NEMA Currents : Environmental Design

REACH-ing” for higher and higher costs

Kohorst, Mark — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:11:00 GMT

A study by the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health recently concluded that the REACH regulation in the European Union will require $13.6 billion to implement over the next 10 years—six times more than previously anticipated [T Hartung and Constanza Rovida, Nature, 2009, 460, 27; available for a fee online]. The principal reason is that the number of chemicals pre-registered for REACH by industry vastly exceeded expectations, pointing to a huge volume of testing. The JHU authors found that as many as 101,000 chemicals could be covered by REACH, triple the earlier estimates. They concluded that “this clearly challenges the feasibility of the program without a major investment into high-throughput methodologies” that would expedite the testing regimens.

What does that mean? Probably higher fees paid by industry to the European Chemical Agency to cover registration and authorization activities. Those watching the REACH "vision" unfold, particularly in the manufacturing community, should probably be forgiven for saying “I told you so.” There was never much doubt that this was a hugely ambitious and expensive regulatory initiative. In fact the authors of the Hopkins study, who are supporters of REACH, describe it as “the biggest investment into consumer safety ever.” Which begs the question as to whether it will ultimately produce commensurate benefits. Maybe someday we’ll know.

Watch the Pots...They'll Eventually Boil

Owen, Sarah — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:11:00 GMT

With every new presidential administration comes a different set of priorities and issues, and Congress' legislative agenda reflects this fact. However, while much of the media focus has been on the big ticket items--health care reform, climate change, regulation of the financial industry, and the economy, there are several other items that are simmering on the backburner. At some point, the heat will get turned up and these issues will really start bubbling.

Here is a sampling of just a few such issues:

Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act (HR 3126): expands government regulation of consumer financial products, potentially impacting business' credit agreements with customers. Click here to learn more and to send a message to Congress.
Healthy Families Act (HR 2460): mandates that businesses with 15 or more employees provide up to 7 days of paid sick leave to their employees.
Protecting America's Workers Act (HR 2067): strengthens the authority of the U.S. Occupational Safety Health Administration (OSHA), giving OSHA more tools for increased enforcement and penalties.
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform: Congress plans to introduce/consider legislation to overhaul our nation's chemicals management system. NEMA has urged Congress to include the "Environmental Design of Electrical Equipment Act" (HR 2420) as part of such reform. For more infromation, please click here.
Employee Free Choice Act (S 560/HR 1409) or similar compromise: strips workers' of their rights to secret ballots for union organizing elections and imposes mandatory binding arbitration on employees and employers if they fail to achieve consensus on contract terms within 120 days. Click here to read more and take action.

Most of these issues won't make the front page of the newspaper or create as much debate as say, health care reform, but it is important to know that they are on the stove. Industry needs to keep an eye on these pots (as well as numerous others...this list is by no means exhaustive) and communicate to Congress on both those proposals with which we agree and those we don't. The moral of the story: we don't want the pots to boil over before we have a chance to have our say on their potential (positive or negative) impact.

REACH – Two Years In

Kohorst, Mark — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:58:00 GMT

Earlier this week I attended a day-long seminar at a DC law firm that provided a status report on implementation of REACH, the ground-breaking regulatory program for chemicals under construction in the European Union. In a landmark “paradigm shift,” the entry-into-force of REACH in 2007 made suppliers, not government, responsible for assuring their products are safe before they are allowed to enter (or remain on) the market. There were many take-aways from the various presentations at the seminar, but for me the most vivid was the breathtaking cost and resource burden this regulation now imposes on the global manufacturing industry. We heard detailed reports from lawyers and consultants who are helping companies execute their obligations under REACH about the problems and uncertainties they face, the market disruptions that are inevitably appearing, and the growing momentum for similar legislation in the US. The one thing we didn’t hear about, however, was whether the European population is, or will be, any safer once the full impact of REACH is realized throughout the continent. Many of us will be anxiously awaiting this benefits report, if it ever appears.

NEMA Call to Action Legislation is Introduced

Kohorst, Mark — Tue, 19 May 2009 20:22:00 GMT

Last week saw many months of effort by NEMA staff and member company reps rewarded by introduction in the US House of Representatives of HR 2420, The Environmental Design for Electrical Equipment Act ("EDEE Act"). This proposed legislation would codify into US law Phase I of the NEMA Call to Action, the industry's voluntary commitment to conform to substance thresholds set in the European RoHS Directive wherever NEMA products in the scope of that directive are sold. The bill was introduced by Rep. Michael Burgess (R, TX), a physician who serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has oversight on environmental and energy matters. Like the RoHS Directive, it establishes thresholds on the use of lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and two flame retardants in certain electroindustry products. The bill contains exemptions for certain applications when necessary to ensure continued compliance with industry's rigid safety and performance standards. It also would set a level-playing field for domestically made and imported products, and discourages the proliferation of a patchwork of inconsistent state laws and regulations that are not a workable solution in interstate and global commerce.

NEMA believes that if enacted, this legislation will prove to be a win for industry, a win for the public, and a win for the environment. We've received uniformly positive feedback in our informational briefings on Capitol Hill and expect to have additional sponsors soon. More information can be obtained by visiting: NEMA's Environmental Call-to-Action Initiative.

HPB Congressional Caucus Issues Recommendations on Federal Buildings Acquisitions

Moldoveanu, Andrei — Thu, 14 May 2009 14:07:00 GMT

Several days ago the High Performance Building Congressional Caucus issued a series of recommendations regarding Producing High-Performance Federal Buildings. The first one on the list asks Congress to require that for all Acquisitions of Federal Buildings True Life-Cycle Analysis and Decision - Making be performed. The second would require total building commissioning for all the federal Building Stock.

When translated into legal language this would change the way business is conducted in a very significant way. Initially it would definitely look like the bureaucratic mission from hell. However when industries manufacturing building products would drill down this analysis to components there's a very good chance that many beneficial changes would become apparent. Greener products would compete for business in an economy that would have put a price on this color.

FOX - Misleading viewers on batteries

Kohorst, Mark — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:47:00 GMT

The FOX media network’s “Green It-Mean It” video campaign took a turn for the bizarre recently with a segment on single-use batteries. Entitled “Batteries,” the video asserts that most batteries sold each year are disposed in landfills where they “leak toxic chemicals into our land and air.” Behind a menacing figure of a skull and crossbones (not much subtlety there), the voiceover concludes with a suggestion that viewers “check to see if your favorite brands make rechargeable batteries.”

This video, which NEMA has requested Fox to remove from its “Green It-Mean It” rotation, is a classic example of how well-intended media campaigns can contribute to damaging misperceptions about common household products. As I noted in a related post earlier this month, it serves no purpose to mislead consumers into believing that ubiquitous AAA, AA, and 9 volt batteries represent a threat to their health or the environment. The facts are that primary batteries contain nothing toxic and are considered non-hazardous under strict Federal waste management rules. Those seeking comprehensive and accurate information on the matter should read the pamphlet issued by NEMA's dry battery section entitled “Household Batteries and the Environment,” which is available on NEMA's Environmentally Conscious Design and Product Stewardship Program page. Meanwhile, NEMA will continue to be remain vigilant at spotting misinformation and getting its message out.

SEMI Gets It!

leibowitzm — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:21:00 GMT

Recently, the Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International (SEMI) released an article announcing the publication of a white paper prepared by its SEMI PV Group. This group supports SEMI members "serving the crystalline and thin film photovoltaic (PV) supply chains." In describing the "Perfect Industry," the paper rightly looks to standards (along with materials and process innovation and productivity improvements) as a means for accelerated cost reductions, identifies efffective international standards as a requirement for enabling innovation, and cites how standards contribute to economic growth and competitiveness.

SEMI is to be commended for their vision of how standards bring benefit to an industry. With an official working relationship with IEC TC 113 already in place, the SEMI PV group should work with TC 113 Working Group 3 to develop international performance assessment standards for their industry.

"Let he who is without SIN . . . . . ."

Kohorst, Mark — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:03:00 GMT

Last week, Environmental NGOs in the European Union released their long-promised "SIN List" of chemical substances that the activist community in the EU believes should be designated as Substances of Very High Concern (SVHCs) under the REACH regulation. SIN, which stands for "Substitute it Now," is an unfortunate acronym for this list, which contains 300 chemical substances alleged to present a risk human health and/or the environment. While it doesn't have any official standing, the SIN list is intended to prod European regulators to use their authority under REACH more aggressively to ban numerous chemicals from the market except for narrowly prescribed uses. So far, EU member states have nominated 16 chemicals for the SVHC list and the European Commission is accepting stakeholder comment on whether the nominations are justified or should be withdrawn. This isn't nearly fast enough for the NGOs, who for better or worse foresee monumental change in the way all chemicals are marketed, managed, and used in the EU over the next decade.

Electrical product manufacturers mostly feel the impact of REACH as producers of articles, which are manufactured goods or products that contain chemicals. Special rules apply and key questions include whether the "article" contains a chemical substance that is intended to be released during normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of use, or if the article, regardless of whether a release occurs, contains an SVHC.

With REACH in place and other countries (including the US) focusing intently on chemicals in commerce, manufacturers can no longer avoid a diligent effort to identify chemical substances present in electrical products and their components. The sooner a systematic materials declaration/identification mechanism is in place the better, as the list of chemicals under scrutiny by regulators is growing rapidly.

In the dark about shift to energy-efficient lighting

Kohorst, Mark — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:20:00 GMT

For the second time this year, the Washington Times OP-ED page contains a commentary that lashes out against the national transition to modern, energy efficient lighting (David Deming, “Fluorescent Light Bulb Folly”). As a leading media venue for conservatives, WashTimes is generally effective in highlighting instances of government over-reach and misguided regulation. On this issue, however, their featured pundits continually miss the mark. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, contrary to widespread belief, does not ban the incandescent light bulb. Instead, it sets performance standards for "lamps" (the industry term for bulbs) that manufacturers must meet by specified dates. By focusing on performance rather than particular technologies, the EISA preserves consumer choice while providing manufacturers with flexibility in how they choose to compete in the modern lighting market. Expect to see more efficient incandescent bulbs, therefore, sharing shelf space with compact fluorescents, while next generation products such as halogen and low-wattage LEDs become more affordable and popular. NEMA member companies worked diligently with legislative staff to ensure that the nation converts to 21st century lighting technology in an orderly, market-based manner. Look to the WashTimes Letters page in the next couple days to see NEMA’s response to this latest mischaracterization.

Leaning and REACHing Too Far

updykec — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:34:00 GMT

This morning's Washington Post features a front-pager (so far left on the front page that it almost falls off) that fails to explain the real thrust of the European Union's new regulations on chemical safety and implies that U.S. authorities and industry fail to protect us from toxic materials. Setting aside the article's obvious and flawed agenda, the U.S. has had an effective chemical regulatory system in place for over 30 years and, with the emergence of Brussels' REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization of Chemicals) Regulation, a debate is starting to heat up on whether updates are needed to the Toxic Substances Control Act. Brussels put REACH in place in part to fix its own system and replace a patchwork of three separate and overlapping regulations it had for chemicals. And there is no secret that the Europeans are actively promoting REACH as a global model. Meanwhile, Washington, led by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is working cooperatively with Canada and Mexico to review and share data on toxic substances.

To get down to brass tacks and learn more about what U.S. companies need to know about REACH, check out this two-page explanation generated by the new EU Chemicals Agency, whose job is to make the regulation work. To get more information on NEMA's view of REACH, check out our white paper.