- 02 May 2008 -
2008 Washington Forum Provides Platform to Air Critical Issues

Ensuring that “bad” science and misinformation does not factor into legislators’ decision-making processes—especially when drafting laws or rulings that stand to significantly impact the metal finishing industry at large. That was the driving issue that dominated discussions at the 2008 Washington Forum, held April 22–24 at the L’Enfant Plaza Hotel in Washington, D.C.

Organized by the National Association for Surface Finishing (NASF) in conjunction with The Policy Group—the association’s government relations arm—the 2008 Washington Forum hosted an impressive roster of regulatory and environmental authorities, as well as recognized experts in the field of metals, chemicals, materials, and manufacturing. Conducted by returning Forum chairman, Christian Richter—a key principal of The Policy Group—the bevy of informative breakout sessions and roundtable presentations offered attendees a well-rounded update on the major issues facing the industry. Following is an overview of some of the items on the agenda:

Fume Suppressants
Late last fall, The Policy Group was successful in securing a critical exemption on behalf of the surface finishing industry regarding EPA ruling on chemicals used in metal finishing processes (“PFOS Fume Suppressants Rulemaking,” Oct. 9, 2007). In a nutshell, the final rule imposed restrictions under Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) on the manufacture, import, and use of 183 perfluoroalkyl sulfonate (PFOS) chemical compounds (72 Fed. Reg. 57222). These PFOS compounds are used as fume suppressants for controlling emissions from a variety of metal finishing operations. In response to comments and data submitted by the NASF and numerous discussions with EPA staff, the EPA provided exclusions for the continued use of seven chemicals utilized as fume suppressants in plating processes ranging from hard chrome plating, decorative chromium plating, and chromic acid anodizing, to nickel, cadmium, or lead plating, metal plating on plastics, and alkaline zinc plating.

The primary sticking point, experts say, is the lack of uniform testing measures. “We need to standardize testing before compliance rules are set,” said Joelie Zak, a PFOS panel member and vice president of Scientific Control Labs, a Chicago, Ill.–based firm that has developed sophisticated testing equipment for measuring PFOS.

Another critical issue: to date there are no effective alternatives (performance-wise) for those chemicals that fall outside the exemptions. “We’ve looked at available alternatives to process chemistries, but they are limited and capital-intensive,” said Brian Dewald, a PFOS panel member representing West Haven, Conn.–based Enthone. “Alternatives have to be stable on hot chromic acids, which is not easy.”

In its ruling on the PFOS issue, the EPA noted the exclusion for the use of some of these compounds in metal finishing operations is consistent with similar actions taken by the European Union and Canada. However, agencies involved in establishing regulatory guidelines on these matters have indicated that they will reconsider the exclusion in another five to 10 years based on the availability of effective alternative fume suppressants that do not contain PFOS compounds. In fact, panel members report that decorative platers operating in Europe have already ceased using PFOS chemicals.

‘REACH’ Registration
As legislators stateside look to further regulate metal finishing operations as it pertains to chemicals usage and exposure limits, they are looking beyond domestic shores for guidance. Just as European environmental regulations in other sectors influenced standards adopted by, say, California, so, too, are emerging European regulations dealing with materials and manufactured products impacting North American surface finishing operations. A case in point is the Registration Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals, or “REACH.”

One of the most significant implications of this regulation is its “far-reaching” effects. Not only must European manufacturers and, by extension, surface finishers ensure that potentially hazardous components utilized in their products are fully documented and registered, but exporters working in conjunction with importers based in Europe must also ensure that their products meet these requirements as well.

Some highlights of the program: registration applies to EU manufacturer or importer; registration applies to each component of a preparation; polymers are not registered but monomers and other reactants will be; and volume thresholds and exemptions must be considered. What’s more, this REACH regulation—which applies to both new and existing substances on the watch list—will replace most of the European Union chemicals legislation currently in place. In short, according to Martha Marrapese, a partner with D.C.-based law firm Keller & Heckman, full disclosure of chemical identity and cast number will be required under REACH.

Key registration dates to remember: June 1, 2008, to Dec. 1, 2008 (pre-registration period); Nov. 30, 2010 (deadline to register substances greater than or equal to 1,000 metric tons, CMR Category 1 & 2 [carcinogens, mutagens, and reproductive toxins], and R50/53 substances greater than or equal to 100 metric tons). As it pertains to coatings, importers are advised to pre-register monomers and other reactants in the polymers that meet the 2% and 1 metric ton rules. Those who can pre-register and register include: EU manufacturers of phase-in substances; importers of phase-in substances; and only representatives of non-EU manufacturers. In addition, REACH stipulates that downstream customers are relieved from the need to independently register monomers or other reactants when the ingredient has already been registered by an upstream supplier. (Note: It is unlikely that many monomers or other reactants will have already been registered by a party up the supply chain during the pre-registration period from June 1, 2008, to Dec. 1, 2008.)

What this schedule allows, REACH administrators say, is a timeframe for potential registrants to identify each other and organize themselves in a way that facilitates the registration of their products. The primary impetus for the regulation, advocates say, is to appease European consumers’ “right to know” the content of products they use. But Keller & Heckman’s Marrapese says REACH serves another, perhaps more dubious purpose: “to gain a competitive advantage for European chemical suppliers.”

All the regulatory legalese and international protocols are clearly frustrating for U.S.-based surface finishers, particularly owners like Sam Bell, vice president of Metal Surfaces, Inc., Bell Gardens, Calif. Regulations and restrictions such as REACH, he feels, clearly demonstrates the knowledge-deficit among the agencies—both international and regional—that are pushing through these laws. “Don’t they understand what we, as metal finishers, do every day?” he asked panel members rhetorically.

Session chairman Richter, feeling Bell’s pain, said this demonstrates precisely the predicament in which surface finishers find themselves. Referring to the issue as an “ongoing challenge,” Richter believes now, more than ever, that it is incumbent on finishers, industry associations, and governmental relations advocates to maintain close communications with not only their European counterparts but also their international supplier partners.