EPCRA 311 - 312 Reports - Amendments to Reporting Requirements

On November 3, 2008, US EPA published a revision to rules under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) Sections 311 and 312.

The key revisions included the following:

• Clarification on acceptable calculation methods for mixtures containing EPCRA chemicals to determine if reporting thresholds are exceeded;
• Defining the time allowed to report changes at the facility relevant to EPCRA chemicals to appropriate agencies. This includes notifying that the facility is no longer in operation, then new extremely hazardous substances (EHSs) are present at the facility, if EHSs are moved to a different location at the facility, if EHSs are no longer present at the facility, and other changes relevant to emergency planning.

For more information, refer to:

Regulatory Briefing - Revision to EPCRA Reporting Requirements

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

Mercury Air Emissions - Petition to Control Air Emmisions to Reduce Mercury in Water

The New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission has petitioned that EPA regarding Section 319(g) of the Clean Water Act, which requires controls on air emissions of mercury. EPA is being asked to bring together a management conference with eleven States that contribute much of the mercury emissions that end up in water bodies in the Northeast.

The EPA approved a Northeastern regional mercury TMDL last year that the States beleive can only can be achieved through stricter federal air emission controls on mercury. Under Section 319(g) of the Clean Water Act, States can petition the EPA to bring together "a management conference of all states which contribute significant pollution resulting from nonpoint sources,".

The petition prepared by the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission says that Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Jersey, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina and Illinois each contribute significant nonpoint source mercury pollution that prevent them from meeting their goals.

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

EU REACH Directive - Chemical Users Responsibilities

Although the burden of risk evaluation and control is placed on the manufacturers and importers, REACH does include requirements that apply to USERS of regulated materials. The risk assessment process used to register materials is based on specific uses and mitigations. Therefore, the User requirements assure that mitigation measures are actually used, and that any new uses of materials, which were not included in the risk assessment, are evaluated.

To accomplish this, Users are required to

• Use materials only for labeled uses
• Understand and use all risk mitigation measures incorporated into the manufacturers risk analysis
  

If Users of materials wish to have new uses, they have two options available:

1. They can inform their manufacturer or supplier of the new uses and request that the new uses be added to the list of recognized uses (which may require further risk assessment)
2. They can perform and submit their own risk assessment on the new use

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

EU REACH Directive - Basic Requirements

REACH is an acronym that stands for “Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals”. REACH replaces about 40 different EU regulations and provides a uniform approach to evaluating, approving, and if necessary, restricting the manufacture, import and uses of chemicals within EU Member States.

Because REACH also addresses the uses of chemicals, this directive can have a direct impact on a wide range of organizations. This article provides a summary of some of the key elements and concepts of the REACH Directive.

The basic format for the REACH directive is:

• All chemicals manufactured and/or imported to the EU in volumes more than 1 ton per year are required to be registered
• All registered chemicals must identify uses
• Manufacturers and importers must assess the risks associated with the manufacture and uses of chemicals, and then report findings to a central agency, the European Chemicals Agency.
• The European Chemicals Agency will be responsible for reviewing and evaluating chemical information and determining if any further actions to control risks are appropriate.
  

If chemicals or mixtures contain chemicals of very high concern (carcinogens, mutagens, etc.), then specific authorizations and/or restrictions on the manufacture, import, and/or uses of the materials may be required.

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

Environmental Management Systems - Cornerstones to Sustainable Systems

Whether immediately evident or not, management systems are imbedded in most operations. This is true not only of the environmental and safety aspects of an operation, but most other segments of the business, from product development and accounting, to filling customer orders. Systems audits consider the effectiveness of the systems built to accomplish a specific objective.

The underlying goal in developing a management system is to prepare a sustainable system – one that is adequately robust that it can still operate effectively even if changes occur within the operation. One common change that could impact systems is staffing changes, as key individuals transition to other positions or other companies. A SUSTAINABLE management system will be able to accommodate changes, so that the objective (e.g., regulatory compliance, accurately filling orders, etc.) is continuously met.


Below are four characteristics of sustainable management systems:

Commitment of Staff. One of the common perceptions of the “systems” approach is that it takes the burden off individuals to accomplish the objective. Although somewhat true, it is important to recognize that the burden often shifts to many individuals, each of which has a specific task to complete.

The commitment of all staff who assume a role within the system is critical to sustainability. If any one individual fails to fulfill their role, the system will begin to fail. Over the short-term, others may compensate for the lack of commitment by taking on more roles, but ultimately the system will fall apart because it is not operating as it was designed.

Effective Training. Sustainable management systems will assure that training is not only given as scheduled, but will also assure that the training is effective – ineffective training is the root cause of many, if not most, system failures.

“We train and train, but they just don’t get it”. If this is the case, it is time to consider the root cause – the problem is more likely with the training, rather than with the trainees.

In sustainable management systems, training is not limited to the classroom. “On the job” training is just as important and often is more effective. However, it requires the commitment of managers and supervisors who can provide it.

Frequent Feedback. Systems often fail because no one recognized a system breakdown was occurring until it was too late. Sustainable systems are not perfect systems – but, they are developed to assure that systemic problems are identified and corrected early. By self-correcting, the overall system not only improves and becomes more robust, it also adapts to the changes within the organization.

Management Commitment. No system can be sustained without clear management support, which is connected to the top levels of the organization. Local management support is important, but without top management endorsement, systems tend to become “pet projects”, ending with any changes to management staffing or structure.


Developing sustainable management systems takes careful consideration and planning. Referring to the four areas described above will enhance the sustainability of the system and will improve the ability of the system to evolve as the organization changes.

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

Globally Harmonized Standard (GHS) - Relationship to Other Regulatory Programs

Implementation of the Globally Harmonized Standard (GHS) in the US will indirectly affect other regulatory compliance programs. The communication of hazards is required by OSHA, however certain aspects are also regulated by other agencies. The USEPA regulates labeling and hazard communication for pesticides; the US DOT regulates the labeling and placarding of hazardous materials while in transport. These agencies will also be responding to the GHS.

Although required by OSHA, the information contained in an MSDS will be used by other regulatory programs. For example, many facilities that have an air emission permit and must prepare an annual air emission inventory (AEI) will utilize the information contained in their raw material MSDSs to determine their facility emissions. Facilities may also use the MSDS data to determine if wastes contain chemicals that are used to identify “hazardous wastes”. Previously, information on other regulations that may apply to a chemical has not been required to be included in an MSDS. This is primarily due to the fact that OSHA, the agency requiring the MSDS, did not have authority in these other areas. In many cases, companies preparing MSDSs have included information on other regulatory programs. For example, an MSDS will often list the Reportable Quantity (RQ) under CERCLA in the event of spills. Under the GHS, information on other regulations that apply to the substance is required on the MSDS. One of the challenges chemical manufacturers and distributors will have is to determine what regulations apply – especially considering that this is an “international” system, and therefore would not be limited to the regulations of one country, such as the US.

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

Changes To Hazard Communication Requirements Under Globally Harmonized Standard (GHS)

In 1992, the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED) adopted a mandate that a standardized system be developed to classify, label and communicate the hazard of materials. Several countries, including the US and Canada, had developed their own systems; however, inconsistencies between the individual requirements of these countries made international trade more challenging. While similar, the regulations of each country are different enough to require multiple labels and safety data sheets for the same product in international trade. A multinational work group, including representatives from U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), began developing the standard, now termed the Globally Harmonized System (GHS).

The GHS was adopted by the United Nations (UN) in 2003 and there is an international goal for as many countries as possible to implement the GHS by 2008. OSHA intends to revise the Hazard Communication Standard to align with the GHS and published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2006. The current Hazard Communication Standard affects many, if not most, industrial and commercial employers in the US. Most will have developed Hazard Communication programs to meet the current OSHA requirements. Changes to the requirements will impact most of these companies.

The revision to the Hazard Communication Standard will also directly affect manufacturers and distributors of chemicals. These companies may need to review and revise existing Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) to meet new requirements.

This article highlights some of the key changes reflected in the GHS compared to the current OSHA Hazard Communication Standard.

Labeling requirements. The GHS will expand the information required for labeling. Under the current OSHA requirements, labels need to identify: 1) chemical or common name, and 2) nature of hazard.

Hazard Classification. One of the most significant changes compared to the current OSHA requirement is the classification of hazards. Although the current standard does include a system of hazard classification, the GHS revises this classification system and the criteria used to assign hazards to chemicals. The GHS also incorporates a standard list of potential health effects to be considered.

Training. The training requirements under the GHS are less prescriptive compared the current OSHA Hazard Communication Standard.

Material Safety Data Sheets. The basic information required in an MSDS will be similar to what is currently familiar to most employees and employers. However, several sections will become mandatory; these include Ecological Information, Transportation Information, Disposal Information & Regulatory Information. Although these sections are often voluntarily included in MSDS, the GHS will require they be included in all MSDSs.

Transportation Placarding. The GHS provides for standard pictograms to be used to mark dangerous goods in transport.


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