浅谈我国危险化学品安全使用许可证制度及实施建议

近年来我国化工行业安全生产保持良好态势,但危险化学品生产、使用、运输、储存过程中的事故仍时有发生。其中,化工企业在使用危险化学品从事生产的过程中造成的化学品事故占了很大的比例。2011年新颁布的《危险化学品安全管理条例》（以下简称《条例》）对危险化学品的安全使用专门确立了许可制度,     

管理毒理学在化学品管理中的应用

对联合国GHS和欧盟REACH化学品管理制度做了介绍,简述了管理毒理学在化学品管理中的应用以及化学品健康和环境危险评定的一般程序,希望能引起国内相关工作者的重视,进一步加深对GHS和REACH的全面认识.     

美国化学品管理政策变化值得关注

欧盟“化学品注册、评估、授权与限制（REACH）法规”的出台,刺激美国环保人士和国会民主党议员开展了一系列改革美国现行化学品管理政策的活动。奥巴马新政府上台前后,一贯反对改革美国现行化学品管理政策的美国化工界的立场,发生了变化,美国出现了即将对现行化学品管理政策做重大修订的前景。这一变化的动向值得关注和借鉴。     

浅谈管理毒理学在化学品管理中的作用

介绍了管理毒理学在化学品管理中的作用,GHS、REACH等国际上化学品管理规定中有关毒理学要求,我国化学品管理中有关毒理学规定,提出了我国化学品管理和管理毒理学工作存在的问题和建议。     

化学品环境管理全球治理格局与中国管理体制的完善

全球化的今天,以欧盟化学品注册、评估、许可制度(REACH)为代表的化学品环境管理政策和制度日益显示出广泛的国际影响;POPs公约等国际公约的签署、全球统一的化学品分类和标识系统(GHS)的推广及国际化学品管理战略步骤(SAICM)的提出愈发表明,化学品环境管理正呈现出各国联动、彼此影响的全球治理格局.但作为世界化学品生产和使用大国,我国化学品产业发展和管理水平落后,化学品环境污染及健康风险问题日渐突出,主要表现在:以职业安全管理为主体的化学品管理体制相对落后,化学品环境管理立法薄弱,制度不健全.研究认为,推行GHS系统,建立专门化学品环境管理行政法规或综合法律,建立行政协调机制及现有化学品风险评价、优先风险管理以及污染排放、转移和登记(PRTR)制度,完善有毒污染物环境监测制度和重大危险源管理制度,加强新化学品申报登记管理相关制度间的协调,将是中国化学品环境管理发展完善的重要方面.      

高等学校危险化学品安全管理模式研究

在分析我国与危险化学品安全管理相关的法律法规及国家标准体系的基础上,对高校危险化学品安全管理模式进行了研究,构建了高校危险化学品的组织管理体系,包括仓储、领取、使用、废弃安全管理模式和应急救援预案,以期为推进高校危险化学品安全管理工作建言献策。     

危险化学品登记与相关行政许可关联的探讨

危险化学品径记是我国危险化学品安全管理的一项基础工作,通过危险化学品登记,可以摸清我国危险化学品生产、储存、使用企业的情况,掌握相关化学品的危险性及安全信息资料,建立起国家危化品信息库,为安全监管和事故应急救援提供信息支持。危险化学品登记工作与相关行政许可进行关联是推动该项工作顺利开展的重要手段．     

国务院安委会发布进一步加强危险化学品安全生产工作的指导意见

9月14日,国务院安委会发布《进一步加强危险化学品安全生产工作的指导意见》,共6个方面29条。《指导意见》就加强危险化学品安全生产工作提出6个方面的指导意见:一、科学制定发展规划,严格安全许可     

德国包装与薄膜加工厂商协会称：REACH不利于废弃塑料制品回收

德国包装与薄膜加工厂商协会近表示，欧盟即将实施的《危险化学品管理条例》（REACH）不利于回收废弃塑料制品。目前，该厂商协会已向欧洲议会中所有德国籍议员提交了一份声明，请求他们支持修改与废弃物回收相关的法规。     

环境执法之几例

<正>前几天,有位绿色和平组织的化学品专家在隆德大学演讲,其中专门提到了被媒体称为中国REACH法案的《新化学物质环境管理办法》,但这位专家对中国是否能很好地执行该办法持保留态度,因为新化学物     

Chemicals regulation and precaution: does REACH really incorporate the precautionary principle

At the interface between politics and science-informed regulatory action there is hardly a more controversial combination in Europe today than the recently adopted chemicals policy overhaul entitled Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of CHemicals (REACH) and the precautionary principle (PP). The European Commission states that REACH is underpinned by the PP. However, it is not evident how this is crystallized throughout the registration, evaluation and authorization process of REACH. Additionally, it is unclear how REACH will proactively support development of safer alternatives, a key component of precaution. The present paper examines to what extent the PP has actually been integrated in REACH. Several elements of the PP are included in REACH such as changing the burden of proof and assessment of alternatives. However, a number of important elements apparently are missing. This paper outlines some of the limitations in REACH for applying precaution and discusses possible improvements of the REACH framework to make it more supportive of precautionary decision-making.     

欧盟REACH法规研究

解读欧盟REACH法规,分析了欧盟REACH法规对国内产业,尤其是对中国石化的影响,为中国石化具体实践上述法规奠定了工作基础.     

欧盟REACH法规实践

介绍了欧盟REACH法规的预注册要求及注册流程,中国石化及时制定公司的应对策略及具体方案,并完成第一阶段物质注册.     

How the Toxics Use Reduction Act continues to promote clean production Internationally

The Massachusetts’ Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA) of 1989 set an important milestone in the roadmap to Clean Production. The Act’s focus on a clear definition, methodology, and mandatory planning requirements have proved successful in getting companies in Massachusetts to reduce their use of toxic chemicals in manufacturing processes. Such results are inspirational for government officials and advocacy groups attempting to reduce toxic emissions in their communities and set progressive chemicals use policies. This paper will summarize three initiatives where TURA was a catalyst and continues to impact international chemicals policy: the Sewer Use By-law in Toronto, Canada; the European Union’s REACH chemicals legislation and the international campaign by Greenpeace in Asia and Latin America to achieve zero discharge of hazardous substances into rivers. The example of Toronto and REACH show how one or more essential aspects of TURA were incorporated into legislation. In the case of REACH TURA’s requirement of mandatory planning became an important example and NGO demand during the formation of Europe’s new chemicals regulation and resulted in the first substitution assessment planning requirement in EU wide legislation. Work is now ongoing to promote TURA type legislation in Latin America and Asia. However the ability to transfer the TURA framework to regions with inadequate government oversight and cheap disposal costs is seriously hampered. Although NGO campaigns in Asian and Latin America advocate zero discharge of hazardous emissions through toxics use reduction and elimination, much training and accountability will be needed within government and companies to understand the benefits of toxics use reduction and actually implement all or parts of the TURA framework. The Toxics Use Reduction Act came into force in 1989 with high environmental awareness, an engaged citizenry and a responsive government entity. Perhaps these are the same conditions that must exist for its successful transference to industrializing countries.     

Rethinking the role of information in chemicals policy: implications for TSCA and REACH

This article analyses the role of different kinds of information for minimizing or eliminating the risks due to the production, use, and disposal of chemical substances and contrasts it with present and planned (informational) regulation in the United States and the European Union, respectively. Some commentators who are disillusioned with regulatory approaches have argued that informational tools should supplant mandatory regulatory measures unflatteringly described as “command and control.” Critics of this reformist view are concerned with the lack of technology-innovation forcing that results from informational policies alone. We argue that informational tools can be made more technology inducing – and thus more oriented towards environmental innovations – than they are under current practices, with or without complementary regulatory mechanisms, although a combination of approaches may yield the best results.The conventional approach to chemicals policy envisions a sequential process that includes three steps of (1) producing or collecting risk-relevant information, (2) performing a risk assessment or characterization, followed by (3) risk management practices, often driven by regulation. We argue that such a sequential process is too static, or linear, and spends too many resources on searching for, or generating information about present hazards, in comparison to searching for, and generating information related to safer alternatives which include input substitution, final product reformulation, and/or process changes. These pollution prevention or cleaner technology approaches are generally acknowledged to be superior to pollution control. We argue that the production of risk information necessary for risk assessment, on the one hand, and the search for safer alternatives on the other hand, should be approached simultaneously in two parallel quests. Overcoming deficits in hazard-related information and knowledge about risk reduction alternatives must take place in a more synchronized manner than is currently being practiced. This parallel approach blurs the alleged bright line between risk assessment and risk management, but reflects more closely how regulatory agencies actually approach the regulation of chemicals.These theoretical considerations are interpreted in the context of existing and planned informational tools in the United States and the European Union, respectively. The current political debate in the European Union concerned with reforming chemicals policy and implementing the REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals) system is focused on improving the production and assessment of risk information with regard to existing chemicals, although it also contains some interesting risk management elements. To some extent, REACH mirrors the approach taken in the United States under the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976. TSCA turned out not to be effectively implemented and provides lessons that should be relevant to REACH. In this context, we discuss the opportunities and limits of existing and planned informational tools for achieving risk reduction.     

哈尔滨市夏季室内环境实测分析

文章首先通过问卷调查把握建筑基本情况,然后对其中十户进行室内温、湿度和挥发性有机化合物浓度的具体实测分析.实测分析结果表明室内热湿环境基本满足舒适性要求,但从室内空气品质来看,室内VOCs浓度偏高,与室内装修材料关系密切.     

闽南地区酸雨特征及其亚硝酸根检测

概括介绍了闽南地区酸雨的分布和特征 ,阐述了几种快速、灵敏、稳定测定亚硝酸根离子传感器的制备及应用。     

Better regulation by new governance hybrids? Governance models and the reform of European chemicals policy

The EU is presently in a transition phase from environmental policy-making by law towards other governance approaches based upon networking, voluntary commitments, benchmarking and other forms of “soft law”. Those new governance approaches often claim to lead to “better regulation”, while adopting a more consensus-oriented and participatory style, taking economic aspects more seriously into account, allowing for more flexibility and autonomy for the private sector and Member States alike, mobilising a broader knowledge base or adopting more integrated and holistic approaches than previous sectoralised and compartmentalised policies.While the limitations of traditional regulatory approaches are widely accepted and cited, it is far from evident, that “new modes of governance” have greater capacity to solve problems than the old ones. There is an argument, that “better regulation” might by synonymous to a withdrawal and weakening of the regulatory state and hence effectively of the aspirations and objectives of environmental policies.An interesting case for an approach, combining the strengths of the old and the new approaches is the ongoing reform of chemicals policies. While some observers claim, that the proposed directive, “REACH” might belong to the outdated category of overcomplex and bureaucratic regulation, a closer look shows that there are many new forms of governance in REACH. This mixture or old and new may open a more realistic and promising perspective on the reform of European policy-making.In our paper we assess the effects and the interplay of the combination of different modes of governance using the example of REACH. We are particularly concerned with the question in how far the representation of interests may change when new modes of governance are introduced.