On October 31, 2011, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (CDTSC) released an “informal draft” of its Safer Consumer Products Regulations. The draft does a good job of outlining how CDTSC intends to implement key mandates contained in the state’s Green Chemistry Initiative, which directs regulators to evaluate safer alternatives to chemicals that are believed to be toxic. This “Washington Watch” column summarizes key provisions of this precedent-setting, game-changing regulatory development.

Based on written communications from the EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, questions have been raised as to the agency’s interpretation of the six chemical categories created under the Toxic Substances Control Act’s Section 8(b)(2) authority. Given the statements from EPA over the past several years and recognizing that reporting under the TSCA Chemical Data Reporting rule commenced Feb. 1 (and runs through June 30, 2012), a critically important question is whether chemical substances that would otherwise fit within the Section 8(b)(2) categories are chemical substances subject to reporting as the category under the CDR.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released on March 20, 2012, proposed significant new use rules (SNUR) that would require companies to report all new uses of five groups of chemicals, including domestic and imported products and articles. This would give EPA the opportunity, if warranted, to prohibit or limit the activity. The chemicals, which were part of the EPA's Chemical Action Plans from 2009 through 2011, are polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDE), hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), benzidine dyes, short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCP), and di-n-pentyl phthalate (DnPP). This column summarizes key points in the proposals.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced that Dover Chemical Corporation has agreed to pay a $1.4-million civil penalty for alleged violations of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) premanufacture notice (PMN) obligations for the production of various short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCP). This column explains why this enforcement action is noteworthy.

Most would agree that legislative reform of the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is long overdue. Few agree on what to change and how best to proceed. If you throw in the 2012 presidential election, you have gridlock. Commerce marches on, however, and with the Environmental Protection Agency reinventing TSCA implementation in innovative and effective ways, Reach setting the new global tone, and California creating a new template for sustainable consumer products, TSCA reform is at risk of becoming a distracting afterthought. Stakeholders must develop new strategies to survive and flourish in these fast-changing times.

On December 19, 2011, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) announced that it added 20 substances of very high concern (SVHC) to the Candidate List, which now includes 73 substances.

In August 2010, EPA announced that it was considering allowing the Swiss company HeiQ Materials Ag to enter the U.S. market with a new nanosilver pesticide and textile preservative, HeiQ AGS-20. On Dec. 1, 2011, the EPA issued a conditional registration for a pesticide product.

On January 26, 2012, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approving a pesticide product containing nanosilver under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This article summarizes the lawsuit, explains what’s at stake, and discusses the lawsuit’s implications.

Based on written communications from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, questions have been raised as to the agency’s interpretation of the six chemical categories created under Toxic Substances Control Act Section 8(b)(2) authority. Chemicals long considered part of these well-established categories identified decades ago are complex reaction products that fall under the TSCA Section 8(b)(2) category listing. Given the statements from EPA over the past several years and recognizing that reporting under the TSCA Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule is just around the corner, a critically important question is whether chemicals that would otherwise fit within the Section 8(b)(2) categories are subject to reporting under the CDR. This article examines this question by considering the regulatory history and guidance, prior reporting that has occurred, and business issues associated with the question.