"Epic Fail" in Communications - Dealing with Chemicals in an Emergency

Chemicals are all around us. Mostly they make our lives easier. Without them our lives would be, in many minds, primitive. But sometimes chemicals suddenly become a bad thing. Like the West Virginia spill that dumped a chemical known as MCHM into Elk River and contaminated water supplies for weeks. The spill reemphasized the importance of having good emergency response plans and communication. It also reemphasized that such plans and communication are woefully lacking.

Richard Denison, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), has written extensively on the "epic fail" in West Virginia and on chemical communication issues in general. I'll let you read his series of blogs on the subject.

One point Denison brings out is the inadequacy of Material Safety Data Sheets, commonly called MSDSs. He delves into the difficulties caused to first responders by lack of up-to-date information...even to the point of not knowing there was more than one chemical involved in the spill. This is not a new problem. In fact, it is tragically common.

MSDSs list basic information about the chemical, such as name, identifying information, basic physical-chemical properties, toxicity, and environmental toxicity. They also list basic first aid steps, how to fight any fires that involve the chemicals, storage, and disposal. Or at least this is what they do in theory. In reality, many MSDSs hold the name of the chemical as confidential business information. The basic properties are often missing. And toxicity and environmental toxicity data are usually limited to, well, no data. What toxicity that do appear are often outdated, some based on tests that were conducted decades ago. Just as often the actual study reports for any data cited cannot be located in the files. Or maybe can be located after a delay. If pressed.

There has been some improvement. In some cases. In 1998 a voluntary program called the High Production Volume Challenge resulted in the compilation of a large amount of health and safety data for the 2000 or so highest volume chemicals. Mostly these data were sent to EPA, made available on a website, then ignored. [EPA did try to do screening risk assessments, but this process seemed to change every few years.] Being voluntary, no requirement to update MSDSs was included, and mostly they weren't. Then in 2007 the REACH program in Europe required extensive data for every chemical in commerce. REACH did require that MSDSs (called SDSs in Europe) to be updated with actual test information.

However, as the West Virginia situation shows, most MSDSs remain a jumble of missing information and boilerplate warnings designed to limit the manufacturer's liability in the event of a problem. They are more insurance requirements than they are assurance of safety and proper handling. Saying "may cause skin irritation" but not having any actual data that demonstrates skin irritation isn't particularly meaningful. Are the data available to make this judgment, or is the catchphrase just there in case someone gets irritated? Either way, the MSDS is not doing what it is supposed to be doing - give reliable information that informs the user.

As Congress moves closer to reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), will they make MSDSs useful? Or simply continue the illusion?

[Note that the House held a hearing on February 4th in which they essentially said that a TSCA reform bill (likely a tweaked version of the CSIA) will be decided this year.]

January 9, 2014, spill of multiple chemicals into West Virginia’s Elk River, it’s b - See more at: http://blogs.edf.org/health/2014/01/26/epic-fail-in-west-virginia-chemical-spill-poor-information-poor-communications-poor-decisions/#more-2985

January 9, 2014, spill of multiple chemicals into West Virginia’s Elk River, it’s b - See more at: http://blogs.edf.org/health/2014/01/26/epic-fail-in-west-virginia-chemical-spill-poor-information-poor-communications-poor-decisions/#more-2985

Will current efforts to reform the TSCA chemical control law actually roll back progress?

Just last week Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) reintroduced his Safe Chemicals Act and there was hope for some sort of TSCA reform. Senator David Vitter (R-LA) is expected to introduce an alternative, chemical-industry-backed, counter-bill in the next few weeks. But Richard Denison, senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), believes that Senator Vitter's bill will actually roll back even the current limited authority of EPA to regulate chemicals under TSCA.

While some of this is speculation since very few people have seen Vitter's bill - he seems to have consulted primarily with only the one major chemical trade association and cut out other chemical groups, health advocates, environmentalists, and the public - Denison gleans from public statements several areas that could result in dramatic weakening of the current TSCA.

For example, rather than making it easier for EPA to request testing on chemicals with little data but apparent concern, Vitter's bill may actually make it harder for EPA to do so. According to Denison, the bill could also restrict the abilities of states to step in when the federal authorities fail, or are incapable, of taking action. There has also been widespread questioning of the risk standard proposed in the Lautenberg bill, a standard that Denison points out has been endorsed by major medical groups as necessary to protect vulnerable subpopulations, including developing fetuses and infants. The Vitter bill would also apparently make no changes to the current PMN process for new chemicals, a process that requires virtually no health and safety data be submitted in most cases.

So despite some movement on TSCA reform - the introduction of one and probably two new bills - it seems we're headed for another stalemate in which the goal is to stop TSCA reform. Again.

Denison's blog article can be found on the EDF website.

26 States to Consider Toxic Chemicals Legislation in 2013

As TSCA reform enters another year without any resolution, at least 26 states are considering action to enhance protection of public health and the environment from exposure to chemicals. According to the advocacy coalition, Safer States:

In 2013, we expect at least 26 states to consider legislation and policy changes that will:

• Restrict or label the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in receipts, children's products and food packaging.
• Require removal of certain toxic flame retardants from children's products, home furniture or building materials.
• Change disclosure rules so that concerned consumers will have a way to identify toxic chemicals in products.
• Encourage manufacturers to remove identified toxic chemicals in favor of safer alternatives.
• Ban cadmium, a dangerous, persistent metal that is often found in inexpensive children's jewelry.
• Ban formaldehyde from cosmetics and children's products.
• Promote green cleaning products in schools.

Safer States states that "We believe families, communities, and the environment should be protected from the devastating impacts of our society’s heavy use of chemicals. We believe that new state and national chemical policies will contribute to the formation of a cleaner, greener economy." They have also been highly critical of industry, reporting on what it sees as misplaced priorities "inside the toxic chemical industry."

So state efforts continue. At the federal level, Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg has indicated that he will reintroduce his Safer Chemicals Act. The SCA was passed out of committee last year but never came to the Senate floor for debate or vote. The committee-passed version includes substantial changes from the original bill, including many adjustments to take into consideration concerns expressed by industry. Still, industry widely denounced the bill as unworkable, a position that Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund and Andy Igrejas of Safer Chemicals Healthy Families have asserted is disingenuous at best. Industry is, however, reportedly working with Republican Senator David Vitter on what is effectively an industry-sponsored bill. It is unclear when or if Vitter's bill will be introduced, but any such bill would at least provide a counter-position to that of Lautenberg and offer opportunity for substantive debate.

EDF Questions Independence of TERA Kids Chemical Safety Site

Recently, the Toxicology Excellence in Risk Assessment (TERA) non-profit group teamed up with the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and others to initiate a website called Kids + Chemical Safety. The site purports to provide "up-to-date health information on chemical hazards and chemical safe use in children." Its tagline is "+ Balanced, scientifically accurate chemical health information." Scientist Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), however, questions TERA's independence.

After pointing out that being a non-profit "does not conflate to, or somehow confer the right to claim, objectivity or independence" (noting that the NRA and EDF itself are non-profits but have a clear perspective on the issues they address), Denison goes on to suggest that the site is not what it seems.

Denison categorizes the topics of the website into two groups: 1) those that are "largely outside of the vested interests of the site's most prominent sponsor" (i.e., ACC), and 2) those that "fall squarely within those vested interests." Denison argues that those two categories "are treated very differently on the website." I'll leave it to you to read his arguments and determine whether his case is valid.

The issue that the website and Denison's counterpoint raises is really about how the public gets its information on the health and safety of products on the market. Ideally all products would have been proven safe to the extent such a proof is possible, with the information from the multiple studies involved synthesized and presented in language both trustworthy and easy to understand by the general public. But this is rarely the case.

Part of this is because science is messy. It doesn't always give us an easy and definitive answer. More comprehensive pre-market testing would help, but in many cases there is no way to prove a negative, i.e., that actual use might result in some unforeseen hazard. We're probably stuck with that uncertainty, though we clearly can do more to reduce it. 

But part of the communication problem is also because the public has learned to distrust the information that is being presented to it. Independent sites could be a good way to build trust, as scientifically accurate information is distilled into something we can all understand. That requires true independence. Unfortunately, too many "grassroots" public information campaigns have turned out to be "astroturf," i.e., they may look real from a distance but are revealed to be fake upon closer inspection. It is small wonder that the public has developed a cynical attitude toward the information it receives.

Clearly Richard Denison feels the new TERA site, in part supported by the chemical industry, does not adequately achieve the independence needed to inspire the public's confidence.

Again, please read Denison's argument before deciding if he makes his case. But also think about how data can be presented in a way that can be both trustworthy and useful. After all, the goal is to inform the public - first, to ensure reasonable protection of their health and safety, and second, to avoid the irrational fear of the unknown caused by lack of reliable and dependable information.

Industry Groups Say Safe Chemical Act Does Not Include Republican Input

On Monday the Environmental Defense Fund issued a summary of the main provisions of the Safe Chemicals Act and how they "fulfill every detail" of the Industry "10 Principles" for TSCA reform as put forth by the American Chemistry Council. On Tuesday Industry addressed a letter to the Senate disagreeing with that contention, though not specifically rebutting it. The letter was signed by 69 chemical organizations representing "each step in the supply chain."

The basic premise of the letter is that Republican member input was not fully considered in the present Safe Chemicals Act passed out of the Environment and Public Works Committee late last month. The letter notes that "attempts have been made to characterize the current version of S. 847 as a compromise bill that could gain the support of Republicans and industry." The letter goes on to say that "this is not the case for the bill in its current form."

The industry letter confirms that industry "wholeheartedly support the continuation of a bipartisan process to discuss the right concepts needed in legislation to effectively reform the [EPA's] ability to regulate chemicals." Industry does not, however, believe that the current bill accomplishes this goal.

Now that the bill has been passed out of Committee it becomes eligible for a full debate of its merits on the Senate floor by all members of the Senate. Democrats in the Senate have indicated that they are more than willing to bring the bill up for debate, so it would seem that Industry and their Republican representatives in the Senate will have the opportunity to publicly present their views on what they agree with in the bill and what they do not agree with, along with solutions. Given that all stakeholders - Industry, NGOs, public health and environmental advocacy groups, parent groups, EPA and others - have agreed that TSCA needs to be reformed, it seems that the Safe Chemicals Act bill gives all parties the opportunity to move toward that goal.

The EDF comparison between the Safe Chemical Act and ACC "10 principles" can be viewed here.

The ACC "10 principles" document can be viewed here.

Further information on ACC's position on TSCA reform can be viewed on their web site.

New Safe Chemicals Act "fulfills every detail" of Industry's principles for moderning TSCA

Dr. Richard Denison, Senior Scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), has "developed a detailed 8-page table that shows, side by side, the principles and the new version of the Safe Chemicals Act, with citations to each specific provision of the Act." The principles in question are the "10 Principles for Modernizing TSCA" issued by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the major trade association for the chemical industry.

According to Dr. Denison, "the alignment is strong" between the "10 Principles" and the provisions in the Safe Chemicals Act proposed by Senator Frank Lautenberg and passed by vote out of committee for discussion and vote in the full Senate. The ACC statement issued following the committee vote indicated that "after a cursory review, we believe the bill is still fundamentally flawed in many critical areas." However, Dr. Denison notes that:

The changes made to the Safe Chemicals Act specifically reflected the input received from all stakeholders, including the converging views that have emerged from several industry-NGO dialogues held over the past 18 months.

He thus reaches the conclusion that "ACC’s complaints are more about politics than about substance."

Denison has provided a PDF link to his side-by-side table that details his comparison of the bill's provisions versus the ACC "10 Principles."


The full blog article by Dr. Denison can be read here.

ACC's Chemical Prioritization Tool - EDFs Analysis is One Thumb Up, One Thumb Down

Last week I reported on an analysis of the EPA's proposed chemical prioritization tool done by Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).  Today I report on Denison's follow up analysis on the counter-proposal prioritization scheme released by the American Chemistry Council the day prior to EPA's webinar.  I'll start with Denison's conclusion:

"While ACC’s tool has some serious flaws and is not something that EPA has the authority or resources to utilize under current TSCA, ACC has put forth a serious proposal for prioritization that should help to raise the level of debate over this critical issue in TSCA reform."

As suggested, Denison notes that the ACC proposal offers some "refreshing elements and acknowledgements."  He describes it as "substantive and specific" and is "welcome in several ways."  He goes on to summarize some of the areas he feels are constructive (see his full blog entry).  Notwithstanding these kudos, however, Denison does suggest that ACC's proposal seems better suited for a full TSCA Reform element and that implementation of the ACC plan is not likely to be possible under the current (and likely future) resource and funding constraints limiting EPA's activities.


Denison finds that there are "a number of quite problematic aspects of ACC's proposal," including:

• Overly rigid rules applied in lockstep: Denison finds ACC's proposed "equal basis" rule to be "sleight of hand" that will "rule out any types of information that may indicate a hazard or exposure of high concern unless it has been measured across basically all chemicals subject to prioritization."  The "high hazard and high exposure" rule would allow prioritization of only those chemicals "for which high hazard and high exposure can be demonstrated;" a proposal that Denison finds to be "simply shortsighted." He also critiques ACC's "persistent and bioaccumulative" rule, which he finds includes "extremely narrow definitions of P and B" that would avoid prioritizing chemicals that would in fact be either P or B (or both).
• Consistent use of the least conservative classification values: Denison points out that the ACC proposal relies on the classification criteria developed under GHS, which he generally supports.  However, he does quibble with what he feels are two limitations - GHS doesn't include every endpoint of concern and ACC chooses the least conservative values instead of adhering to GHS' cutoff values faithfully.  A choice where Denison feels "ACC fails badly."
• Over-relying on limited exposure information and discounting evidence of hazard: Denison notes that ACC's tool lumps together its health and environmental hazard rankings into a single score while combining scores for its three exposure elements, which "means that a chemical that harms both people and other organisms only gets counted once, while a chemical that is low-volume and used only as an intermediate and is not P or B gets credit for being of low concern for all three attributes."  The way the tool handles hazard vs exposure rankings also is likely to skew the results such as to avoid prioritization for chemicals that could indeed be problematic.

Despite these significant critiques, Denison feels that the ACC prioritization tool is a good effort and a basis for informed debate as the process moves forward.  Combined with his previous critique of the EPA prioritization proposal, there clearly is a path forward for enhancing chemical regulation and improving protection of the environment and human health.  But will it happen?

Avoiding Paralysis by Analysis - EDF's Analysis of the EPA TSCA Chemical Prioritization Proposal

Last week the USEPA held a webinar to introduce their proposal for how they will attempt to prioritize TSCA chemicals for closer assessment.  One day prior to the webinar the ACC announced its own competing prioritization scheme. Earlier this week, Environmental Defense Fund Senior Scientist Richard Denison offered his views on the EPA scheme, which he called "a sensible approach to identifying chemicals of concern." [Note: Denison will be addressing the ACC proposal in a following post on the EDF web site.]

The "paralysis by analysis" noted to in the title refers to the futility of asking EPA to evaluate the entire TSCA Inventory akin to the Canadian approach.  The Canadian approach was actually "mandated by statute" (via the 1999 amendments to the CEPA) and both Environment Canada and Health Canada were given "seven years and a major infusion of new resources" just to complete the first phase of the process.  According to Denison, with nearly four times as many chemicals on the Inventory, and "without the authority and the resources, well, that's just a recipe for paralysis by analysis" to ask EPA to do the same. 

Which is why the EPA proposal is so reasonable, according to Denison.  He indicates that EDF and the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families coalition "generally support EPA's approach and believe it strikes the right balance between clarity and transparency and avoiding paralysis by analysis."  Denison does, however, offer a series of 10 additional suggestions for improving the EPA proposal.  The full list can be seen on the EDF blog page, but include broadening the sources of data specified in Step 1 (perhaps by including some of the source from Step 2), consideration of the published literature, adding specific criteria for children's health and exposure, expanding the range of "vulnerable subpopulations" beyond just children's health, and providing additional clarity on how EPA plans to move from Step 1 to Step 2.

Overall, Denison finds that the attempts by EPA to reintroduce "action" into their proposed prioritization and action plan process are much needed.  He welcomes EPA looking at chemicals in commerce to identify those for which it would be prudent to take a closer look at their potential risk.  And with the additional actions suggested, he believes that it is a good step in the right direction.

To read EDF's analysis and the full list of suggestions, see Richard Denison's blog entry for September 13, 2011.

Environmental and Health Organizations Say "Fully Fund the National Children's Study"

A group of national and state environmental and health organizations have written a letter to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations calling for full funding of the National Children’s Study.  The study was "authorized by the Children’s Health Act of 2000," and is "one of the most comprehensive national efforts to study environmental, social and genetic influences on children’s health, including air, water, diet, noise, family dynamics and community and cultural influences."  Unfortunately, it has never been properly funded.

According to a press release by the Environmental Working Group, one of the 24 organizations that signed the letter, it includes:

“There are great and growing concerns about the increased rate of chronic and acute disease in the United States, and the National Children’s Study is designed to help all Americans have a better understanding of the links between those diseases and our environment. However, to ensure the study’s success, it is critical that it continue to receive the necessary funding throughout each and every stage. No study has ever followed children from before birth to age 21, but to do so the National Children’s Study must receive sufficient and consistent funding.”

Further, the letter says that "the study will examine how the events and exposures of early life can lead to specific outcomes including birth defects, asthma, obesity, diabetes, and mental health disorders among other possible outcomes." It suggests that "science continues to emerge and show that early exposures, especially those during vulnerable times of development, are linked to future adverse health effects."

Is the Lautenberg Safe Chemicals Act A Jump Start on Serious Discussions About TSCA Reform?

As I noted last week, Senator Frank Lautenberg has introduced the 2011 version of his Safe Chemicals Act.  The question at that time was whether the bill would end up in the same place as the 2010 bill, that is, nowhere.  Some, but not all, industry organizations found positive changes made in the bill.  Now at least one NGO is hoping that the changes will jump start serious discussions and engage industry in finding a path forward for what all parties agree is a need to reform the 35 year old Toxic Substances Control Act.

Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has expressed his hope that "this bill, with its enhancements, will push the reset button on the stalled discussion over TSCA reform, and bring all of the parties to the table for an honest dialogue on how we can finally bring this vital law into the modern era."  He further states:

It is in everyone’s interest – health advocates and industry alike – to restore market, consumer and public confidence in the safety of chemicals.

Denison offers the following highlights of the changes made in the new bill:

• It establishes an orderly process that categorizes chemicals into high-, some- and low-concern classes and directs those chemicals along specific paths of action.
• It requires expedited action be taken to reduce exposure to chemicals of high concern – those that are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) to which people are exposed.
• It calls for EPA to identify and prioritize chemicals requiring safety determinations, and tie the pace of that activity to EPA’s capacity to expeditiously make these needed determinations.
• It clarifies that EPA would tailor minimum data requirements to different types or classes of chemicals, while still ensuring that basic safety information is provided in a timely manner for all chemicals.
• It clarifies that States receiving confidential business information (CBI) must have an agreement in place to ensure the information is kept confidential.
• It ensures that State governments have a right to take actions that are different from or in addition to those under TSCA, unless compliance with both the TSCA and the State requirement or standard is impossible.

He has even put together a handy table providing a "side-by-side" comparison of the 2010 and 2011 versions of the bill.

So will this bill stimulate some honest discussion? While Denison and others hope so, it seems unlikely in this divided Congress with a critical presidential and congressional election already looming in the minds of incumbents and contenders alike.  Especially since there is a good chance the Senate will switch parties next year.  Still, since all parties agree that change is needed, it will be interesting to see if they put in a serious effort or just give it lip service.

Industry Association and Environmental NGO Reactions to Senate Greenhouse Gas Vote - Did They See the Same Vote?

As noted yesterday there were four votes in the Senate on amendments related to climate science.  Senate Democrats narrowly "defeated a Republican effort to ban the Environmental Protection Agency from controlling the gases blamed for global warming." Despite the unlikelihood of it ever becoming law, according to the Washington Post, "the Republican-led House moved Thursday to take away the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases in a vote largely negated by Senate action a day earlier to reject such a repeal." 


Industry and the environmental NGOs had predictably different reactions to the votes.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC), a trade association representing most of the large chemical manufacturers, many of who are impacted by the Clean Air Act mandate for EPA to regulate pollutants, "welcomed signs of growing support in Congress for stopping the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations for stationary sources."  According to their press release:

“We are encouraged by these votes, which signal growing momentum toward stopping EPA’s GHG regulations,” said Cal Dooley, President and CEO of the American Chemistry Council. “Lawmakers from both parties agree this is a critical issue for the country, economic recovery and protecting American jobs. Congress must stop EPA so that business growth and hiring can continue.”

The NGO Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) had a different take on the votes. In EDF's press release, Tony Kreindler accused Congressional Republicans of attempting "to unravel public health protections under the Clean Air Act," and noted that "the amendments are a prelude to further attempts to weaken public health protections as the budget debate continues."  Further:

"Today's votes were an unprecedented assault on public health protections under the Clean Air Act. In 40 years we've never faced such a brazen attempt to rollback air quality standards," said Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund. "It remains to be seen which Senators will continue to side with clean air and who will vote to go backward."

Clearly industry and NGOs see this differently.

EPA Declassifies Previously Confidential Health and Safety Study Information

Following through on its efforts to increase transparency, the USEPA last week declassified the chemical identities of a total of 42 health and safety studies.  Sounds all CIA and spy-ish, doesn't it.  Previously the chemical identity for each of these studies was considered protected by confidential business information (CBI).  Now the public can not only see the studies but know on what chemicals the studies were done.

According to EPA's press release, "in 2010, EPA both challenged industry to declassify unwarranted CBI claims and issued new guidance on EPA's review and declassification process for confidentiality claims for the identity of a chemical in health and safety studies."  So "the posted declassifications of confidentiality claims are the result of both the Agency's and industry's review of CBI claims."

EPA plans to post CBI declassifications on its web site "on a regular basis."  Almost all of the studies had been submitted as part of Section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This section of the law "requires U.S. chemical manufacturers, importers, processors, and distributors to notify EPA immediately after obtaining information on any of their chemical substances or mixtures that reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment. 8(e) notices should be submitted within 30 calendar days after obtaining information that a substance or mixture presents a substantial risk."  In other words, any information suggesting substantial risk.

More information and a list of the documents being declassified can be found here.

Industry is wary of the declassifications, noting that confidential business information protections are needed to keep competitors from finding out what chemicals go into various products.  The NGO, Environmental Defense Fund, on the other hand, welcomed the release.  As EDF scientist Richard Denison put it:

I am very glad to see EPA's payment of this first dividend on its promise to ensure that health and safety information submitted under TSCA is, as Congress clearly intended, made publicly available — including the identity of the chemicals to which the information pertains.  EPA needs also to provide the public with the means to track the status of EPA's challenges, reviews and determinations pertaining to the legitimacy of CBI claims, and of industry's compliance with or challenges to EPA's noble effort...As this effort proceeds, let's hope it reaches the hundreds or thousands of other studies that should have been made public long ago.

 

26 Advocacy Groups File Comments in Support of EPA Policy to Limit Confidential Business Information

Back in May 2010 the USEPA issued a "Notice of General Practice of Reviewing Confidentiality Claims for Chemical Identities in Health and Safety Studies Submitted Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)."  Today twenty-six health, labor and environmental advocacy organizations filed a 19-page set of detailed comments "voicing resounding support for a long-overdue change" in EPA's policies.

In short, EPA will no longer accept routine claims of confidentiality for chemical names when companies submit what are called TSCA 8(e) notices, i.e., reports of significant adverse effects.  Companies are required to report immediately if they become aware of such significant effects, usually as a result of toxicity testing that indicates unexpected levels of toxicity.  These health and safety studies themselves cannot be held confidential, but the advocacy organizations argue that by withholding the name of the chemical tested the health and safety result is meaningless.  After all, the public would have no idea on what chemical the study was conducted. [EPA, of course, does know what chemical is being reported, but the portion made public may be significantly redacted to protect competitive advantage for the company, which is important for example if the chemical is being newly developed for the marketplace or a new use in the marketplace.

One of the primary advocacy organizations preparing the comments is the Environmental Defense Fund, which has played a leading role in the advocacy community when it comes to chemical safety issues.  More information on the EPA action and the 26 advocacy groups can be found on EDF's web site.

Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Coalition Rallies Outside Industry Chemicals Conference in Baltimore

A coalition called Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families rallied outside a hotel in Baltimore's Inner Harbor where chemical industry officials were holding a conference this week. A full report in the Baltimore Sun can be read here.

The organization, which is a coalition of environmental, health, children's, worker, and public advocacy groups, has been pressing hard for TSCA chemical reform. The conference, called GlobalChem, heard speakers from industry, NGOs, and even the Executive Director of the new European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) on topics ranging from REACH to international regulations. But mostly it focused on TSCA reform and what industry might expect as Senator Lautenberg moves towards reintroduction of his Kid Safe Chemicals Act.

While Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families was outside, one of the major founders of the coalition, Richard Denison of Environmental Defense Fund, was inside as an invited speaker. Denison, well known to the industry for his very active work on the HPV Challenge program, provided a somewhat different perspective than the industry representatives present. He noted that even 5 years after the voluntary HPV program was "complete," only 60% of the chemicals had actually had full data dossiers provided.

As I mentioned yesterday, there seems to be quite a bit of distance in the details between what the NGOs want to see in a new law and what industry sees. More on this in upcoming days.

NGO Reaction to the Decision to Suspend ChAMP Chemical Program

As previously noted, the Obama EPA suddenly suspended its ChAMP program last week. ChAMP was the Agency's mechanism for evaluating the data received during the voluntary HPV Challenge, in which industry agreed to provide available health and safety data on about 2200 high production volume chemicals (i.e., those produced or imported in excess of 1 million pounds per year in the US).

Yesterday I gave some of the reaction from industry. Most felt that ChAMP was a good program and didn't understand its sudden suspension. Some feel it was so the Obama administration could institute more "command-and-control" regulation over chemicals, rather than the more voluntary (and EPA-onused) ChAMP.

The non-governmental organization (NGO) reaction, on the other hand, has been generally in favor of the move. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), whose 1997 report "Toxic Ignorance" was the catalyst that led to the HPV Challenge in the first place, has been very critical of the ChAMP program. According to EDF's Richard Dennison,"[i]t probably goes without saying that EDF welcomes EPA's decision to suspend the development and posting of risk-based prioritizations under its Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP)." Dennison has been writing a series of blog posts in recent months in which he notes some of the failings of ChAMP, arguing "that ChAMP's "rush to risk" has taken EPA badly off-track." He claims, however, that "we have also identified many useful things that EPA's existing chemicals program can and should be doing with the data it obtained through the HPV Challenge (whether called ChAMP or not)," and that EDF looked "forward to working with EPA to craft a new approach, grounded in a return to developing scientifically defensible hazard, not risk, characterizations and transparently identifying and addressing data gaps and data quality problems."

Another environmental advocacy group that has been following ChAMP, and in particular has been very supportive of the proposed Kid Safe Chemical Act, is the Environmental Working Group (EWG). EWG recently launched an interactive online site "featuring news and commentary, as well as a forum for a thought-provoking exchange of ideas on reforming the nation’s federal toxic chemicals policies." According to EWG, the site "will feature analysis and opinion by scientists, lawmakers, industry officials, community activists, policy specialists, journalists and others interested in environmental health issues." A major focus of the site "will be the emerging debate over reform of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)."

Another group interested in the ChAMP and TSCA reform is the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Commenting on the EDF blog, Gina Solomon of NRDC notes that "[t]his is a very important step toward meaningful chemical reform. It was clear that EPA needed to sweep the house clean before bringing in the new furniture, and the elimination of ChAMP does exactly that. Now we can get on with the job of really reforming U.S. chemical policy." She also congratulated EDF for its series of blog stories, saying "I really think this blog brought down ChAMP!"

Many in the NGO community feel that the administration's decision to suspend ChAMP is a clear signal that "ChAMP is grossly, indefensibly ineffective." EDF's Dennison says the decision is "implicit acknowledgement" that the ChAMP prioritization process needed an overhaul. According to the ChAMP web site, as of March 2009, EPA had "developed and posted risk-based prioritizations for 220 HPV chemicals and has posted hazard-based prioritizations for 83 chemicals." The goal of the program was to develop "screening-level hazard, exposure, and risk characterizations for an estimated 6,750 chemicals produced or imported in quantities of 25,000 pounds or greater a year" by 2012.

Clearly the administration felt that the program could not accomplish those goals and that a better way was needed. According to EPA, they expect to offer a new direction some time this summer.