By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
On September 25, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognized 14 Safer Choice Partner of the Year award winners for outstanding achievement in 2018 for the design, manufacture, selection, and use of products with safer chemicals for use in households and facilities nationwide. The Safer Choice program partners with businesses and others to help consumers and commercial buyers identify products with safer chemical ingredients, without sacrificing quality or performance. According to EPA’s press release, the 2019 Partner of the Year award winners represent businesses -- including woman-owned and small- and medium-sized -- local government, and associations. The following organizations from seven EPA regions are being awarded this year:
- Albertsons Companies, Boise, ID -- Recognized as an outstanding Safer Choice Retailer;
- BASF Home Care and I&I Cleaning Solutions, Florham Park, NJ -- Recognized as an outstanding Safer Choice Innovator;
- Berkley Green, Uniontown, PA -- Recognized as an outstanding Safer Choice Formulator-Product Manufacturer;
- Earth Friendly Products, Garden Grove, CA -- Recognized as an outstanding Safer Choice Formulator-Product Manufacturer;
- Hazardous Waste Management Program, King County, WA -- Recognized for its efforts to advance the use of chemicals that meet Safer Choice criteria;
- Holloway House, Inc., Fortville, IN -- Recognized as an outstanding Safer Choice Formulator-Product Manufacturer;
- Household & Commercial Products Association, Washington, DC -- Recognized for advancing the use of chemicals that meet Safer Choice criteria;
- Jelmar, LLC, Skokie, IL -- Recognized as an outstanding Safer Choice Formulator-Product Manufacturer;
- Lemi Shine, Austin, TX -- Recognized as an outstanding Safer Choice Formulator-Product Manufacturer;
- The Procter & Gamble Company, Cincinnati, OH -- Recognized as an outstanding Safer Choice Formulator-Product Manufacturer;
- RB, Parsippany, NJ -- Recognized for advancing the use of chemicals that meet Safer Choice criteria;
- Seventh Generation, Burlington, VT -- Recognized as an outstanding Safer Choice Formulator-Product Manufacturer;
- Solutex, Inc., Sterling, VA -- Recognized as an outstanding Safer Choice Purchaser and Distributor; and
- Wegmans Food Markets, Rochester, NY -- Recognized as an outstanding Safer Choice Retailer.
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on September 18, 2019, that it is now accepting nominations for the 2020 Green Chemistry Challenge Awards for companies or institutions that have developed a new process or product that helps protect public health and the environment. EPA defines green chemistry as the design of chemical products and processes that reduce both the generation and use of chemicals that are hazardous to the environment and people’s health. Nominations for innovative technologies featuring the design of greener chemicals and products, greener chemical syntheses and reactions, or greener chemical processes are due to EPA by December 31, 2019. EPA states that it anticipates giving awards to outstanding green chemistry technologies in five categories in June 2020. According to EPA, since the inception of the awards more than two decades ago, it has received more than 1,600 nominations and presented awards to 118 technologies that reduced the use or generation of hundreds of millions of pounds of hazardous chemicals and saved billions of gallons of water and trillions of BTUs in energy. An independent panel of technical experts convened by the American Chemical Society Green Chemistry Institute will formally judge the 2020 nominations and make recommendations to EPA for the 2020 winners.
By Lynn L. Bergeson
On June 11-13, 2019, the American Chemical Society (ACS) Green Chemistry Institute® will host the 23rd Annual Green Chemistry and Engineering Conference and the 9th International Conference on Green and Sustainable Chemistry. The Conference will be held right outside of Washington D.C. in Reston, Virginia, and will focus on the theme of “Closing the Loop” in the chemical life cycle. With over three days of programming, the Conference offers more than 40 technical sessions in seven concurrent tracks and multiple opportunities to network with hundreds of attendees from around the world. This year’s featured keynote speakers are:
- Udit Batra, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer, MilliporeSigma;
- Lee Cronin, Ph.D., Regis Professor of Chemistry, University of Glasgow; and
- Dana Kralisch, Ph.D., Professor of Pharmaceutical Technology and Biopharmacy, Institute of Pharmacy, Faculty of Biological Sciences, Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, and Chief Technical Officer, JeNACell GmbH.
Richard E. Engler, Ph.D., Director of Chemistry for Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) and The Acta Group (Acta®), will be presenting Regulatory Barriers to a Circular Economy on June 13, 2019, and Ligia Duarte Botelho, M.A., a Regulatory Associate with B&C and Acta and Manager with B&C® Consortia Management, L.L.C. (BCCM), will be presenting Role of Regulations in Circular Economy: Challenge of New Chemical Bias on June 13, 2019.
Reduced rates for advanced registration are available until May 31, 2019. Registration is available online.
By Lynn L. Bergeson
On June 10, 2019, at 5:00 p.m., the American Chemical Society (ACS) will hold the 2019 Green Chemistry Challenge Awards ceremony in Washington, D.C. Sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), in partnership with the ACS Green Chemistry Institute® and members of the chemical community, these prestigious annual awards recognize chemical technologies that incorporate the principles of green chemistry into chemical design, manufacture, and use.
EPA usually presents one Green Chemistry Challenge Award in each award category. For the 2019 competition, there are five award categories:
- Focus Area 1: Greener Synthetic Pathways;
- Focus Area 2: Greener Reaction Conditions;
- Focus Area 3: The Design of Greener Chemicals;
- Small Business (for a technology in any of the three focus areas developed by a small business); and
- Academic (for a technology in any of the three focus areas developed by an academic researcher).
By Lynn L. Bergeson, Richard E. Engler, Ph.D., and Carla N. Hutton
On July 20, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a report on its audit of EPA’s implementation of the OIG recommendations for the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards (PGCCA) Program. The PGCCA Program is sponsored by the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) to promote the environmental and economic benefits of developing and using green chemistry by recognizing industry innovations. In 2015, OIG reported that award results submitted to the EPA’s Pollution Prevention (P2) Program from PGCCA recipients were not adequately supported or transparent. In its audit, OIG found that EPA discontinued the use of unverified PGCCA results in EPA performance metrics, but “a lack of documented controls presents risk that these data may be used in the future.”
Please see the full memorandum for more information including a short history on performance metrics of the Green Chemistry Program.
By Zameer Qureshi
On October 4, 2016, Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) hosted its fourth and final webinar in its series of webinars on the new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in collaboration with Chemical Watch. The webinar addressed numerous important issues for a wide array of stakeholders. The webinar was moderated by Lynn L. Bergeson, Managing Partner at B&C, and the expert panel included Charles M. Auer, Richard E. Engler, Ph.D., Lisa R. Burchi, and Sheryl L. Dolan.
Mr. Auer, Senior Regulatory and Policy Advisor at B&C, addressed “Administration of the Act” and described important changes between old and new TSCA. Mr. Auer’s presentation consisted of three segments: (1) “Section 26 Science Requirements”; (2) “Section 26 Information and Guidance”; and (3) “Section 26 ‘Savings’ Provision.”
Mr. Auer addressed the “Scientific Standards” requirements of new TSCA Section 26(h), the “Weight of Scientific Evidence” requirements of Section 26(i), and the Section 26(o) provisions of new TSCA relating to Consultation with the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC). Mr. Auer addressed a number of additional rules and requirements in Section 26, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) obligation to submit a report to Congress and issue an Annual Plan under Sections 26(m)-(n).
Ms. Burchi, Of Counsel at B&C, discussed “Preemption” under Section 18 of new TSCA. Ms. Burchi described preemption as “one of the most debated subjects in [the TSCA reform] debate” and stated that she had heard it referred to as a “linchpin” in terms of reaching agreement on provisions for TSCA reform to occur. Ms. Burchi stated “Everything in the new Section 18 is new or very significantly changed from what we were used to with regard to preemption … The final provisions are fairly complicated … It will remain to be seen whether states continue to act with regard to chemical substances in the way that they have been.”
Ms. Burchi addressed the three “main” provisions related to preemption under new TSCA Sections 18(a)(1)(A)-(C), and analyzed more specific issues (e.g., pause preemption) and the related exceptions. Ms. Burchi described the TSCA Section 18(d)-(e) provisions relating to “Exceptions” and “Preservation of Certain Laws.” Ms. Burchi also addressed new TSCA’s Section 18(f) “Waivers” provisions and concluded her segment of the presentation with the following statement: “It remains to be seen whether states are going to be jumping in to [take action] when EPA has already identified a chemical for prioritization and review … [There will be some interesting provisions and interplay] to be seen as we move forward under new TSCA.”
Ms. Dolan, Senior Regulatory Consultant at B&C, analyzed “Fees” under new TSCA and addressed EPA’s obligations to: (1) set lower fees for small business concerns; (2) consider balance between manufacturers and processors; and (3) consult with the regulated community. Ms. Dolan stated “new TSCA directs EPA to review its fee program on a three-year cycle and revise it as needed to raise the target fees … While new TSCA did not set a deadline for developing the fees program, it really didn’t have to -- EPA, of course, has every incentive to knock this rulemaking out quickly.”
Ms. Dolan indicated that a final rule is expected on fees under new TSCA by June 2017, and provided an overview of comments received on the proposed rule. Ms. Dolan stated that “overarching themes” in the comments included that: (1) fees should be tied to the level of required effort; (2) fees should encourage innovation; and (3) fees should not be overly complex or difficult to administer. In relation to (3), Ms. Dolan quoted a commenter that stated “don’t give us the [Internal Revenue Service (IRS)] Code.”
Ms. Dolan stated “everyone seems to want to know how much will a [pre-manufacture notice (PMN)] cost in the future … I think the answer to that [will come with a big red bow] in December. Specifically, EPA states that it will send a proposal to [the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)] in mid-October … EPA may well set a comment period of at least 60 days for this proposed rule.”
Dr. Engler, Senior Chemist at B&C, discussed Sustainable Chemistry (i.e., Green Chemistry) under new TSCA. Dr. Engler stated “new TSCA is largely silent on sustainability” and indicated that the “primary benefit” to Sustainable Chemistry under new TSCA is the abbreviated review period when EPA determines that a new chemical is “not likely to present” an unreasonable risk (i.e., 90-day period waived and manufacturers can commence manufacturing immediately). Dr. Engler addressed chemicals that EPA considers to present low hazard for health and ecotoxicity (“low/low” chemicals) and stated that new TSCA could be “more of a driver for Sustainable Chemistry,” if only low/low chemicals escape regulation.
Dr. Engler addressed “Relative Risk under New TSCA” and EPA’s “Safer Choice Program” (SCP). Dr. Engler discussed the Senate Report on S. 697, which suggested that EPA should consider “private sector voluntary consensus standards as an alternative” to SCP. Dr. Engler indicated that as the relevant section of the Senate report concerns Section 23, the Sustainable Chemistry Section that was not included in the enacted new TSCA, it is unclear how it applies to new TSCA as enacted. Dr. Engler stated that EPA is proceeding with SCP and hosting a summit in November on this topic.
The webinar concluded with a Questions and Discussion (Q&D) session, and B&C’s expert panel provided useful answers and analyses in response to attendees’ questions. Ms. Bergeson moderated the Q&D session, which was organized by topic.
In the Q&D session, Ms. Bergeson stated and asked Ms. Dolan: “Fees are super important … [small businesses and startups] might have a hard time mustering any type of financial liquidity to get their notifications through the gauntlet of EPA -- so how would you expect EPA to be defining lower fees for purposes of small business provision?”
Ms. Dolan responded by stating “[currently, the ratio is $2,500 and $100 for small businesses. I would imagine there will be some kind of comparable proportionality and currently there are other submissions (e.g., Low Volume Exemptions) that don’t require any fees. EPA has got to raise the money somewhere -- the more they put it on something else or the more they try to avoid charging fees for things, the more it’s going to jack up the cost and other things. I would imagine that they are going to charge something for everything. Whether they maintain that proportionality of 100:2500 remains to be seen. Another consideration is what constitutes a small business. There is a lot of conversation about that and the fact that definition hasn’t been updated in quite a while … This might be something that is the focus of a lot of attention in the proposed rule.]”
Ms. Bergeson drew on Mr. Auer’s extensive experience with EPA on several occasions during the Q&D session, starting questions with “If you were back at EPA,” and Mr. Auer’s responses were comprehensive. Dr. Engler responded to questions regarding Green Chemistry and discussed Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) substances under new TSCA, and Ms. Burchi answered questions on California’s Safer Consumer Products Regulation (SCPR) and preemption under new TSCA.
More information on TSCA reform and B&C’s “The New TSCA: What You Need to Know” webinar series is available online.
On July 1, 2016, Inside EPA published "Committee Jurisdiction Issues Blocked Green Chemistry From TSCA Reform," an article discussing the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) law and the lack of language from previous versions boosting federal support of green chemistry. The majority of the bill was reviewed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, but the green chemistry provision would have needed to be reviewed by the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, further complicating the fragile House and Senate negotiations. Inside EPA's source stated: "Nobody wanted to step on anybody's toes. [...] Pretty much everything else [was] in [Energy and Commerce's] jurisdiction or was sufficiently small enough [to not raise concerns.] There were a lot of concessions on all sides." The green chemistry provision was originally added to the Senate version of the TSCA Reform, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697), by Senator Chris Coons (D-DE), and was primarily focused on funding the research and development of green chemistry.
The green chemistry provision of S. 697 called for a study of how to best incentivize sustainable chemistry research and development, as well as support "economic, legal and other appropriate social science research to identify barriers to commercialization and methods to advance commercialization of sustainable chemistry." The bill also created a working group to coordinate federal sustainable chemistry activities that would be lead by EPA's research chief and the National Science Foundation (NSF) director, as well as an advisory council to coordinate with the working group. Although green chemistry language in S. 697 did not remain in the final version of the bill, there are still supporters in Congress who are prepared to work to get the programs outlined in S. 697 into law.