jueves, 7 de enero de 2010

EPA WILL LIST FORBIDDEN CHEMICALS

EPA Plans to List ‘Chemicals of Concern’
According to GreenBiz.com, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced plans to establish a “Chemicals of Concern” list and is beginning a process that may lead to regulations requiring significant risk-reduction measures to protect human health and the environment.
The agency’s actions are being undertaken under its authority of the existing Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), recognizing EPA’s “strong belief” that the 1976 law is both outdated and in need of reform.
In addition to phthalates, the chemicals EPA is addressing are short-chain chlorinated paraffins, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and perfluorinated chemicals, including PFOA. These chemicals are used in the manufacture of a wide array of products and have raised a range of health and environmental concerns.
EPA also recently announced that three U.S. companies agreed to phase out DecaBDE, a widely used fire retardant chemical that may potentially cause cancer and may impact brain function.
Last September, Administrator Lisa Jackson outlined a set of agency principles to help inform legislative reform and announced that EPA would act on a number of widely studied chemicals that may pose threats to human health. When TSCA was passed in 1976, there were 60,000 chemicals on the inventory of existing chemicals. Since that time, EPA has only successfully restricted or banned five existing chemicals and has only required testing on another two hundred existing chemicals. An additional 20,000 chemicals have entered the marketplace for a total of more than 80,000 chemicals on the TSCA inventory.
This is the first time EPA has used TSCA’s authority to list chemicals that “may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment.” The decision to list the chemicals further signals this administration’s commitment to aggressively use the tools at its disposal under TSCA. Inclusion on the list publicly signals EPA’s strong concern about the risks that those chemicals pose and the agency’s intention to manage those risks. Once listed, chemical companies can provide information to the agency if they want to demonstrate that their chemical does not pose an unreasonable risk.
More information on EPA’s legislative reform principles and a fact sheet on the complete set of actions on the four chemicals can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals.

No hay comentarios:

Vistas de página en total

GREEN CHEMICALS

The Green Seal certification is granted by the organization with that name and has a great number of members contributing with the requirements to pass a raw material or a chemical product as "green". Generally for a material to be green, has to comply with a series of characteristics like: near neutral pH, low volatility, non combustible, non toxic to aquatic life, be biodegradable as measured by oxygen demand in accordance with the OECD definition.
Also the materials have to meet with toxicity and health requirements regarding inhalation, dermal and eye contact. There is also a specific list of materials that are prohibited or restricted from formulations, like ozone-depleting compounds and alkylphenol ethoxylates amongst others. Please go to http://www.greenseal.com/ for complete information on their requirements.
For information on current issues regarding green chemicals, see the blog from the Journalist Doris De Guzman, in the ICIS at: http://www.icis.com/blogs/green-chemicals/.
Certification is an important — and confusing — aspect of green cleaning. Third-party certification is available for products that meet standards set by Green Seal, EcoLogo, Energy Star, the Carpet & Rug Institute and others.
Manufacturers can also hire independent labs to determine whether a product is environmentally preferable and then place the manufacturer’s own eco-logo on the product; this is called self-certification. Finally, some manufacturers label a product with words like “sustainable,” “green,” or “earth friendly” without any third-party verification.
“The fact that there is not a single authoritative standard to go by adds to the confusion,” says Steven L. Mack M.Ed., director of buildings and grounds service for Ohio University, Athens, Ohio.
In www.happi.com of June 2008 edition, there is a report of Natural formulating markets that also emphasises the fact that registration of "green formulas" is very confused at present, due to lack of direction and unification of criteria and that some governmental instittion (in my opinion the EPA) should take part in this very important issue.