetts the only state “to ban certain flame retardants in car seats and the non-foam parts of adult mattresses, products already subject to federal flammability requirements” and took issue with the June 1 implementation date.
Trade groups representing chemical companies, the electronics and technology industry, makers of children’s products, and mattress manufacturers testified against the bill.
Ryan Trainer, president of the International Sleep Products Association, said the bill, if passed, could force the redesign and remerchandising of many mattress styles, which would “cause commercial confusion,” raise prices for consumers and hurt manufacturing and retail businesses.
Joseph Colella of the Juvenile Product Manufacturers Association said the 13 other states that have moved forward on flame retardant bans have exempted child car seats, which are regulated separately and could become more expensive if other flame retardants had to be used.
Representing the Consumer Technology Association, Dan Moyer said some chemicals listed in the bill are needed for circuit boards and electronic parts that carry currents or are near parts that carry currents. He said other states exempt consumer electronics and that while such an exemption was in last session’s bill, it is not this year.
Decker asked the committee to advance the bill in its current form and not carve out any particular products.
“The carve-outs are a game that we play when we’re at the 11th hour and we’re hoping to get something done,” Decker said. “A favorable recommendation is believing the science, a favorable recommendation is standing with pediatricians and children, and a favorable recommendation is standing with firefighters who every day risk their lives without ever complaining. They’re the only people in the world who run into a fire, and they’re asking us to take the science seriously and help protect their lives.”
https://www.gloucestertimes.com/news/local_news/lawmakers-restart-flame-retardant-bill-debate/article_6610b8f4-d345-5c52-9458-2f3fd528d491.html
April 23, 2019
Proposed Spray Foam Practices in Canada
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999
Notice with respect to the Proposed Code of Practice for Certain Methylenediphenyl Diisocyanates in Low-Pressure Two-Component Spray Polyurethane Foam Products
Whereas a screening assessment of benzene, 1,1′-methylenebis[4-isocyanato-; benzene, 1,1′-methylenebis[2-isocyanato-; benzene, 1-isocyanato-2-[(4-isocyanatophenyl)methyl]-; benzene, 1,1′-methylenebis[isocyanato-; and isocyanic acid, polymethylenepolyphenylene ester conducted under section 74 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 has concluded that the substances meet one or more of the criteria set out in section 64 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999;
Whereas on April 6, 2019, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health (the ministers) published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, a statement under subsection 77(6) of the Act indicating their intention to recommend that benzene, 1,1′-methylenebis[4-isocyanato-; benzene, 1,1′-methylenebis[2-isocyanato-; benzene, 1-isocyanato-2-[(4-isocyanatophenyl)methyl]-; benzene, 1,1′-methylenebis[isocyanato-; and isocyanic acid, polymethylenepolyphenylene ester be added to the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999;
And whereas subsection 91(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 requires a regulation or instrument respecting preventive or control action for this substance be proposed and published;
Pursuant to subsection 55(3) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, notice is hereby given that the Minister of Health is issuing the following proposed Code of Practice under subsection 55(1) of that Act:
Proposed Code of Practice for Certain Methylenediphenyl Diisocyanates in Low-Pressure Two-Component Spray Polyurethane Foam Products
Electronic copies of this proposed Code of Practice may be downloaded from the Consulting Canadians (Canada.ca) web page.
Any person may, within 60 days after publication of this notice, file with the Minister of the Environment written comments on the measure the ministers propose to take and on the scientific considerations on the basis of which the measure is proposed. More information regarding the scientific considerations may be obtained from the Canada.ca (Chemical Substances) website. All comments must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice and be sent to the Executive Director, Program Development and Engagement Division, Department of the Environment, Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0H3, by fax to 819‑938‑5212, or by email to ec.substances.ec@canada.ca. Comments can also be submitted to the Minister of the Environment using the online reporting system available through Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Single Window.
In accordance with section 313 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, any person who provides information in response to this notice may submit with the information a request that it be treated as confidential.
Gwen Goodier
Acting Director General
Science and Risk Assessment Directorate
On behalf of the Minister of the Environment
David Morin
Director General
Safe Environments Directorate
On behalf of the Minister of Health
Read more here: http://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2019/2019-04-06/html/notice-avis-eng.html#na3
April 23, 2019
Proposed Spray Foam Practices in Canada
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999
Notice with respect to the Proposed Code of Practice for Certain Methylenediphenyl Diisocyanates in Low-Pressure Two-Component Spray Polyurethane Foam Products
Whereas a screening assessment of benzene, 1,1′-methylenebis[4-isocyanato-; benzene, 1,1′-methylenebis[2-isocyanato-; benzene, 1-isocyanato-2-[(4-isocyanatophenyl)methyl]-; benzene, 1,1′-methylenebis[isocyanato-; and isocyanic acid, polymethylenepolyphenylene ester conducted under section 74 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 has concluded that the substances meet one or more of the criteria set out in section 64 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999;
Whereas on April 6, 2019, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health (the ministers) published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, a statement under subsection 77(6) of the Act indicating their intention to recommend that benzene, 1,1′-methylenebis[4-isocyanato-; benzene, 1,1′-methylenebis[2-isocyanato-; benzene, 1-isocyanato-2-[(4-isocyanatophenyl)methyl]-; benzene, 1,1′-methylenebis[isocyanato-; and isocyanic acid, polymethylenepolyphenylene ester be added to the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999;
And whereas subsection 91(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 requires a regulation or instrument respecting preventive or control action for this substance be proposed and published;
Pursuant to subsection 55(3) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, notice is hereby given that the Minister of Health is issuing the following proposed Code of Practice under subsection 55(1) of that Act:
Proposed Code of Practice for Certain Methylenediphenyl Diisocyanates in Low-Pressure Two-Component Spray Polyurethane Foam Products
Electronic copies of this proposed Code of Practice may be downloaded from the Consulting Canadians (Canada.ca) web page.
Any person may, within 60 days after publication of this notice, file with the Minister of the Environment written comments on the measure the ministers propose to take and on the scientific considerations on the basis of which the measure is proposed. More information regarding the scientific considerations may be obtained from the Canada.ca (Chemical Substances) website. All comments must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice and be sent to the Executive Director, Program Development and Engagement Division, Department of the Environment, Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0H3, by fax to 819‑938‑5212, or by email to ec.substances.ec@canada.ca. Comments can also be submitted to the Minister of the Environment using the online reporting system available through Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Single Window.
In accordance with section 313 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, any person who provides information in response to this notice may submit with the information a request that it be treated as confidential.
Gwen Goodier
Acting Director General
Science and Risk Assessment Directorate
On behalf of the Minister of the Environment
David Morin
Director General
Safe Environments Directorate
On behalf of the Minister of Health
Read more here: http://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2019/2019-04-06/html/notice-avis-eng.html#na3
February 27, 2019
EPA Update
EPA Releases First Major Update to Chemicals List in 40 Years
February 26, 2019
On Feb. 19, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an update of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory listing the chemicals that are actively being manufactured, processed and imported in the United States. A key result of the update is that less than half of the total number of chemicals on the current TSCA Inventory – 47 percent or 40,655 of the 86,228 chemicals – are currently active in commerce. It will be illegal for companies to manufacture, import or mix chemicals not designated as “active in commerce.” EPA’s TSCA Inventory Reset rule established the process by which substances on the TSCA Inventory are designated as “active” or “inactive.” Now that the TSCA Inventory has been “reset,” no one is permitted to manufacture or process an inactive chemical substance without first submitting a notification to EPA.
The final inventory will be in effect on May 20, 2019. As of the effective date, companies must submit a Form B notification prior to manufacturing or processing a chemical with an inactive designation. In the interim period, EPA will accept any corrections to the inventory also on a Form B submission. EPA has not provided information about enforcement after the 90-day phase in period.
As recently as 2018, the TSCA Inventory showed over 86,000 chemicals available for commercial production and use in the United States. Until this update, it was not known which of these chemicals on the TSCA Inventory were in commerce. Under amended TSCA – The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21 Century Act – EPA was required to update the list and designate which chemicals are active or inactive in U.S. commerce.
More than 80 percent (32,898) of the chemicals in commerce have identities that are not Confidential Business Information (CBI), increasing public access to additional information about them. For the less than 20 percent of the chemicals in commerce that have confidential identities, EPA is developing a rule outlining how the Agency will review and substantiate all CBI claims seeking to protect the specific chemical identities of substances on the confidential portion of the TSCA Inventory.
From August 11, 2017 through October 5, 2018, chemical manufacturers and processors provided information on which chemicals were manufactured, imported or processed in the United States over the past 10 years, the period ending June 21, 2016. The agency received more than 90,000 responses, which represents a significant reporting effort by manufacturers, importers and processors.
Next Batch of High Priority Chemicals
EPA is expected to publish its next list of 20 high priority candidate chemicals by March 22, 2019. EPA must decide at least 10 of these from the remaining TSCA workplan chemicals, although it will probably select more than 10, if not all 20, from the TSCA workplan. EPA will select chemicals like the first 10, such as solvents or pigments. Several workplan chemicals are relevant to paints, coatings, sealants and adhesives, as noted in the following table.
ACA will remain engaged with EPA as it considers chemicals from its TSCA workplan.
Contact ACA’s Riaz Zaman for more information.
https://www.paint.org/tsca-update-list/
February 27, 2019
EPA Update
EPA Releases First Major Update to Chemicals List in 40 Years
February 26, 2019
On Feb. 19, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an update of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory listing the chemicals that are actively being manufactured, processed and imported in the United States. A key result of the update is that less than half of the total number of chemicals on the current TSCA Inventory – 47 percent or 40,655 of the 86,228 chemicals – are currently active in commerce. It will be illegal for companies to manufacture, import or mix chemicals not designated as “active in commerce.” EPA’s TSCA Inventory Reset rule established the process by which substances on the TSCA Inventory are designated as “active” or “inactive.” Now that the TSCA Inventory has been “reset,” no one is permitted to manufacture or process an inactive chemical substance without first submitting a notification to EPA.
The final inventory will be in effect on May 20, 2019. As of the effective date, companies must submit a Form B notification prior to manufacturing or processing a chemical with an inactive designation. In the interim period, EPA will accept any corrections to the inventory also on a Form B submission. EPA has not provided information about enforcement after the 90-day phase in period.
As recently as 2018, the TSCA Inventory showed over 86,000 chemicals available for commercial production and use in the United States. Until this update, it was not known which of these chemicals on the TSCA Inventory were in commerce. Under amended TSCA – The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21 Century Act – EPA was required to update the list and designate which chemicals are active or inactive in U.S. commerce.
More than 80 percent (32,898) of the chemicals in commerce have identities that are not Confidential Business Information (CBI), increasing public access to additional information about them. For the less than 20 percent of the chemicals in commerce that have confidential identities, EPA is developing a rule outlining how the Agency will review and substantiate all CBI claims seeking to protect the specific chemical identities of substances on the confidential portion of the TSCA Inventory.
From August 11, 2017 through October 5, 2018, chemical manufacturers and processors provided information on which chemicals were manufactured, imported or processed in the United States over the past 10 years, the period ending June 21, 2016. The agency received more than 90,000 responses, which represents a significant reporting effort by manufacturers, importers and processors.
Next Batch of High Priority Chemicals
EPA is expected to publish its next list of 20 high priority candidate chemicals by March 22, 2019. EPA must decide at least 10 of these from the remaining TSCA workplan chemicals, although it will probably select more than 10, if not all 20, from the TSCA workplan. EPA will select chemicals like the first 10, such as solvents or pigments. Several workplan chemicals are relevant to paints, coatings, sealants and adhesives, as noted in the following table.
ACA will remain engaged with EPA as it considers chemicals from its TSCA workplan.
Contact ACA’s Riaz Zaman for more information.
https://www.paint.org/tsca-update-list/
Everchem Updates Archive 
Sign Up for Email Updates