ASIA PACIFIC

~dLegislation

~tManagement of residues following plague locust control - common questions

~w2010-09-08

On 6 September, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicine Authority (APVMA) published a document containing the answers to common question asked in response to the management of residues following the plague locust control. The documents address the following questions:

  • What is a Harvest Withholding Period?
  • What is a Grazing Withholding Period?
  • What is a Livestock Withholding Period?
  • Why do I need to observe a Withholding Period?
  • Where can I find the Withholding Period?
  • How does the Withholding Period apply to windrowing?
  • How does the Withholding Period apply to hay or silage production?
  • How do Withholding Periods relate to Export Intervals for management of livestock?
  • The SAFEMEAT Plague Locust Brochure6 and the Plague Locust Control Fact Sheet7 talk about Export Intervals. What are these intervals and how do I apply them in plague locust control?
  • What does this mean in practice?
  • Export Interval summary table
  • So, if I use of fenitrothion on pasture, how do I need to manage my pasture and livestock so my animals are eligible for export slaughter?
  • Do these intervals still apply if the pesticide was applied to dry pasture or fodder?

For a copy of the document go to:

APVMA, 6 September 2010

<a href="

~dLegislation

~tFSANZ invites comment on proposed changes to food code

~w2010-09-08

On 6 September, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) invited interested parties to comment on a draft national food standard (regulation) to ensure high levels of food safety in the seed sprouts industry, and on an application to approve Advantame as a high-intensity sweetener.FSANZ has already developed food safety regulations for other primary industries – called primary production and processing standards – and is currently developing standards for eggs and egg products, meat and meat products, raw milk products and seed sprouts. Advantame is a food additive, which must be approved by FSANZ before it can be sold in Australia and New Zealand.

  • Proposal P1004 – 2nd Assessment - Primary production and processing standard for seed sprouts (Australia only) Seed sprouts are a germinated form of seeds and beans that are consumed either raw or cooked. Examples include alfalfa sprouts, onion sprouts, radish sprouts and mung bean sprouts. Currently, there are no consistent national requirements for the production of seed sprouts. FSANZ is proposing an amendment to the Food Standards Code that would set regulatory food safety measures for sprout producers.
  • Application A1034 – 1st Assessment - Advantame as a high-intensity sweetener. Ajinomoto Company Incorporated has requested FSANZ to approve the use of a new intense sweetener, Advantame, for use in table top sugar substitutes (powdered only) and a range of powdered beverages including fruit drinks, milks and milk flavoured drinks, instant tea and coffee, and protein drinks. Ajinomoto has supplied a comprehensive data package on the safety and technological purpose of Advantame, which FSANZ has assessed.

The food industry, government agencies and consumers are now invited to review the assessment documentation for seed sprouts and Advantame at . Comments should be received by 18 October 2010.

Food Standards, 6 September 2010

<a href="

~dLegislation

~tChina REACH Workshop, Brussels 2010

~w2010-09-08

On 12 October 2010, the REACH24H Group, in conjunction with Dr. KNOELL CONSULT GmbH, are conducting the "China REACH Workshop, Brussels 2010" in Brussels. At the workshop, the officer of the Chemical Registration Centre, Ministry of Environmental Protection of the PRC will make a speech on the "Introduction and Enforcement of China REACH". With the approaching introduction of the new regulation concerning the management of new chemical substances in China, manufacturers and exporters of chemical products to China face ongoing challenges in order to comply with the new legislation. China REACH will affect the activities of all chemical companies who manage new chemicals in China once it comes into force on 15 October 2010.The China REACH - ''Measures on the Environmental Management of New Chemical Substances'' was published by the Chinese Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) and increases the burden of data and risk management obligations on industry. Registrations are submitted by Chinese-registered companies or agents to the MEP after evaluation by the Chemical Registration Centre of the MEP (CRC-MEP). The China REACH Workshop will serve as the platform for debating the practical issues arising from China REACH and will offer suggestions on preparing for compliance. The workshop aims to provide attendees with:

  • the unique opportunity of direct contact with the officer from the Chemical Registration Centre CRC-MEP
  • the opportunity to obtain first-hand information and the latest updates concerning China REACH and its implementation and enforcement
  • case studies from experienced providers and industrial representatives
  • the most effective compliance strategies

The workshop highlights include:

  • Important provisions which may impact you most under China REACH
  • The implementation & enforcement of China REACH
  • Detailed case studies of effective compliance strategies
  • Management and organization of China REACH compliance support

REACH Workshop, September 2010

<a href="

AMERICA

~dLegislation

~tEPA, Texas Fight Over Air Pollution

~w2010-09-08

Federal officials and environmental regulators in Texas are engaged in a public and increasingly bitter politicised battle that has evolved from a dispute regarding the state’s air pollution permitting rules into a pitched fight over states’ rights.The conflict reached the tipping point last month when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency shot down the LoneStarState’s 16-year-old program for regulating air emissions in the nation’s oil, gas, and chemical manufacturing heartland.At issue is the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s (TCEQ) controversial system of issuing “flexible” air pollution permits, which allow a general emissions cap for an entire facility rather than setting specific emissions limits for each processing unit inside a plant. Under the flexible approach, one portion of a chemical plant or refinery may emit more pollutants than federal standards allow as long as overall emissions at the facility do not violate federal air quality standards. Approximately 1,500 Texas facilities are classified as major air pollution sources under the Clean Air Act, including the dozens of refineries and petrochemical plants that line the Houston Ship Channel. The law requires these facilities to have federal operating permits but gives states authority to craft their own permitting systems.The flexible permit program, created under former Democratic Gov. Ann Richards, was submitted to EPA for review in 1994. TCEQ has been issuing permits under the program ever since, even though it never received federal approval. During the Administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, EPA repeatedly missed deadlines for making a decision on the Texas permitting program.“The Clean Air Act is the same law that polluters in all other 49 states have to follow, and it’s time that polluters in Texas follow it, too.”

During the Bush years, EPA sent flexible permit holders a notice reminding them of their obligation to comply with federal requirements. However, as soon as the Obama Administration came into power, EPA began sending a more forceful message, warning Texas that its approach does not comply with the Clean Air Act. Federal regulations require state-issued permits to set limits on pollutant emissions from each specific source of an industrial facility.The issue heated up in June after EPA took control of two state-issued air permits: one for Chevron Phillips Chemical’s Cedar Bayou petrochemical plant in Baytown, about 30 miles east of Houston, and one for a facility operated by Garland Power & Light, a utility in North Texas. The companies have until 30 September to reapply for the permits directly with the federal agency.Then on 15 July, EPA took decisive action and published its formal “disapproval” of the state’s air quality permit rules, invalidating operating permits for 122 facilities owned by companies such as ExxonMobil, Shell, Valero Energy, and BP. The federal agency said it determined that the Texas program “does not meet several national Clean Air Act requirements that help to assure the protection of health and the environment.”The decision by EPA “improves our ability to provide the citizens of Texas with the same healthy-air protections that are provided for citizens in all other states under the Clean Air Act,” says Alfredo Armendariz, head of the agency’s regional office in Dallas.EPA has not ordered any of the facilities with flexible permits to shut down their operations. But Armendariz says they will all be required to set individual pollution limits and obtain new operating permits for each production unit. N addition, some plants may have to invest millions of dollars in upgrades in order to meet federal air quality standards.Although not unexpected, EPA’s action is “nonetheless disappointing,” says Hector L. Rivero, president of the Texas Chemical Council, an industry trade group. “This action will result in onerous and costly regulations for employers without any measurable improvement to the state’s air quality.”

Chemical manufacturers want EPA to collaborate in good faith with TCEQ to resolve their regulatory differences. “Employers need fair and predictable regulations in order to remain competitive in the global economy,” Rivero says. The 500,000 Texans whose livelihoods “depend on the chemical industry in this state are counting on these issues being resolved in a constructive and expeditious manner.”EPA has reached out to industry, the environmental community, and TCEQ to discuss how to convert flexible permits into more detailed permits that comply with the Clean Air Act. The agency is offering an option that would allow these permit holders to ensure compliance through voluntary third-party audits. In exchange for making any pollution-control upgrades deemed necessary during the audit, companies would get a pledge from EPA not to pursue any enforcement actions for past violations. However, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) and state environmental officials seem ready and willing to wage war with Washington. They charge that federal regulators are overstepping their authority and ignoring the fact that air quality in Texas improved vastly over the past decade, even as the population grew.“We are defending our flexible air permitting program because it works,” says TCEQ Chairman Bryan W. Shaw. “EPA’s philosophy of more bureaucracy by federalising state permits will not lead to cleaner air, but will drive up energy costs and kill job creation at a time when people can least afford it.”On July 26, the Texas Office of the Attorney General took legal action on behalf of TCEQ and asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to overturn EPA’s rejection of the state’s air permitting program. In its petition, Texas contends that its program “improves air quality while helping regulators and regulated entities operate more efficiently.”“The last thing EPA wants to do is take over issuing air permits in Texas, but it has been forced to that point over the years.”Since 2000, airborne ozone levels in the state have decreased 22%, while nitrogen oxide emissions from industrial sources such as chemical plants, refineries, and electric utility plants have been cut by 53%, beating national averages, according to TCEQ.The Texas program has long been criticised as ineffective by public health groups and environmental activists. They contend that flexible permits mask dangerous pollution spikes in certain areas of a facility and may be allowing industry to endanger the public by emitting higher-than-allowed levels of chemicals that cause cancer, asthma, and other health problems.

“Big oil and chemical companies have been allowed for decades by TCEQ to release clouds of deadly air pollution, including toxic substances like benzene and 1,3-butadiene, both carcinogens,” says Neil Carman, clean air director for the Sierra Club’s Lone Star Chapter and a former TCEQ air investigator. Furthermore, critics note that Texas still ranks last nationwide in many air quality categories, and in some industrialised parts of the state, TCEQ air programs have not achieved compliance even with outdated federal air quality standards.“Texans deserve the same clean air protection as citizens of every other state, and TCEQ’s flexible permitting program has been denying all of us that right for nearly 20 years,” says Luke Metzger, director of Environment Texas, an advocacy group in Austin. “The Clean Air Act is the same law that polluters in all other 49 states have to follow, and it’s time that polluters in Texas follow it, too.”Regulating air pollution has been a point of conflict between Texas and Washington since President Barack Obama took office. The dispute has also become a political issue in the heated race for governor. Perry, who has been in office since 2000 and is seeking a third term this fall, maintains that EPA’s action is part of a concerted effort by the Administration to transfer power from the states to the federal government.In running for re-election, Perry has been delivering a relentless anti-Washington message. His book championing states’ rights, “Fed Up,” is scheduled to go on sale before the November elections. “This legal action is the next step in our ongoing commitment to fight back against the Obama Administration’s ever-widening effort to undermine our air quality initiatives and force a heavy-handed federal agenda on the people of Texas,” Perry says in a statement.The Democratic candidate for governor, former Houston mayor Bill White, says EPA’s takeover of air permitting in Texas is evidence of Perry’s mismanagement of TCEQ—the governor appoints the state agency’s members—along with Perry’s habit of spending more time bashing Washington than working for Texas.“Instead of solving a problem that he was alerted to by the Bush Administration, Perry created a confrontation with the EPA in order to write a new chapter in his book about the federal government,” White says in a statement. “His failure is bad for Texas businesses. I guarantee that as governor, I’ll bring permitting authority back to Texas where it belongs.”The conflict between two of the world’s largest environmental agencies is “totally fixable,” says Larry Soward, a Perry appointee who headed TCEQ from 2003 to 2009. “There is a chance to resolve the differences between TCEQ and EPA, but it will take genuine cooperation. Everyone needs to leave their politics and rhetoric at the door and work together to protect Texans’ health,” he remarks. “The last thing EPA wants to do is take over issuing air permits in Texas, but it has been forced to that point over the years.”

Chemical & Engineering News, 23 August 2010

<a href="

~dLegislation

~tNew Cigarette Label Regulations Take Effect

~w2010-09-09

Although consumers may assume cigarettes labelled light, low, or mild are healthier than regular cigarettes, there is no substantial scientific evidence that proves low-tar cigarettes cause fewer smoking-related health effects. Since 22 July 2010 those labeling terms have become off limits to cigarettes distributed in the United States under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009.By July 2011 the U.S. FDA will establish requirements for large cigarette health warnings on labels, including color graphics depicting the adverse health effects of smoking, says FDA representative Kathleen Quinn.

Environmental Health Perspectives, September 2010

<a href="

~dLegislation

~tProposed Boiler Rules Are Unachievable, ACC Says

~w2010-09-09

According to the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group, EPA’s proposed regulations for limiting emissions of toxic air pollutants from industrial boilers and process heaters are “far more stringent than necessary” to protect public health and the environment. In comments filed with the agency, ACC also expresses concern that EPA is “significantly underestimating” the costs the rules would impose on industry. ACC argues that EPA’s proposed standards for boilers and process heaters are “fundamentally flawed” because the agency analysed emissions of various pollutants individually rather than evaluating the facilities’ emissions as a whole. “EPA cherry-picks the best data in setting each standard, without regard for sources,” says Mike Walls, ACC’s vice president of technical and regulatory affairs. He says that the result is a set of “unachievable standards” that do not reflect the “actual performance of real sources.” EPA estimates that the total capital cost of complying with the new regulations will be $9.5 billion. However, ACC believes the figure will exceed $20 billion for industry overall, with $3.8 billion in costs for chemical manufacturers.