Recently in Regulation Category

European manufacturers of tall oil fatty acids (TOFA) - a chemical produced from the byproduct of the pulp and paper manufacture, are hoping to have the product exempted from Europe's chemical regulation REACH (registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemical substances).

The Hydrocarbon Resins, Rosin Resins and Pine Chemicals Producers Association (HARRPA) said that TOFA and certain salts should be exempted based on their interpretation of the REACH text. Manufacturers involved in this petition include Arizona Chemical, DRT, Forchem and Kemira. Their arguments include:

• That TOFA is naturally-sourced

• That TOFA is not chemically modified

• It is not included in REACH's dangerous substance list

• It is a natural fatty acid

The first high-volume products, whether produced in the EU or imported into the region, have to be registered by 1 December 2010.

A study* from John Hopkins University estimated that animal testing of substances registered under REACH will cost $13.6bn (€9.5bn) over the next ten years, rather than the $2.3bn estimated by the EU when the programme was drafted.

One thing to note is that it will sure make it easier for chemical companies (and their customers) to overcome this kind of legislation if their products are based on renewable feedstock or already incorporating green chemistry principles.

*Subscription required

[Image of TOFA from University of Arkansas, Fayetteville]

I guess pesticide is the topic for this week after reporting about carbofuran. This time, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a new pesticide labeling to reduce off-target spray and dust drift. The agency is also requesting comments on a petition to evaluate children's exposure to pesticide drift.

The new labels will have uniform and specific directions on restricting spray drift as well as prohibit drift that could cause health or environmental effects. Examples of guidelines could include no spray buffer zones, restrictions on droplet or particle size, nozzle height, weather conditions, etc.

The agency is also taking other actions to reduce drift problems such as developing a new voluntary program called Drift Reduction Technology (DRT) programs that encourages development, marketing and use of application technologies to significantly reduce spray drift; developing information on best management practices (BMPs) to reduce off-target drift for specific application methods; education and training programs on drift management; and examine scientific issues associated with field volatilization of pesticides.

As far as DRT program is concern, the EPA plans for that program to be operative by 2010.

The green blog has been covering the carbofuran issue ever since the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided in 2008 to cancel the pesticide's registration because of concern for its health safety.

Carbofuran is an N-methyl carbamate insecticide and nematicide that has been registered to control pests in soil and on leaves in a variety of field, fruit, and vegetable crops.

In October 30, the EPA finally decided to implement its final rule to ban the pesticide and said that farmers who use the product should switch to safer alternatives instead. The carbofuran ban will start after December 31, 2009.

"EPA has carefully evaluated the scientific issues and has provided more than 500 days of public comment on this decision. It is now important to move forward with the needed public health protections, especially for children."

The EPA said the objections and science arguments presented were flawed and FMC's proposed amendments to the carbofuran registration is said to be insufficient.

FMC and the three commodity crop associations plan to take legal action against the EPA's decision in a federal court. FMC said the EPA's attempt to link carbofuran food residues to symptoms of potential poisoning in children is unwarranted.

"EPA's unprecedented attempt to deny any review of its science deprives the registrant and the growers who use carbofuran the right to prove that the product is safe, and represents a bold abuse of power in contradiction of the agency's earlier commitments to transparency and good science," said Dr. Michael Morelli, Director of Global Regulatory Affairs, FMC Agricultural Products Group.

Clorox announced today that it will modify its bleach manufacturing process in seven US facilities in order to eliminate the transport of chlorine feedstock to those facilities.

ICIS news* reported that this move was driven by potential US regulations that could restrict chlorine transport or increase associated costs.

Clorox will begin transitioning from chlorine to high-strength bleach as a raw material for making its namesake bleach starting in its Fairfield, California plant.

The high-strength bleach is a water-based solution of concentrated sodium hypochlorite that can be diluted to a specific level for household and industrial use and is still made with chlorine, according to Clorox.

The company expects to complete the transition in Fairfield within six months, followed by a phased, multi-year transition for the rest of the plants.

*Subscription only.

The UK's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) is considering the ban of inorganic phosphates in domestic laundry cleaning products (DLCPs) and is soliciting comments about it since October 22 up until January 21, 2010.

According to DEFRA, a regulatory ban is needed to reduce phosphorus pollution in the UK's water system as well as reduce the energy and chemicals used by the water industry to remove phosphorus from sewage effluent. Domestic laundry cleaning products are said to contribute 3-4% of phosphorus pollution load to the freshwater environment in the UK and Wales.

The plan is to ban on sales of all DLCPs containing more than 0.4% phosphorus by 2015. Estimated costs of the ban, which will affect manufacturers and their customers who will bear the costs of the change, are around £5-8 million/year ($8-13m/year) within 15-year period and a one time cost of £10-15 million for the transition.

Water companies, however, will be able to save a total cost (in 15-year time frame) of around £59-123 million. There is of course the environmental benefits of not having phosphorus in the water system, according to DEFRA.

The group estimates 41,600 tonnes of phosphorus is discharged to England, Wales and Scotland's water environment each year. DEFRA estimates phosphates from household products account for 61% of the phosphorus discharged; 28% from agriculture; 5% from industry and 6% from other sources.

For phosphate updates in the US, check out my posts from the AOCS conference in May.

One of the issues hotly debated in the ICIS oleochemicals conference that I attended last week in Berlin is the sustainability of palm oil. Palm oil and palm kernel oil account for majority of oleochemical feedstock used most especially in Southeast Asia.

Non-government organizations such as Friends of the Earth and GreenPeace have increasingly sounded the alarm on the unsustainability of palm oil stating fast deforestation in Southeast Asia especially Indonesia to make way for palm plantations.

One speaker from a biofuel/oleochemical producer in Belgium noted the tightening scrutiny of European Union officials in the use of palm oil and derivatives for food, biofuel and chemical production in Europe because of NGO reports of the unsustainability of palm oil. I thought I heard him mention that European regulators might even use Google map to check if palm producers are properly using land for their plantations (such as not destroying forest or using peatlands). Hmmmm.

To counteract the growing negativity of palm oil production, producers and consumers of palm oil have organized the Round table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) association and one of their goal is to form a certification proving that their palm oil products are sustainable.

Unfortunately, a recent news from the Guardian caught my attention (hence this blog post) about RSPO members having issues on setting up their sustainability standards. The problem is including calculations of greenhouse gas emissions (including emissions from land use) in their standards. Some RSPO members especially palm plantation owners are reportedly against this idea. They reasoned out that the economic and social benefits of palm oil are being eclipsed by environmental issues associated to the industry.

Palm oil, by the way, is not the only biofuel feedstock that could be affected by potential greenhouse gas emissions regulations being mulled by various governments worldwide.

Presenters at the ICIS oleochemicals conference also talked about the possible effects (especially in the US) of the new Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS2) being proposed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Under RFS2, renewable fuels must reduce GHG emissions by 50% compared with the conventional diesel they are replacing. It must also take into account indirect emissions such as land use.

The US biodiesel industry states that soybean oil-based biodiesel will not be able to meet the EPA's 50% requirement and therefore would restrict most of biodiesel feedstock to animal fats and restaurant grease.

ICIS Chemical Business (the magazine I work for) published this week its automotive issue and most of the topics seem to congregate on making automobiles green via fuel efficiency and use of renewable fuels.

Andy Brice wrote "The Weighting Game" which talked about innovative chemical products (an example is biobased engineering plastics) that reduce the weight of vehicles, and thus making them more economical and reduces emissions.

Consultants from PricewaterhouseCoopers wrote about the new CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards being recommended by the EPA, which calls for a new minimum average fuel economy requirements of 35.5 miles/gallon for vehicles by 2016 compared to the current 27.5 mpg. The change won't be cheap they said.

Ryan Hickman tells a story about the cash-for-clunkers auto stimulus program in the US (and worldwide), how they affected sales of new automobiles and down the road, demand for automotive chemicals and materials.

October 1 is the start of banning plastic bottle waste in North Carolina's landfills along with clean wood waste, e-waste, wooden pallets and motor vehicle oil filter.

With plastic bottles, the law encourages people to recycling instead, said Raleigh City officials. Raleigh residents, they said, can put the plastic bottles in their City-issued recycling bins.

"This is a wonderful new law," Linda Leighton, waste reduction specialist for the City of Raleigh Solid Waste Services Department, said of the new law. "A great number of our residents would willingly comply and keep plastic bottles out of the landfill, if we make them aware of the new law."

The goal of Raleigh's Solid Waste Department is to increase that number to 451 pounds per year by 2012. Currently the average Raleigh resident recycles 384 pounds each year, said Leighton.

"The ban on placing plastic bottles in the landfill should help."

1. San Francisco, Calif., bag ban (2007)
2. Malibu, Calif. (2008)
3. Maui County, Hawaii (2008)
4. Westport, Conn. (2008)
5. Fairfax, Calif. (2008)
6. Palo Alto, Calif. (2009)
7. North Carolina Outer Banks (Currituck, Dare and Hyde Counties) (2009)
8. Edmonds, Wash. (2009)
9. Bethel, Alaska (2009)
10. District of Columbia (2009)

The American Chemistry Council (ACC) set up a polling website to gauge America's opinion on the pending cap and trade legislation called ACES (American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009).

Through several questions, the ACC explores possible effects of the ACES (or any other climate change) bill and asks whether you agree, disagree (or neutral) with those views.

Here are the questions:

• It's important that any effort to lower greenhouse gas emissions doesn't over-burden our children's future by putting economic recovery and U.S. jobs at risk. Agree or disagree?
  

• Lowering greenhouse gas emissions is important, but ensuring that U.S. businesses remain competitive in the global economy is just as important. Agree or disagree?
  

• If energy gets too expensive too quickly, companies will be forced to relocate overseas and U.S. jobs will be lost. Agree or disagree?
  

• Congress needs to develop an energy and climate policy that encourages energy efficiency, conservation, and energy diversity using lower emission sources such as nuclear, renewable and alternatives. Agree or disagree?
  

• Because natural gas is an important source of clean energy, we need to expand our domestic supplies. Agree or disagree?
  

The ACC depicted (via a very cute video cartoon) of what could happen if the Senate would pass a "poorly constructed" ACES act such as US job lost, manufacturing relocation, and even increase of greenhouse gas emissions.

This recent mandate from the Massachusetts' state Department of Energy Resources (DOER) on biofuels might be music to the ears of waste fats and oils suppliers but definitely constricts the development of non-food based biofuel feedstock such as algae, switchgrass, camelina, jatropha and other non-food oils sources.

According to a report from Biofuels Digest, DOER's biofuels mandate would ban all biofuels not made using waste feedstocks from qualifying under the state's Clean Energy Biofuels Act of 2008. Meaning biofuels made from plants (or organisms) that are harvested are not considered as a waste feedstock and that includes algae.

The mandate will begin July 1,2010. DOER said it will begin accepting applications for qualifying Advanced Biofuels by October 2009.

"Until further notice, DOER will only accept applications for biofuels derived from waste feedstocks which, as defined and provided in the statute, are exempt from a detailed greenhouse gas reduction analysis, provided a preliminary analysis based on both CARB and EPA methodologies indicate such waste feedstocks will yield the 50% greenhouse gas reduction threshold in the Massachusetts law."

Biofuels produced from mixed waste and non-waste feedstocks can also seek qualification from DOER for the portion of the finished biofuel that is attributable to the waste feedstock.

Now I understand the concern about using food-based feedstock such as soybean and corn when it comes to biofuel production but excluding non-food based plants and organisms such as camelina and algae from biofuel credits is beyond me. I wonder what are the reasons behind this move?