REACH, ROHS, Prop 65 and Other Chemical Compliance Certifications

Caltha LLP Project Summary

Project: Certification of REACH, ROHS, Prop 65, Conflict Minerals, Biocidal Products Compliance
Client: Component Manufacturer 
Location(s): Minnesota

Key Elements: EU Chemical Regulations, California Proposition 65 Labeling, Conflict Minerals Compliance Certifiaction

Overview: Caltha LLP was retained by this component manufacturer to compile compliance documentation and to prepare Certification of Compliance. Certification of compliance was required by customers who purchased manufactured components and incorporated them into their final products which were exported to the European Union and other areas.

Caltha prepared a certification form and background information to be completed by raw material suppliers that allowed each supplier to provide an informed certification statement regarding presence/absence of regulated chemical substances, and if present, documentation that concentrations are below regulatory thresholds.

Rule On Reporting Mercury And Mercury Added Products

The Lautenberg Act TSCA amendments established reporting deadline(s) and information requirements periodic update and publication of the inventory of mercury supply, use, and trade in the United States. As required under TSCA, the reporting requirements would apply to any person who manufactures mercury or mercury-added products, or otherwise intentionally uses mercury in a manufacturing process.


Mislabeled Mercury Waste Drum
Identified During RCRA Audit


On October 26, 2017, EPA issued a proposed rule to implement TSCA section 8(b)(10)(D), which requires EPA to issue a final rule no later than 2 years after the enactment of the Lautenberg Act TSCA amendments that establishes reporting deadline(s) and information requirements. As required under TSCA, the reporting requirements would apply to any person who manufactures mercury or mercury-added products, or otherwise intentionally uses mercury in a manufacturing process.EPA published the first inventory in March 2017. Based on the information collected, TSCA further directs EPA to identify any manufacturing processes or products that intentionally add mercury and recommend actions to achieve further reductions in mercury use.

EPA proposed reporting requirements in the Federal Register of October 26, 2017  to assist in the preparation of an “inventory of mercury supply, use, and trade in the United States.” Subsequently the deadline for the comment period was extended  to January 11, 2018. The final rule is anticipated to be published by July 1, 2018.

 

Caltha LLP | Your EH&S Compliance, 

Auditing and EMS/SMS Partner

Commercial Chemical Product or Waste? Commercial Chemical Product Checklist

In  2017, EPA provided additional guidance to differentiate between commercial chemical products (CCPs) and manufactured articles in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Online Document #14887. In the guidance, EPA noted that manufactured articles, such as batteries, fluorescent lamps, and thermometers, are devices designed for a purpose other than to access the device’s internal chemicals. Specifically, batteries, lamps, and thermometers are used for electrical energy, for light, or to measure temperature, respectively, and not to access the mercury, lead, or other chemicals contained in them. Therefore, batteries, fluorescent lamps, and thermometers are not CCPs.


Abandoned Chemical Products Stored
In Lieu Of Disposal

To assist manufacturers in determining if their waste is regulated as a CCP, EPA offered the following checklist:

Commercial Chemical Product Checklist

Does the facility appear to be managing the material being evaluated in  a manner that suggests it is a product  (as opposed to being abandoned or stored in lieu of abandonment)?
1	Are the containers used to store the material in good condition (vs. crushed, bulging,  corroded, dusty, leaking, incompatible with the contents, open, or overpacked)?
2	Are the containers of concern stored in a manner that suggests the material has value?  (For example, is the material protected from precipitation, locked-up when the facility is not  operating, or stored in a fenced/secure area?)
3	Does the management of the containers appear to preserve the material's integrity and serve to  prevent the material from becoming unstable, unusable or contaminated?
4	Do the containers have labels that identify the contents as product?
5	Do the container labels have information, such as lot number, manufacture date, or  expiration date, to help determine the age/viability of the material, particularly if a recommended  expiration date has been exceeded?
6	If a container is not labeled, can the facility support a claim that the contents is a product  (e.g., provide analytical testing results to verify that the material meets specifications for use,  or explain that it recently had to transfer contents to a new container due to damage to the  original container and can provide record of purchase)?
7	Does the condition of the material suggest it is a valuable product? (For example, no crystals  have formed inside or outside the container, the material is not discolored, there is no phase  separation evident)
8	Does the facility manage the material as a valuable commodity by limiting access to the material  and having security procedures in place to prevent unauthorized removal of the material?
Does the facility appear to be using the material being evaluated in the production  of its products or in support of production operations (as opposed to being abandoned  or stored in lieu of abandonment)?
1	Can the facility describe how the material is used or show where the material is used in the facility?
2	Do the containers storing the material in question appear to be stored in an appropriate location  Is the material stored according to manufacturer recommendations (e.g., recommended  temperatures, light)? Are the containers accessible? Are the materials being stored in the same  location as other similar product materials?
3	Do product specifications exist for the material or process in which it is to be used (e.g., minimum  concentration of an active ingredient, maximum concentrations of contaminants, or dates beyond  which the material should not be used)?
4	Is there a process in place for the facility to compare the properties of the material in question to  specifications that must be met in order for the material to be used for the claimed purpose, or is  documentation available to support a facility claim that the material meets such specifications?
5	Does it appear that the facility has purchased new material that will be used for the same purpose  as the material in question?
6	Are records available to demonstrate that the facility has NOT written off the material as a loss  (indicating that the facility still believes that the material has a use)?
Does the facility appear to be selling into commerce the material being evaluated  (as opposed to being abandoned or stored in lieu of abandonment)?
1	Does the facility have “active” customers or a market for the material?
2	If yes, can the facility provide a list of such customers and document recent shipments  of the material for subsequent distribution in commerce, or provide copies of contracts  from past or future sales?
3	Can the facility identify any competitors for the sale of the material to support a claim that there  is an existing or potential market for the material?
4	Can the facility provide a list of inactive or past customers that purchased the material?
5	Can the facility provide any information about a future market for the material?
6	Is a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) or SDS under OSHA’s new Globally Harmonized System  available for the material (supporting a claim that the material has been in, or will enter, commerce)?
7	Does the facility have a system for accepting/managing returned or off-specification products it  produced and utilizing that material to produce a new product? If so, is this system documented?
8	Has the material been recalled or returned from a customer? If so, can the facility explain how it  intends to use the material? Is there a market for the returned material?

Caltha LLP | Your EH&S Compliance, Auditing 

and EMS/SMS Partner

NY DEC Emergency Rule Making Restricting Use Of Perfluorooctane Related Chemcials

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) filed a Notice of Emergency Adoption and Proposed Rule Making to classify perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA-acid), ammonium perfluorooctanoate (PFOA-salt), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS-acid), and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS-salt) as hazardous substances at the request of the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH).


This rule making also provides time for facilities storing fire-fighting foam containing one or more of these newly listed hazardous substances to properly dispose of it and provides time for firefighting operations to find replacement foams. This proposal also corrects the tables of hazardous substances by providing units for reportable quantities.



The temporary emergency rule was effective on April 25, 2016, while the state finalizes the proposed amendments to 6 NYCRR Part 597, Hazardous Substances Identification, Release Prohibition, and Release Reporting. DEC has concluded that these substances meet the definition of a hazardous substance based upon the conclusion of NYSDOH that the combined weight of evidence from human and experimental animal studies indicates that prolonged exposure to significantly elevated levels of these compounds can affect health and, consequently, pose a threat to public health in New York State when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of or otherwise managed. NYSDOH scientists have concluded that it is essential to list these chemicals as hazardous substances.



Once substances are determined to be hazardous substances, DEC regulates their handling and storage and has authority to remediate sites contaminated with them. The Chemical Bulk Storage regulations (6 NYCRR 596-599) provide standards for the proper handling and storage of bulk quantities of hazardous substances to prevent spills and releases to the environment, prohibit the release of hazardous substances to the environment, and require the reporting of certain releases of hazardous substances to DEC. Certain facilities that store hazardous substances must apply to DEC for a registration certificate to operate.



A new provision, paragraph 597.4(a)(3), will allow entities with fire-fighting foam the time necessary to determine if stored foam contains one or more of these hazardous substances. If the stored foam contains one of these substances, the facility would not be allowed to use the foam for fire-fighting after April 25, 2017. It may be used for fire-fighting until then but not for any other purpose such as training. Foam that is prohibited for use after April 25, 2017 should be safely disposed in accordance with federal, state, and local requirements. Replacement foam may not contain a hazardous substance at a concentration that would result in the release of more than the reportable quantity (one pound) when used as a fire-fighting foam.


Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EHS compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EHS management programs. For further information contact Caltha LLP at info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website 

Environmental Product Declarations For Adhesives and Sealants

ASTM International has announced that it will be collaborating with industry to develop Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) across the over 90 industry markets, including sealants. The Adhesive and Sealant Council (ASC) will be partnering with ASTM International to raise awareness and educate industry on the value of Type III EPDs, and proactively engage industry in developing Product Category Rules (PCR).

In 2012, ASTM International announced that it was becoming a global Program Operator for PCR development and EPD verification. In January 2013, the members of ASTM Committee C24 on Building Seals and Sealants agreed to become active in the PCR process and to move forward with scoping the PCR development for sealants. ASTM Committee C24 will meet in Indianapolis in June 2013.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EHS compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EHS management programs.
For further information contact Caltha LLP at info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website

Petition To Remove Acetonitrile From TRI Reporting Requirements Denied By EPA

EPA has announced that it is denying a petition to remove acetonitrile from the list of chemicals subject to reporting requirements under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) and section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA). EPA reviewed the available data on this chemical and determined that acetonitrile does not meet the deletion criterion of EPCRA section 313(d)(3), specifically due to its potential human health impacts.

EPCRA section 313(d) authorizes EPA to add or delete chemicals from the list and sets criteria for these actions. EPA may add a chemical to the list if any of the listing criteria in Section 313(d)(2) are met. To remove a chemical from the list, EPCRA requires that EPA demonstrate that none of the listing criteria are met. The EPCRA section 313(d)(2) criteria are:

(A) The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause significant adverse acute human health effects at concentration levels that are reasonably likely to exist beyond facility site boundaries as a result of continuous, or frequently recurring, releases.
(B) The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer or teratogenic effects, or other serious or irreversible chronic health effects.
(C) The chemical is known to cause or can be reasonably anticipated to cause significant adverse effect on the environment, because of its toxicity, persistence in the environment, or tendency to bioaccumulate in the environment

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the providing technical assistance in preparing Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Reports, and other environmental reporting requirements under EPCRA.
For further information contact Caltha LLP at info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website

Proposed SNUR For Carbon Nanomaterials

EPA is proposing significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 37 chemical substances which were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). Seventeen of these chemical substances are also subject to TSCA section 5(e) consent orders issued by EPA. This action would require persons who intend to manufacture, import, or process any of these 37 chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by the proposed rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. Comments must be received on or before April 26, 2013.

The proposed rule includes 14 PMN substances whose reported chemical names include the term "carbon nanotube" or "carbon nanofibers." Because of a lack of established nomenclature for carbon nanotubes, the TSCA Inventory names for carbon nanotubes are currently in generic form, e.g., carbon nanotube (CNT), multi-walled carbon nanotube (MWCNT), double-walled carbon nanotube (DWCNT), or single-walled carbon nanotube (SWCNT). EPA uses the specific structural characteristics provided by the PMN submitter to more specifically characterize the TSCA Inventory listing for an individual CNT. EPA is using the specific structural characteristics for all CNTs submitted as new chemical substances under TSCA to help develop standard nomenclature for placing these chemical substances on the TSCA Inventory.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EHS compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EHS management programs.
For further information contact Caltha LLP at info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website

Revised TSCA Requirements for Ethaneperoxoic acid, 1,1-dimethylpropyl ester

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA is proposing to amend the significant new use rule (SNUR) for the chemical ethaneperoxoic acid, 1,1-dimethylpropyl ester, which was the subject of premanufacture notice (PMN). This action would amend the SNUR to allow certain uses without requiring a significant new use notice (SNUN), and would extend SNUN requirements to certain additional uses. EPA is proposing this amendment based on review of new toxicity test data. Comments must be received on or before February 27, 2013.

After the review of new test data subsequent to issuance of the TSCA section 5(e) consent order for the chemical and consideration of the factors included in TSCA section 5(a)(2), EPA determined that the chemical substance meets one or more of the concern criteria, but that these criteria are no longer met for the personal protective equipment, hazard communication, and specific use notification requirements. Consequently, EPA is proposing this modification to the SNUR.


Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EHS compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EHS management programs.
For further information contact Caltha LLP at info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website

Proposed SNURs Under Toxic Substances Control Act

EPA is proposing significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for four chemical substances which were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). The proposed rule would require persons who intend to manufacture, import, or process any of the chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this proposed rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before February 22, 2013.

The chemicals subject to the proposed SNUR are:

• Pentane, 1,1,1,2,3,3- hexafluoro-4-(1,1,2,3,3,3- hexafluoropropoxy)-CAS number: 870778-34-0
• Three partially fluorinated alcohol substituted glycols (generic).

As background, Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a "significant new use." EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including

1. The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance.
2. The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
3. The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
4. The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.

Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture, import, or process the chemical substance for that use.


Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EHS compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EHS management programs. For further information contact Caltha LLP at info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website 

 

Labeling Requirements For Exported Pesticides Revised

EPA has published a final rule revising the regulations on the labeling of pesticide products and devices intended solely for export. The final rule restructures the current regulations to clarify which provisions apply under various circumstances. EPA is also increasing specificity in the regulations by requiring that people who transfer unregistered pesticide products between registered establishments operated by the same producer within the United States must also comply with the requirements of the rule if those products are intended solely for export at the time of such transfer. EPA believes that this requirement is necessary to ensure appropriate handling of such products as they move in commerce before they actually leave the United States.

This final rule is effective March 19, 2013. The compliance date for the requirement to label unregistered pesticide products intended solely for export that are being shipped between registered establishments operated by the same producer is January 21, 2014.


Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EHS compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EHS management programs.
For further information contact Caltha LLP at info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website 

 

EPA Considers Chemical Identifiers For Minimum Risk Pesticides

EPA is proposing to more clearly describe the active and inert ingredients permitted in products eligible for the exemption from regulation for minimum risk pesticides. EPA is proposing to reorganize these lists by adding specific chemical identifiers. The identifiers would make it clearer which ingredients are permitted in minimum risk pesticide products. EPA is also proposing to modify the label requirements in the exemption to require the use of specific common chemical names in lists of ingredients on minimum risk pesticide product labels, and to require producer contact information on the label. Comments on the proposed rules must be received on or before April 1, 2013.

The primary goal of this proposal is to clarify the conditions of exemption for minimum risk pesticides by making clearer the specific ingredients that are permitted in minimum risk pesticide products. According to EPA, the existing regulatory structure leads to confusion as to which ingredients are exempt and how they should be labeled on products.


Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EHS compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EHS management programs.
For further information contact Caltha LLP at info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website 

 

TSCA Rule On Cadmium and Cadmium Compounds Withdrawn

EPA is withdrawing the final Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting Rule that it issued on December 3, 2012. The health and safety data reporting rule would have required manufacturers (including importers) of cadmium or cadmium compounds, including as part of an article, that have been, or are reasonably likely to be, incorporated into consumer products to report certain unpublished health and safety studies to EPA. Since the final rule's issuance, EPA has received a number of letters, including requests for withdrawal, asking questions and raising concerns about the scope and extent of the immediate final rule that indicate that there is significant confusion and uncertainty about the final rule in certain industrial sectors subject to the final rule. EPA believes that some of the points raised in the letters warrant additional consideration by the Agency.


Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EHS compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EHS management programs.
For further information contact Caltha LLP at info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website

RFS Renewable Identification Number (RIN) Quality Assurance Program

Under the Clean Air Act, US EPA is responsible for developing and implementing regulations to ensure that transportation fuel sold in the United States contains a minimum volume of renewable fuel. The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program regulations finalized in 2007 (RFS1) and 2010 (RFS2) were developed in collaboration with refiners, renewable fuel producers, and many other stakeholders.

The RFS compliance program is based on the use of unique renewable identification numbers (RINs) assigned to batches of renewable fuel by renewable fuel producers and importers. These RINs can then be sold or traded, and used by any obligated party to demonstrate compliance with the applicable standard.

According to EPA, it has recently come to the agency’s attention that the production, transfer, and use of invalid RINs has resulted in violations for parties that were not aware that the RINs were invalid. To address this, EPA is considering development of a rule will propose a voluntary mechanism for ensuring that RINs have been appropriately generated. No schedule for the proposed rulemaking was released


Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EHS compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EHS management programs.
For further information contact Caltha LLP at info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website

Significant New Use Rules Issued For 107 Chemicals

On September 21, EPA published significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 107 chemical substances that were the subject of premanufacture notices. Eight of the chemicals are also subject to TSCA consent orders issued by EPA. The rule is effective on November 20, 2012.

Under the new SNURs, anyone who intends to manufacture, import, or process any of the listed 107 chemical substances for any activity that EPA designates as a significant new use must notify EPA at least 90 days before beginning the activity. EPA will, in turn, evaluate the intended activity, and, if necessary, prohibit or limit the activity before it occurs.


Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EHS compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EHS management programs.
For further information contact Caltha LLP at info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website

 

Johnson & Johnson To Phase Out Certain Chemicals From Products

Johnson and Johnson has announced that it plans to remove all potential carcinogens and dangerous chemicals from its line of toiletries and cosmetics for adults by 2015. Among the chemicals that will be removed from the products, which include adult skin care brands such as Aveeno and Neutrogena, over the next 3-4 years are 1,4 dioxane, formaldehyde, triclosan, phthalates, parabens, and fragrance ingredients. However, products will be allowed to contain chemicals that release formaldehyde in the event that there is no safe alternative. J and J's decision to remove the chemicals from its products comes after the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics began pressuring the company to do so in order to protect consumers and its own employees.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EHS compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EHS management programs. For further information contact Caltha LLP at info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website 

Proposed Amendment To Hazardous Materials Regulations

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) to maintain alignment with international standards by incorporating various amendments, including changes to proper shipping names, hazard classes, packing groups, special provisions, packaging authorizations, air transport quantity limitations, and vessel stowage requirements.

These revisions are necessary to harmonize the HMR with recent changes made to the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, the International Civil Aviation Organization's Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air, and the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods-Model Regulations and subsequently address a petition for rulemaking.

Comments must be received by October 15, 2012.


Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EHS compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EHS management programs.
For further information contact Caltha LLP at info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website

 

Proposed Safe Chemicals Act of 2011

The Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 (S. 847) was approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee on July 25 in a party-line vote. Introduced by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), the legislation would modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA) and give EPA authority to require health and safety testing of toxic chemicals. The bill would place the burden on industry to prove their chemicals are safe. Currently, EPA can call for safety testing only after evidence surfaces showing a chemical is dangerous.

In brief, the Safe Chemicals Act would:

• Require manufacturers to develop and submit safety data for each chemical they produce, while avoiding duplicative or unnecessary testing.
• Prioritize chemicals based on risk, so that EPA can focus resources on evaluating those most likely to cause harm while working through the backlog of untested existing chemicals.
• Place the burden of proof on chemical manufacturers to demonstrate the safety of their chemicals.
• Restrict uses of chemicals that cannot be proven safe.
• Establish a public database to catalog the information submitted by chemical manufacturers and the EPA's safety determinations.
• Promote innovation and development of safe chemical alternatives, and bring some new chemicals onto the market using an expedited review process.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EHS compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EHS management programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website 

 

Rulemaking On Hazardous Materials In Reverse Logistics

The Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) is seeking public comment to assist in forming a reverse logistics policy to address the unique requirements of the hazardous materials transportation. PHMSA is working to develop a cost-effective logistical solution that maintains the agency's safety standards. The advanced notice of public rulemaking seeks comment on whether providing a clear definition of reverse logistics will promote the safe transport of hazardous materials. Comments must be submitted by October 3, 2012.

Reverse logistics is the process initiated when a consumer product goes backwards in the supply chain, such as an item being returned to a store by a customer, or when a local retailer sends unused merchandise back to a regional distributor. While returns are a fairly straightforward process for most products, the effort is complicated when a consumer needs to return paint, batteries, or other regulated hazardous materials. That difficulty is multiplied for retailers trying to manage multiple returns to various suppliers at the same time.

Because many reverse logistics shipments contain regulated hazardous materials, shippers may unknowingly violate the hazardous materials regulations, which apply to consumers as well as those involved with the commercial transportation of goods. By clarifying the guidelines for hazmat reverse logistics and increasing public awareness, PHMSA hopes to greatly reduce the occurrence of improperly packaged and inappropriately congregated hazmat items being shipped, as well as the risks for danger when this happens.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EHS compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EHS management programs.

For further information contact Caltha LLP at info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website 
 

Chemical Data Reporting CDR Submittal Deadline Extended

The Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention signed a final rule on June 11, 2012 which extended the submittal period of Chemical Data Reporting (CDR). Until this extension, CDR submittals were due on or before June 30, 2012. This change extends the submittal period to August 13, 2012.

CDR reporting requires that manufacturers, processors and/or importers of TSCA-regulated chemicals to report quantities manufactured or imported and certain other information regarding chemical manufacturing (including imports) and processing.

Read a summary of the CDR rule finalized in 2011.

Need technical assistance in determining what chemicals require reporting or help with the submittal process? Caltha LLP provides technical resources to meet the needs of large and small businesses around the county. For further information, contact Caltha at (763) 208-6430 or email your questions to info@calthacompany.com

BLM Rule On Disclosure Of Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has announced a proposed rule to require companies to publicly disclose the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing operations on public and Indian lands, with appropriate protections for proprietary information. Currently, there is no specific requirement for operators to disclose these chemicals on federal and Indian lands. The proposed rule would require public disclosure of chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing after fracturing operations have been completed.

The draft rule, along with economic analysis and an appendix, also contains two additional, measures:
•Improving assurances on well-bore integrity to verify that fluids used in wells during fracturing operations are not escaping; and
•Confirming that oil and gas operators have a water management plan in place for handling fracturing fluids that flow back to the surface.

In developing the proposed rule, BLM sought feedback from a wide range of sources, governments, industry, members of the public and other interested stakeholders. BLM began formal tribal consultations in January 2012 with tribal governments about the proposed rule's ongoing development, including outreach, communication and substantive discussions. Consultation with tribal leaders remains ongoing and will continue throughout the rulemaking process.

Once the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register, a 60-day public comment period will begin.

Caltha LLP provides specialized expertise to clients nationwide in the evaluation environmental rules, developing EH&S compliance procedures, and preparing cost-effective EH&S management programs.
For further information contact Caltha LLP at
info@calthacompany.com or Caltha LLP Website