Early Warning On Chemical Regulations

When U.S. manufacturers gathered earlier this month to figure out how to respond strategically to emerging chemical regulations abroad, they made little progress. In contrast to their inconclusive discussions, the U.S. military described its system for following and influencing the development of domestic environmental regulations that could affect use and availability of chemicals.

The Aug. 9???10 conference, held in Baltimore and organized by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), was billed as a forum for "developing a sustainable approach to emerging chemical issues." There, industry representatives tried to lay the groundwork for unifying the voices of U.S. manufacturers so they can influence the development of policies on chemicals elsewhere in the world. Much of the discussion, however, focused on how the European Union's new legislation, the Registration, Evaluation & Authorization of Chemicals (REACH), is affecting global operations and supply chains.

"We never want to get caught in a reaction mode again," said Nina I. McClelland, chair of the conference. The talk about REACH and other EU regulatory directives affecting chemicals, which are posing implementation challenges to U.S. manufacturers, can motivate companies to work together, said McClelland, president of Nina I. McClelland LLC in Ann Arbor, Mich., and former chair the American Chemical Society Board of Directors.

Rather than repeatedly dealing with the aftermath of new policies passed abroad that affect chemicals, U.S. companies need to band together and develop an early- warning system for regulatory issues in other countries, McClelland told C&EN.

S. Joe Bhatia, president and chief executive officer of ANSI, stressed the importance of U.S. companies coming together to identify a regulatory initiative while it is taking shape so they can influence its outcome. Emerging chemical regulations in other countries, he said, "have the potential to disrupt billions of trade dollars."

Furthermore, new regulatory efforts on chemicals aren't just happening in other countries, said John H. Marburger, director of the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy. Businesses also need to keep track of new chemical restrictions that are proliferating domestically at the state and city levels, he said.

Emerging constraints on chemicals, however, go beyond government actions, said Michael Kirschner, president of Design Chain Associates, a San Francisco-based firm that consults with manufacturers of electronic equipment. For instance, Kirschner said, Wal-Mart, the largest U.S. retail company, has a sustainable electronics initiative that will require its suppliers to provide data about the environmental performance of products. Wal-Mart plans to share some of this information with consumers in an effort to distinguish itself from other large retailers of electronic products, Kirschner said at the conference.

Yet U.S. companies continue to differ on how to address emerging chemical issues, said James Cooper, senior manager for government relations at the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association (SOCMA). Even different segments of the U.S. chemical industry are "not on the same page with some of these issues," he said. In contrast, environmental activists for the past five years have been "tightly organized" on chemical-related regulatory efforts, he said.

Two plans for addressing emerging chemical regulations came out. One, backed by McClelland, would have ANSI form a panel composed of participants from industry, ACS, and the U.S. government to track these activities abroad. Cooper, meanwhile, proposed regular, informal meetings of trade associations to share information about new regulatory initiatives in other countries. The cost to member companies would be virtually nothing, he said, adding that some businesses may be reluctant to pay the costs of being part of an ANSI panel.

Meanwhile, ANSI is hosting monthly teleconferences on chemical issues. Also, ANSI and the National Association of Manufacturers are forming a manufacturers' network on chemical regulations.

Although attendees may be uncertain about how to respond to future chemical regulations, the impact of those now in place and over which U.S. industry had little influence is clear.

General Motors, for example, is faced with requiring non-EU suppliers to provide data required by REACH for chemicals in vehicle parts, said Patricia Beattie, GM director of chemical risk management. GM is dealing with the challenge of verifying the accuracy of chemical information provided by parts suppliers from all over the world, from Botswana to Vietnam, she said. "For any global manufacturer with a complex supply chain, this is a challenge," she added.

Another example came from Pratt & Whitney, which had to stop shipping a key part to the EU because it contained a polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardant, said Sophia Danenberg, manager of compliance and corporate responsibility for the aircraft maker. The EU directive RoHS, which took effect in July 2006, bans the sale of new electrical and electronic equipment containing more than specified small amounts of the flame retardant, among other compounds. As a result, the company shifted away from a voluntary effort to remove toxic cadmium from thousands of its parts-which would have a major environmental benefit-to come up with alternatives for the single piece with PBDEs, she said.

Conference attendees also heard from an entity that has already established a system for tracking the evolution of regulations affecting chemicals and market availability of products-the Department of Defense.

DOD wants to predict which of the chemicals it uses or might use could pose health or environmental risks, said Paul Yaroschak, deputy director for emerging contaminants at the department. The military defines emerging contaminants as chemicals or materials that have a perceived or real threat to human health or the environment and that have no health-based regulatory standard for exposure, he explained.

The goal, Yaroschak said, is to protect people, DOD's mission, and military assets. In the 1990s, he noted, the military knew the U.S. planned to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals. Nonetheless, we "got caught with our pants down," he said, referring to DOD, and had to scramble to stockpile halons and other ozone-depleters critical to defense operations. "We hope not to do that in the future," Yaroschak said.

Yaroschak's office has adopted a three-part process dubbed "scan-watch-action." The first step, scanning, includes review of scientific papers, publications, communications from regulators, and even the video-sharing site YouTube, for developments on chemicals that possibly could affect DOD, he said.

When the military identifies potential problems, the chemical gets moved to the "watch" list, Yaroschak said. DOD monitors new developments related to these watched substances and does a first assessment of how possible regulation or changes in the market could affect the military.

If concerns grow to the point that they could have large probable impacts on DOD, the chemical moves to the third phase: action. This phase entails more detailed assessments and development of risk management options, Yaroschak continued. Actions may include conducting toxicology studies, substituting another material, discussing options with regulators, stockpiling a chemical, assessing and monitoring exposure to the substance of concern, training, and using protective equipment.

For example, Yaroschak said, DOD has applied the scan-watch-action process to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). This chemical is perhaps best known as a processing aid used in the manufacture of coatings for nonstick cookware, including DuPont's Teflon, as well as waterproof, breathable membranes. PFOA persists in the environment and bioaccumulates, and science advisers to the Environmental Protection Agency are recommending that EPA classify the chemical as a "likely" human carcinogen. DuPont, the only U.S. manufacturer of PFOA, has pledged to stop making the chemical by 2015 (C&EN, Feb. 12, page 17.)

PFOA is a critical material for weapons components, Yaroschak said, and DOD is determining the likelihood of it staying available on the market. PFOA is currently on the military's watch list, but it may get elevated to the action list, Yaroschak said.

Among the chemicals on DOD's watch list, Yaroschak said, are 1,4-dioxane, 1,2,3-trichloropropane, tetrachloroethylene, and dichlorobenzenes, which are used as solvents or degreasers. Also on the list are nanomaterials, PBDE flame retardants, and several metals, such as beryllium, lead, nickel, and tungsten.

The military's action list has five chemicals: perchlorate, which is used in rocket fuel; royal demolition explosive (RDX or cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine); the degreaser trichloroethane; hexavalent chromium; and naphthalene. Yaroschak said research is under way on the toxicity of and substitutes for some of these materials. Other studies are investigating techniques to remediate environmental contamination from these chemicals, he said.

Informal discussions at the meeting revealed that the industries represented at the conference sometimes have conflicting goals regarding chemical regulatory policies. Some attendees wondered how the different sectors could coalesce around the issue. Others expressed concern whether, in the absence of specific backing and direction from corporate leaders, their companies should participate in such an effort. It may be awhile before businesses achieve the military's organization in tracking and responding to emerging chemical regulation.