05 Jan 2010
The US Environment Protection Agency (EPA) delivered an unwelcome Christmas gift to the chemical industry over the holiday period, making two decisions that were welcomed by environmentalists but which have angered industry groups.
The watchdog announced tough new measures to regulate the use of four chemical groups, and also listed the chemicals industry as one of three sectors that will face more demanding environmental clean-up regulations.
In a move that mirrors a similar initiative in the EU, the EPA is creating a Chemicals of Concern list that will be used to identify hazardous chemicals, which will then face tough risk reduction measures.
The move is the first action taken by the EPA as part of a broad push to revise and strengthen environmental measures pertaining to chemical use that could ultimately lead to a reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). On September 29, the EPA announced that it would identify a number of chemicals of concern, and take action over them.
The four chemicals for which the EPA released action plans on December 30, are phthalates, short grain chlorinated paraffins, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, and perfluorinated chemicals. It said that it is also developing action plans for Benzidine dyes and pigments, and Bisphenol A.
The move will place pressure on manufacturers that use the substances to limit their use and find alternatives where possible.
The American Chemistry Council reacted angrily to the introduction of the four action plans, suggesting that it was based more on the chemicals' high profile in the media, rather than on scientific analysis.
"The chemical industry supports modernising the way chemicals are managed in commerce, but the CAP [chemical action plan] process to date provides no evidence of a systematic, science-based approach to chemicals management," said the ACC's president and chief executive, Cal Dooley, in a public statement. "It is vital that this be addressed."
Phthalates were banned from children's toys by the Consumer Product Safety Commission Improvement Act, passed in August 2008. That permanent ban comes into force next month, and forbids more than 0.1 per cent use of di-(2-ethylhexl), dibutyly, or benzyl butyl phthalates.
The EPA's other significant move, announced on the same day, saw it begin to develop regulations to guarantee that the owners of chemical plants can afford to pay for their own environmental clean-up.
The Agency said the new rules, which will also cover the petroleum and coal products manufacturing industry and electric power-generation industries, will reduce taxpayer liability under the Superfund environmental clean-up programme.
The move comes at a critical time politically for the EPA, as emissions reporting standards introduced by the Agency in September come into effect for the first time.
From January 1, around 10,000 facilities were required to begin gathering greenhouse gas emissions information, which they will have to report to the EPA next year.
The reporting requirements pave the way for a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program, which has become more likely following an endangerment finding issued by the EPA during the COP15 environment conference in Copenhagen last month.
The endangerment finding would allow the EPA to regulate carbon emissions through the Clean Air Act even if Congress fails to pass the proposed climate change bill that would enable a cap-and-trade scheme.
However, Republicans and a number of industry groups have vowed to contest the finding, and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association recently become the first such group to file a petition challenging the decision in the Washington DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
LATEST STORIES ABOUT LEGISLATION
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
LATEST JOBS
TODAY'S TOP STORIES
HIGHLIGHT
Solar Trade Association predicts next round of feed-in tariff cuts will be delayed by one month
INSIGHT
NEWSLETTER
INSIGHT
This new handbook explores practices that allow organisations to overcome their technological limitations and traditional office-culture challenges - freeing employees to do more with less from wherever they want to.
The centralised printers used in many businesses are wasteful, unreliable and expensive to run - just as their suppliers intend
WHAT DO YOU THINK? Add your comment