Environmental Health and Safety Blog | EHSWire

Paula Kaufmann, CIH

It’s time for an update on the EPA’s proposed changes to the Inventory Update Reporting Rule.  As of January 24, 2011, the EPA has been silent as to what changes will be included in the final rule.  A list of the proposed changes is presented on the Emilcott EHSWire.com blog: “ EPA Proposed Changes to the TSCA Inventory Update Rule ” .  

The EPA has stated that the Agency “expects to finalize the modifications to the chemical information reporting rule in time for the next reporting period, scheduled for June 1 - Sept. 30, 2011. EPA will make the electronic reporting software and associated guidance materials available before the start of the submission period.”  If you’re like me, “expects to finalize” is not very helpful for planning purposes or for engendering confidence.

Pull out the professional crystal ball!

As someone who has been working with the EPA for a long time, I am “reading between the regulatory lines” to forecast that the final rule will be published in April.  I’ve based this guess on information provided at the EPA's November webinar that introduced the new, electronic TSCA Reporting Tool, e-IURweb:

• During the question and answer period  an EPA representative said that the final rule should be published in the Spring 2011-- at least 30 days prior to the start of the reporting period.  So… if the reporting period starts on June 1, then I expect the final rule to be published by May 1st at the latest.


• The electronic tool designers said that a test version of the tool would be available for industry testing in April 2011.  (Emilcott will be posting a blog about this new tool in the next few weeks.)

What to do while we wait for the final rule to be published?

We are advising Emilcott clients to proceed with the collection of 2010 inventory data with a threshold of 25,000 lbs.  Additional data that may be needed for the 2011 reporting are listed below.  Depending upon how you gather your information, you may want to request this along with the import or manufacturing volume information.

• Production volumes at or above 25,000 lbs directly exported and not domestically processed or used.


• All quantities of substances subject to rules and orders in the following sections:
  
  
  
  • Section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rules (SNURs)
  
  
  • Section 5(b)(4) Chemicals of concern to EPA
  
  
  • Section 6 Prohibitions for chemicals with unreasonable risks
  
  
  • Section 5(e) Requirements or restrictions on chemical production or use
  
  
  • Section 5(f) Chemical with an unreasonable risk
  
  
  
  

What to do if you need help?

If you need assistance related to the TSCA New Chemicals regulatory requirements or the potential changes due to the Inventory Update Reporting Rule, Emilcott can guide you through the reporting. We can also help you navigate the maze of  reporting a potential Form U violation from prior filing years to the EPA (See http://www.emilcott.com/services/svcenvcompliance.asp).  As more information becomes available from the EPA regarding the IUR and as testing of the electronic tool begins, Emilcott will keep you up-to-date via EHSWire and our “Regulatory Updates” Newsletter. If you have any TSCA IUR questions or concerns, feel free to contact Emilcott or post your question below!

Read More

Topics: EPA, Compliance, TSCA & R.E.A.C.H., TSCA, Toxic Substance Control Act, IUR, chemical manufacturer, chemicals, Public Safety, reporting tool, Toxics Release Inventory, inventory update rule

Dale Wilson, CIH, LEED AP

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ended 2010 with two announcements that impact Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ).   The first of these announcements involves polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in school environments. In their press release and guidance document , the EPA is recommending the removal of all PCB-containing fluorescent light ballasts from school buildings.  The focus is on school buildings built prior to 1979 which have not undergone a complete lighting retrofit since that time.  (Note:  In 1979, the EPA banned the use and processing of PCB.)  The EPA makes these recommendations following the detection of elevated PCB concentration in indoor air at several schools where damaged PCB -containing light fixtures were present.  According to the EPA , “PCBs have been demonstrated to cause cancer, as well as a variety of other adverse health effects on the immune system, reproductive system, nervous system, and endocrine system.”

While this announcement is directed at schools, commercial and/or residential buildings with pre-1979 fluorescent light fixtures should also consider following this guidance to prevent exposure to their building occupants.  While replacing such fixtures will improve indoor environmental quality, there is another likely benefit:  energy costs are reduced when replacing these older light fixtures with modern, energy-efficient models.   The costs of installing lighting equipment upgrades may also be offset if there is an active incentive program offered by your state government and/or local utility such as these Clean Energy programs offered by the state of New Jersey.  This type of office or plant upgrade is a quadruple “win” opportunity for companies who qualify: 

• Improve employee work conditions by enhancing their IEQ


• Reduce your operating costs


• Participate in an environmental or “green” program


• And, best of all, have some or all of the equipment paid for by an outside resource!

EPA’s second end-of-2010 announcement recommends testing for radon, as January is National Radon Action Month.   Radon is a naturally-occurring, colorless, odorless gas that can impact your building’s IEQ if mitigation measures are not in place.  Radon exposure is the leading cause of non-smoking lung cancer.  Winter months such as January are the perfect times to test for radon as doors and windows generally remain closed for extended periods of time and heating equipment is in operation potentially creating a pressure differential between the soil and the building’s interior that would promote the migration of radon into the building’s indoor air. 

To find out if your building is located in an area prone to elevated indoor radon concentrations you can view the EPA Radon Map.  Buildings located in Zone 1 counties (red colored) have the greatest potential for elevated radon, followed by Zone 2 (orange) and, finally, Zone 3 in yellow. 

Two easy ways to start 2011 off on the right foot -- follow the EPA’s recommendation by eliminating two significant and relatively easy IEQ concerns, PCBs and radon, from your building.

Have you participated in a state or federal lighting retrofit program? Did the electrical contractor find anything suspicious? How easy was the process? And, have you tested your home or office building for radon? What were the results?

Read More

Topics: indoor air quality, health and safety, General EHS, EPA, Air Sampling, Exposure, chemicals, schools, environmental air monitoring, indoor environmental quality, radon exposure, radon, fluorescent lighting, PCB

Dian Cucchisi, PhD, CHMM

Another calendar year is drawing to a close; where does the time go?  As I plan my own holiday celebrations and commitments, environmental professionals like me have another type of planning to keep in mind.  With the start of each new year, we face regulatory submission deadlines reporting data from the past year including Submission of the EPA Community Right to Know (CRTK) Survey -- a Federal act with each state managing their own program due March 1 ^st and EPA Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) due July 1 ^st.

Just like Christmas shopping, the compilation and reporting process is less stressful and yields better results if I begin early and develop a strategy with deadlines in mind.  As such, here is my personal January 1 ^st kick-off list that should make the time-consuming process of CRTK and TRI reporting easier to handle.   

1)      Start requesting and gathering all the information needed for these submittals.

1. 2010 purchasing records of the chemicals you are reporting


2. 2010 production logs where these chemicals are used


3. 2010 waste information


4. 2010 recycling information for any reported chemicals that were recycled


5. 2010 air emission inventory

2)       Develop and write down a comprehensive set of due dates so that you have time to review information as it comes in. If the requested data is late, have a plan to follow up or find another source because the deadline is not going to change!

3)      Review the rules early to avoid unpleasant surprises.  For example, The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule effective November 10, 2010 which added 16 chemicals to the list of TRI reportable chemicals.  To ensure that you are reporting what you need to report, check the TRI database on the EPA website:   http://www.epa.gov/tri/trichemicals/index.htm.

4)      Allow time for anomalies and additional fact-finding. As Charles Peruffo described in a recent EHSWire blog about filing the NJ PPA, reported amounts from different sources may not match. If you find that is the case, it’s your job to figure out why and that always adds more time to the already challenging process.

Emilcott’s clients depend on our environmental knowledge and organizational capabilities to gather the required information on time and give them fair warning if there is trouble ahead.  My best advice for successful reporting-don’t wait until the last minute.  Much like shopping for Christmas on Dec 24th, waiting until February to gather the information for the CRTK or starting in June for the TRI will be stressful and could result in costly errors. So, what am I doing today?  Like Santa, I’m checking my own list twice! 

Have you been meeting the CRTK and TRI deadline? If yes, can you offer additional advice or do you have particular steps that you take to get the submission process rolling?

Read More

Topics: General EHS, EPA, Hazardous Waste Management, HazCom, Hazardous Materials, reporting, Toxics Release Inventory, emissions, Community Right to Know, haz waste, TRI, CRTK, chemical

Bruce Groves

Why do we care about particles floating around in our air? Small, inhalable particles are themselves pollutants that have shown to cause illness and chronic diseases such as asthma and certain types of lung cancer . Particles are also excellent indicators (or surrogates) for measuring other pollutants such as vapors and gases. By measuring the aerodynamic size of particles in our air, it is possible to identify and sometimes “fingerprint” them so that we can reduce or stop local sources of pollution immediately. The goal AND end result are to develop as clean a living and working area as possible.

What are we doing today?

Today, air monitoring is a piecemeal approach that is government-mandated but generally project related. When the project is over, the problem is essentially considered to be gone. Of course, in areas of high population density or industrial activity, continuous, real-time air monitoring of general conditions does not exist. Other than pollen counts, very little information about these pockets of high pollution and high particulates is available to the public or government agencies. And, the data that is available is generally much later and does not present an accurate picture of today’s problem.

What is the future in environmental air monitoring?

As technology has improved, so have particle detectors and the ease of data transmission and analysis. By 2013, small particle size detectors, such as those found in the Greenlight Environmental Monitoring System, will be consistently deployed in high population areas in such cities such as NYC, Tokyo, London and Los Angeles. These particle size detectors will be coupled with wind-speed and direction detectors and web cameras to pinpoint the exact sources of particle emissions (e.g., construction or industrial equipment, idling vehicles or high traffic transportation corridors) that are creating a measurable increase in local air pollution.

This web of detector stations will form an active or “live” map of a city that continuously measures and reports the concentration of various particle sizes. The “map” will be automatically programmed to provide warning levels and alarms to reveal when and where total particle concentrations exceed warning and safe threshold levels. By locating (in real time) the place, the direction of the pollution source and supporting video evidence, private companies and government agencies can take measures to stop or reduce the indicated pollution sources. Constant real-time monitoring, assessment and action will provide continuous improvement in local air quality that will reduce the onset of disease associated with inhaling dirty air. Warning systems set up through websites will enable agencies and individuals to check on their local air pollution conditions using their computer or smart phone.

What is the first step?

At Emilcott, we have been working with particulate monitoring on job sites for over 25 years. As an extension of our field experience, we’re working on a solution that meets the needs of our clients (private companies and government agencies) -- the Greenlight Environmental Monitoring System. With multiple project implementations under its belt, the Greenlight System’s particle size measurement, assessment and reporting capabilities are demonstrating how real-time monitoring is helping projects get cleaner each day – reducing the liabilities of our clients while giving them the information to keep the public and workers safe.

As the Greenlight System’s next phase of engineering development is outlined, our goal is to have a universal system that will provide comprehensive sampling in potentially high pollution areas so that neighborhood air quality can be improved and the incidence of lung disease is reduced. It will be a future watchdog for providing cleaner air locally where no such means of protecting local air quality exists today.

What do you think the future of environmental air monitoring holds? What are the benefits or challenges that you associate with monitoring and mapping pollutants in a broad geographic area?

Read More

Topics: Emilcott, indoor air quality, health and safety, Construction H&S, EPA, Emergency Response, Homeland Security, Hazardous Waste Management, Hazardous Materials, worker safety, Occupational Health, Air Sampling, Greenlight System, Exposure, environmental air monitoring, Respiratory, Public Safety, perimeter air monitoring

Megan Grennille

Your next visit to a truck stop may be more pleasant in a few years.  New standards were announced on October 25th from the DOT (Department of Transportation) and EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in heavy-duty trucks and buses.  The standards, which are set to be phased in on new vehicles in 2014, will include requirements to improve fuel efficiency which benefits businesses, the shipping industry, and cities and towns.

The large vehicles being targeted by the proposed standards are divided into three categories: combination tractors, heavy duty pickups and vans, and vocational vehicles.  Combination tractors will have a 20% decrease in CO ₂ output as well as fuel consumption.  Heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans will have separate gas and diesel standards; by 2018 CO ₂ emissions and fuel consumption will decrease by 10% in gas vehicles and 15% for diesel.  Vocational vehicles, such as buses and utility trucks, could see a 10% reduction in fuel consumption and CO ₂ emissions by 2018.  

The new regulations bring environmental and economic benefits.  People who live near bus depots, cities, and highways should be happy.  And, on those hot smoggy days near the end of this decade, the air will be a little cleaner.

What do you think of the regulations? Will they impact your business?

Read More

Topics: DOT, indoor air quality, General EHS, EPA, Hazardous Materials, worker safety, Occupational Health, Air Sampling, Exposure, chemicals, environmental air monitoring, Working Green, greenhouse gas emissions

Charles Peruffo

The Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990 (42 U.S.C. §13101 et seq. (1990)) was a paradigm shift in the control of pollution (and hazardous waste). While previous regulations emphasized the “end of the pipeline”, the PPA moved the control of pollution upstream in the manufacturing process to prevent the waste from being generated in the first place. Closely related to the PPA is the NJ Pollution Prevention Act.  Passed in 1991, the NJ PPA implements the concept of reduction in waste production “upstream” by requiring affected companies to develop and submit a 5-year pollution reduction strategy and file  a Release and Pollution Prevention Report (RPPR). The NJ Release and Pollution Prevention Report collects data for New Jersey Right to Know Act ( NJRTK).

What does the Federal PPA require?

Facilities must account for their use of toxic chemicals  and, where feasible, reduce their use.  Toxic pollution that cannot be reduced should be recycled, and pollution that cannot be recycled should be disposed of in an environmentally safe manner. 

EHS professionals must have a firm understanding of the processes that use toxic chemicals in order to reduce their use.  Documenting these activities is an important step in PPA compliance and must include an accounting for the final disposal of toxic chemicals.  Generally this is done using the EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Reporting Form R.  

For facilities in New Jersey, what else is required?

The New Jersey Pollution Prevention Act (NJ PPA), enacted in August of 1991, requires a Pollution Prevention (“P2”) Plan for facilities that meet specific requirements:

• A facility in New Jersey that files a Form R and a Release and Pollution Prevention Report (RPPR) under the New Jersey Worker and Community Right to Know Act for the same chemical(s) in two consecutive years.  Note that in New Jersey any employer required to submit a TRI Form R is also required to submit the RPPR.


• The chemicals listed in the Form R and RPPR remain at or above the TRI activity thresholds.

The facility must  prepare a five-year Pollution Prevention (P2) Plan and submit a P2 Plan Summary by July 1 once they become covered (the second year they submit an RPPR for the same chemical).  This becomes the “base year”.  For each of the following years that the facility remains at or above the TRI activity thresholds, the facility completes the P2-115 which compares pollution prevention progress for the reporting year to the base year.

The PPA Filing Process by an EHS Professional

When recently preparing PPA paperwork for a small biotech site, I had to collect a variety of information for preparing a New Jersey P2 Plan.  A brief review of the steps is listed below.  For detailed instructions, look at NJDEP Form DEP-113.

1. Contacted the company’s purchasing department to find out how much of each toxic chemical had been delivered to the facility. 


2. Contacted the company’s hazardous waste management contractor to confirm that the amount purchased (Step 1) equaled the amount that was disposed. 


3. Compare the purchased to disposed amounts. The amounts did not match. 


4. Investigate the discrepancy.  It turned out the waste management contractor was using a less accurate method for calculating the percentage of toxic chemical in our waste stream.  Their laboratory data indicated that the company was disposing of more toxic chemical than purchased.  Ultimately, the volume data from the company’s purchasing department was used since no new toxic chemicals could be produced by the company’s processes. 


5. Reviewed the company’s air permit for an estimation of the toxic chemicals lost to the air.


6. Calculated the chemical remaining as residue in the empty drums, which were also removed by our hazardous waste management contractor.


7. Contacted the site Controller for the facility SIC code.


8. Prepared a “Five-Year Use Reduction Goal” based on pollution prevention activities such as process improvements after a review of documentation of meetings where possible improvements were discussed with personnel who work with toxic chemicals as well as process engineering diagrams. (Sets site five year pollution prevention goals).
   
   
   
   • Progress towards these goals needs to be reviewed yearly and documented on the site P2 Plan.
   
   
   
   


9. Obtain signatures for plan from the “highest ranking corporate official with direct operating responsibility” and the “highest ranking corporate official at the facility”.

Note --- A P2 Plan Summary needs to be updated and submitted every five years for the chemicals referenced in the original P2 Plan submission.

This process needs to be repeated for each toxic chemical at each applicable facility in New Jersey with all of the information included as part of one P2 Plan regardless of the number of toxic chemicals reported.  The facility does need to file one RPPR for each chemical. Does this seem like a lot of work? Consider this:  In the twenty years since adoption, the PPA and NJ PPA have helped to substantially reduce the use and improper disposal of toxic chemicals by requiring industry to examine their work processes.

How about your facility?

As a facility, are you tracking your toxic chemicals and filing the appropriate PPA/NJ PPA documentation? Have you noticed that a mindful approach to the processes and paperwork have resulted in reduced usage and better, more healthful disposal of chemicals?

About Our Guest Blogger:  Charles Peruffo is an EHS professional specializing in laboratory health and safety. Prior to his EHS career, Charles spent many years as chemist in the pharmaceutical industry with responsibilities ranging from laboratory safety to analyst training.  He holds a Bachelor of Science in Biology from Montclair State University and is pursuing his Master of Science in Occupational Safety Health Engineering from New Jersey Institute of Technology.

Read More

Topics: health and safety, General Industry H&S, General EHS, EPA, Emergency Response, Hazardous Waste Management, HazCom, Compliance, Air Sampling, reporting, chemical manufacturer, regulation, chemicals, Hazard Communication Standard, pollution prevention, pollution, chemical disposal, Right to Know

Dian Cucchisi, PhD, CHMM

Has your facility received a phone call from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) asking you to provide information on the chemicals that you use and what measures you have in place to ensure that those chemicals do not fall into the wrong hands?  If so, you are not alone.  (If not, read on to be prepared!) The DHS is currently reviewing other government databases to determine what facilities in the United States are using “chemicals of interest.”

Prior to September 11, 2001 our nation concentrated on nuclear bombs and chemical/biological warfare as potential weapons of mass destruction that could be used against us.  On September 11, 2001 we watched as two jet airplanes were flown into the World Trade Center causing the deaths of more than 3,000 people.  Rewind the clock back to February 26, 1993.  Most of us remember the first bombing of the World Trade Center when nitroglycerin, ammonium nitrate, and smokeless powder were mixed together to create the bomb.  These are just two examples of the use of common industrial chemicals to create weapons of mass destruction.

In response to the growing awareness that chemical manufacturing facilities (as well as other facilities that store certain chemicals) may be potential targets for attack or theft by individuals wishing to use the chemicals in terrorist acts, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) passed the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) on April 9, 2007. On November 20, 2007, DHS published Appendix A to CFATS providing a list of chemicals known as Chemicals of Interest (COI) and their threshold quantities. 

The CFATS require all facilities that manufacture, use, store, or distribute chemicals above the threshold quantities listed in Appendix A to complete a screening process known as the “ Top Screen” within 60 days.  The Top Screen is used by the DHS to assign the facility to one of four risk-based tier levels ranging from Tier 1 (high) to Tier 4 (low).  The DHS will notify the facility of the need to complete and submit a Security Vulnerability Assessment (SVA) and a Site Security Plan (SSP).

The DHS reviews the databases maintained by agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine if there are other facilities that may be required to submit a Top Screen.  Facilities that have not submitted a Top Screen may be notified by the DHS.  The facility will then be required to complete the Top Screen or notify the DHS in writing that the CFATS do not apply to their facility.

If you are a chemical manufacturer or perhaps just a user of qualifying amounts of chemicals, have you heard from the Department of Homeland Security? What did you think when you did hear from them?  If you haven’t even heard of CFATS, are you going to do anything to be prepared?

Read More

Topics: CFATS, EPA, Emergency Response, Homeland Security, chemical manufacturer, top-screen, chemicals of interest, anti-terrorism

Dale Wilson, CIH, LEED AP

When the National Weather service issues a forecast calling for 3 to 4 inches of rain, most people react by wondering how it will affect their plans or travel.  I think about what water damage will occur.

 When heavy rains are forecast, are you ready? Do you know what to do if your building is affected by rain penetration through the roof or walls? What is your plan if your building is flooded by a local stream or river?  Even without bad weather, water damage is always a possible threat if your building has a water line break.  Or worse yet, do you know how to react if there’s a sewage back-up?

Depending on the water source your options for cleaning up and salvaging property vary greatly.  But for all kinds of damage, you need to have a plan in place anticipating what you will do, who you will call, and how quickly they will respond.  Emilcott was recently asked to work in four, very different, water-damaged commercial and/or multi-tenant residential properties.   These events included:

• Retail and Office Complex – Roof and Façade Leak


• Office and Warehouse – Broken Water Supply Main


• Multi-tenant Apartment building – Sprinkler Activation


• Public Housing Complex – Steam Leak

What did all four projects have in common?  The answer is time.  Lots of time!  Too much time between the initial event, the response and Emilcott’s resulting late involvement!  Time and water combined can grow to be an expensive and time-consuming enemy.  Failure to respond promptly will, very likely, result in mold growth within the building requiring significantly more demolition than if the condition is handled in a timely manner.  What is the definition of timely? As soon as it is discovered!

With the retail complex, we were called in approximately one month after the roof and walls began leaking.  An employee actually complained to their nearest OSHA office and OSHA issued a notice of potential violation to the employer.  Mold was present in a localized area of the store, along with a significant insect infestation due to wet, damp conditions of building surfaces.   Unfortunate results of the delay:  a mold remediation project was required and portions of the retail space were out of use for weeks.

The damage to the office and warehouse operation was more significant.  Water from the broken water main filled the 5400 sq. ft.  office to several inches and made its way to the adjacent warehouse.  The initial response by the building owner seems logical:  removal of standing water, placement of a few box fans to attempt to dry the carpet, and operating the air conditioning 24/7 as cold as the occupants would tolerate.  By the time we arrived just 5 days after the event, sheetrock walls were saturated at the base of every wall and elevated moisture readings were present up to 8 feet above the floor. Relative humidity was close to 70%, carpets had a strong musty odor, and internal wall cavities were impacted by mold growth even though no visible growth was observed on the exterior of the wall.  Final results of a mere 5 day delay in appropriate responsiveness:  the tenant and their sub-tenants loss use of the office area as trailers were brought in to house them while remediation and reconstruction occurred over a two week time period.

A kitchen fire occurred in the residential apartment complex triggered sprinklers to turn on which caused water to run from the sixth floor down to ground level.  Removal of standing water was the only initial response.  When Emilcott arrived 2 weeks later sheetrock walls were still saturated with water, visible mold was appearing in multiple, occupied apartments, and paint was bubbling and peeling from the walls.  Another significant mold remediation project was required, which in turn required relocation of tenants while remediation was in progress.

Finally, the public housing complex had experienced a steam leak for a period of several months.  Tenants in effected units were relocated and those apartments remained unoccupied.  However, an unusual occurrence happened with this steam leak as these apartments had plaster walls.  Mold grew quite well on the painted surface of the walls, something that may be expected, but due to high, high humidity and moisture levels in the plaster for extended periods of time, the analytical laboratory verified that the mold growth penetrated into the plaster from the surface.  This resulted in the demolition of the plaster walls and loss of effected housing units for several additional months.

For each of these properties and water-related circumstances, delayed and improper response increased the magnitude of the problem resulting in increased time that each space was unusable, and increased the total cost of response and repair. What should you do instead?  Bringing in a water-remediation expert immediately to identify the scope of the problem, develop a water response action plan, and implement that plan right away will minimize the damage to building materials and reduce impacts to building occupants.  In each of the four instances listed above, response actions like relocating furnishing away from walls or out of the area completely, immediately removing cove moldings, installing commercial grade dehumidification equipment, installing commercial grade floor fans, selective limited demolition, and actively monitoring and evaluating the drying process would have significantly reduced the duration of the response activity and the overall cost of each event. 

So, how can you reduce the costs of the surprise water problem? My advice is to plan now -- whether it is for rain and flooding that may occur due to weather conditions or for the pipe break that always happens unexpectedly.  Knowing who to call to determine the scope of the problem and who can implement the recommended response will save you significant time, money, property and hassle.

Read More

Topics: OSHA, indoor air quality, health and safety, General Industry H&S, General EHS, Construction H&S, EPA, Air Sampling, Mold, environmental air monitoring, Respiratory, Water Response Plan

Paula Kaufmann, CIH

In a recent blog about the rapidly approaching Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) Form U submission in 2011, I mentioned that the EPA published a Proposed Rule detailing TSCA Inventory Update Reporting Modifications. The EPA anticipates promulgating a final rule by the spring of 2011 as the next scheduled IUR submission period is currently scheduled to run from June 1, 2011 through September 30, 2011.

Some of these modifications are really a big deal and will require a lot additional effort for most submitters. We should be seeing some commentary in response to the proposed rule about the cost of compliance with the modifications along with the benefits of having this collection of information about chemical importation, manufacture and use in the US. Hopefully this will be a spirited discussion and we will keep you posted on the outcomes and what they mean to you.

Although we don’t know what the final rule will look…the following is a list of the proposed changes that may affect many of our clients and you:

• Electronic reporting of the IUR data, using an Agency-provided, web-based reporting software
  
  
  
  • After the final rule’s effective date, paper submissions would no longer be accepted.
  
  
  
  


• Form U submission every 4 years (instead of every 5 years)


• All submissions would require processing and use information (Part III of Form U)


• No minimum manufacture (or import) quantity for certain chemical substances
  
  
  
  • This an elimination of the 25,000 lb. threshold for the chemical substances that are subject to rules or orders in following TSCA sections:
    
    
    
    • Section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rules (SNURs)
    
    
    • Section 5(b)(4) Chemicals of concern to EPA
    
    
    • Section 6 Prohibitions for chemicals with unreasonable risks
    
    
    • Section 5(e) Requirements or restrictions on chemical production or use
    
    
    • Section 5(f) Chemical with an unreasonable risk
    
    
    
    
  
  
  
  


• IUR exemption changes for the following chemical substances:
  
  
  
  • No exemption for those with an enforceable consent agreement (ECA) to conduct testing.
  
  
  • Full exemption water.
  
  
  • Removal of polymers that are already fully exempt from the partially exempt list of chemical substances.
  
  
  
  


• Significant new reporting requirements Form U completion:
  
  
  
  • Name and address belonging to the parent company.
  
  
  • Current Chemical Abstracts (CA) Index Name, as used to list the chemical substance on the TSCA Inventory, as part of the chemical identity.
  
  
  • Production volume for each of the years since the last principal reporting year. For the 2011 report this would include 2006, 2007, 2008 AND 2009 in addition to 2010.
  
  
  • Production volume directly exported and not domestically processed or used.
  
  
  • Volume of manufactured chemical substance (such as a by product) that is recycled, remanufactured, reprocessed, reused, or reworked .
  
  
  • Company Business Information (CBI)
    
    
    
    • Submission of substantiation for CBI claims in Section III (processing and use information).
    
    
    
    
  
  
  
  


• Proposed changes for AFTER 2011 Form U submissions
  
  
  
  • Require reporting if the production volume of a substance met or exceeded the 25,000 pound threshold in any calendar year since the last principal reporting year.
  
  
  
  

With this significant list of proposed changes, Emilcott is paying close attention to TSCA-related news so that we can advise and guide our clients to be in compliance. We have worked with multiple U.S. and International clients with U.S. facilities that have misunderstood or ignored TSCA regulations resulting in a big problem that could have been avoided. If your facility falls under the TSCA guidelines, are you paying close attention to modifications to the TSCA IUR program? What do you think of the company cost vs. informational and monitoring benefits? What are you doing to be a part of the debate or prepare for submission?

Read More

Topics: Emilcott, General EHS, EPA, Hazardous Materials, Compliance, TSCA & R.E.A.C.H., TSCA, Toxic Substance Control Act, reporting, chemical manufacturer, regulation, chemicals, regulatory

Paula Kaufmann, CIH

August 2011 Update:   Information from the EPA regarding TSCA requirements and submission has changed significantly since this post was originally written in August 2010. Please also read BREAKING NEWS: New EPA TSCA Inventory Update Requirements (IUR) for 2012   and additional posts following to ensure that you have the most up-to-date information.

-PKaufmann

Is your facility a manufacturer or importer of chemicals in amounts of 25,000 pounds or greater?  If so, your company may need to participate in the next round of the EPA’s Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) Inventory Update Rule (IUR) program and submit a Form U to the EPA.

Here’s how the EPA explains this rule:  “The IUR  requires manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory to report site and manufacturing information for chemicals manufactured (including imported) in amounts of 25,000 pounds or greater at a single site.  Additional information on domestic processing and use must be reported for chemicals manufactured in amounts of 300,000 pounds or more at a single site. EPA uses the IUR data to support many health, safety, and environmental protection activities.”  For more information go to http://www.epa.gov/oppt/iur/

When Is the Next Reporting? THIS IS IMPORTANT!!!

The next submission period is currently planned for June 1 - September 30, 2011 when manufacturers and importers will report information on their 2010 production (and the EPA has proposed adding data for years 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009) . See revised information post:   BREAKING NEWS: New EPA TSCA Inventory Update Requirements (IUR) for 2012

How is IUR Changing for 2011 Reporting?

1. Inorganic chemicals are no longer partially exempt from the IUR rule. This was a one-time exemption for 2006 reporting only.


2. On August 13, 2010 the EPA published its proposed IUR Modifications Rule, beginning a 60-day comment period. The proposal would require electronic reporting and expanded manufacturing, processing, and use information.  The EPA anticipates promulgating a final rule by the spring of 2011. As aspects of the proposed rule have yet to  be finalized, Emilcott will  provide a definitive, easy-to-read list here on EHSWire.

So…stay tuned to EHSwire.com or www.emilcott.com to stay informed about any IUR reporting developments and reporting obligations in 2011 for the calendar year 2010.   If you have any questions about the upcoming IUR reporting or TSCA compliance question, please comment below, contact us directly or read more at http://www.emilcott.com/services/svcenvcompliance.asp.  Emilcott provides comprehensive support for TSCA compliance, including assisting with inventory and chemical substance use information subject to the IUR program.

Some interesting Form U questions and facts -

Did you know that 1,541 companies submitted a Form U in 2006?

Some submitted multiple Forms because as each manufacturing site that originates a chemical substance is required to report. The 2006 IUR public data are available on the IUR web site (www.epa.gov/iur).

Read More

Topics: EPA, Hazardous Waste Management, Hazardous Materials, Compliance, TSCA & R.E.A.C.H., TSCA, Toxic Substance Control Act, reporting, chemical manufacturer, regulation, chemicals, regul