Elsevier Discusses "Article of the Future" - Is This Open Access?

In the last post I talked about the efforts of some people to shift published research from the firewalled journal article to an open access format.  The argument is that the public, who indirectly fund a lot of basic scientific research via taxpayer-funded research grants, should have access to the research without having to pay for expensive journal subscriptions.  The blog I linked noted a significant scientific boycott of Elsevier, one of the major scientific journal publishing houses.

Today I'll introduce something that Elsevier is doing to harness the power of online publishing for its scientific journals.  In what they call the "Article of the Future" project, Elsevier notes their "ongoing initiative aiming to revolutionize the traditional format of the academic paper in regard to three key elements: presentation, content and context."  They have provided a short video on their web site as an overview of their progress:




As the video notes, the new access systems significantly enhance the amount of information that can be derived over the traditional "flat page" journal article.  But is it open access?  Not really since a subscription to the journal is still required, or at least access through academic libraries that have purchased online subscriptions for use by students in their individual schools.

So what is the solution?

Calls for Open Access Include a Boycott of Elsevier

Recently there has been a lot of talk about making scientific journals open access.  The argument is that much of science is funded by the taxpayers via government grants, etc., and therefore the public should have access to that research.  As we all know, most scientific research is published in peer-reviewed journals, and those journals are published by companies who obviously require a profit in order to continue to fund publishing the journals.

With the growth of the internet the argument is that costs of publishing have significantly decreased, and in fact many journals no longer even print a hard copy.  Digital rules.  Still, there are costs associated with the process and publishers need to cover those costs in order to remain in business.  No business, they say, no published journal on the internet - digital doesn't create itself.

It's a difficult issue.  Clearly the future of information is online.  So what business model is best for the changing times?

I came across this blog and video that advocates for complete open access and notes a scientist boycott of Elsevier, a publisher of many valuable scientific journals.  Is a boycott fair? Is Elsevier's right to have a profitable business trumped by the public's right to access to knowledge, at least knowledge derived from publicly funded research?  And given full open access, would the public even know what to do with the information presented in scientific journal papers?

What do you all think?

[Note: Tomorrow I will look at what Elsevier is doing to better use the power of the internet to enhance the communication of knowledge]

National Science Board Announces New Leadership Team

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced new leadership for its National Science Board.  Dan Arvizu will take over as the new chairman, Kelvin Droegemeier will be the new vice-chairman, and Carl Lineberger to joing the NSB's Executive Committee.  The changes were announced during the Board's May meeting.

As noted in their press release, "the NSB is made up of 25 Members appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate," however, "the NSB is apolitical." Board members "are drawn from industry and universities, and represent a variety of science and engineering disciplines and geographic areas."  Nominees to the "Board (1) shall be eminent in the fields of the basic, medical, or social sciences, engineering, agriculture, education, research management or public affairs; (2) shall be selected solely on the basis of established records of distinguished service; and (3) shall be so selected as to provide representation of the views of scientific and engineering leaders in all areas of the Nation."

More information can be read on the NSF web site.

President Obama "Stands With" the EPA

President Barack Obama made his first visit to the USEPA to thank them for their service.  The visit comes during a time when two of EPA's most visible leaders - Steve Owens and Paul Anastas - have recently stepped down to return to private and academic careers.  According to his remarks:

The main reason I’m here is simple:  I just want to say thank you.  I want to say thank you to each and every one of you, because the EPA touches on the lives of every single American every single day.  You help make sure that the air we breathe, the water we drink, the foods we eat are safe.  You protect the environment not just for our children but their children.  And you keep us moving towards energy independence. 

Over the last 3 years the EPA has faced considerable political attack on its ability to carry out its functions, with Congress voting to cut its budget severely and blocking needed regulatory efforts to constrain greenhouse gas emissions to fight man-made climate change.  Obama countered the artificial argument offered by some in Congress that human health and the environment must be sacrificed for economic reasons, saying:

Safeguarding our environment is also about strengthening our economy.  I do not buy the notion that we have to make a choice between having clean air and clean water and growing this economy in a robust way.  I think that is a false debate. 

Finally, the President indicated he would stand up for the EPA so that they can do their jobs.  He noted:

So all of you, and all of those who served before you, have made a difference.  Our environment is safer because of you.  Our country is stronger because of you.  Our future is brighter because of you.  And I want you to know that you’ve got a President who is grateful for your work and will stand with you every inch of the way as you carry out your mission to make sure that we’ve got a cleaner world. 

The White House press release is available here.

The full text can be read here.

A video of the President's speech can be seen below.

Eight Scientific Organizations Offer Expertise to Solve New Chemical Testing Questions

The testing of chemicals for health and safety has been a big issue for a long time, but recently there has been heightened awareness of the problem.  The potential of Congressional action to reform the nation's chemical control law and comments being offered from all quarters on the sufficiency, or lack of sufficiency, of chemical testing has helped show some of the shortcomings in our assessment process.  Now eight scientific societies have offered the expertise of their 40,000 research scientists and clinicians. 

In a letter published in the prestigious scientific journal "Science," the societies note that "the need for swifter and sounder testing and review procedures cannot be overstated." They warn that "recent scientific evidence has established direct links between exposures that occur during fetal development and adult disease."  The point out that biomonitoring data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "have established that most, if not virtually all Americans, are exposed to contaminants in the environment that cause serious health effects in animal models."

One important point made by these societies, which are generally medical, genetic, reproductive health type societies instead of the traditional toxicology societies, is that there is a need to develop and validate "improved testing guidelines and better methods of assessing risks." These new methods could move away from animal models and include non-animal markers such as endocrine function, genomic fingerprinting, and other less invasive and perhaps faster and more sensitive types of studies that could be used to more rapidly identify chemicals for more in-depth study.

And so they are offering their help.  Addressing their letter mainly to the FDA and EPA:

"We ask that you use our scientific boards to provide access to leading scientists in diverse fields. These experts can help ensure that the most up-to-date scientific methodology and scientific understanding are used when devising and refining regulatory guidelines, and when reviewing scientific data pertinent to risk assessment and risk management decisions."

The letter is in the most recent issue of Science.  The eight scientific societies are (click on the name for more information about each):

• The American Society of Human Genetics
• The American Society for Reproductive Medicine
• The Endocrine Society
• The Genetics Society of America
• The Society for Developmental Biology
• The Society for Pediatric Urology
• The Society for the Study of Reproduction
• The Society for Gynecologic Investigation

New EPA Web Site Seeks to Increase Transparency of Regulatory Activity

The USEPA continues with its goal to increase transparency in government by launching a new web site called Reg Stat.  The web site lets the general public keep track of the regulatory process and "the number, type, and range or regulatory documents developed each year by the agency."  According to EPA:

EPA publishes roughly 2,000 documents in the Federal Register (FR) each year. Of the documents published each year, the majority are Notices. The Office of Policy (OP) has identified a subset of these as "Administrator-Signed Rules". EPA's Administrator-Signed rules are only those published actions which are signed by the Administrator and which modify or propose to modify the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and therefore, contain rule text. The data compiled and presented on this site primarily draws on this subset of rules signed by the EPA Administrator.

A key feature of the site is a set of graphs and charts to document how many rules are being signed, how long it takes to get through the various steps of each regulatory action, and the number of rules published in the Federal Register.  There is also a link called "Regulatory Gateway" in which the public can see what EPA rulemaking, especially the priority rules, is currently in progress.

The EPA Reg Stat site can be viewed here.

A Rational Discussion of Climate Change - House Hearing on November 17, 2010

Congress is back in session, and at least one Democratic committee chair is ready for a hearing called "A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response."  The hearing will be held in the Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2325, from 10:30 am to 12:30 pm, Wednesday, November 17, 2010. It will be interesting to see how rational it is given the lame duck status of Congress.  But the line up of witnesses bears promise as they are mostly prominent scientists and other authorities testifying, mostly on the status of the science and impacts of not taking action.

Witnesses include:

Dr. Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences

Dr. Heidi Cullen, CEO and Director of Communications at Climate Central

Dr. Gerald Meehl, Senior Scientist in the Climate and Global Dynamics Division at the National Center for Atmospheric Research

Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Benjamin Santer, Atmospheric Scientist in the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Dr. Richard Alley, Evan Pugh Professor in the Department of Geosciences and an Associate of the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute at Pennsylvania State University

Dr. Richard Feely, Senior Scientist at the Pacific Marine Environment Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Rear Admiral David Titley, Oceanographer and Navigator for the United States Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

Mr. James Lopez, Senior Advisor to the Deputy Secretary at the Department of Housing and Urban Development

Mr. William Geer, Director of the Center for Western Lands for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

Dr. Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology

Their written remarks should be posted on the committee web site above once they give testimony.  The committee has already released a PDF of the hearing charter, which summarizes the topics each witness will address.  It also provides some useful background on the state of climate science that I highly recommend everyone read.

EPA Celebrates 20th Anniversary of the Pollution Protection Act

You read about it in the papers, right?  Probably not.  In any case the USEPA celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 last week during, not surprisingly, National Pollution Prevention Week.  The goal of the Act, affectionately called P2 (for Pollution prevention) "is reducing or eliminating waste at the source by modifying production processes, promoting the use of non-toxic or less-toxic substances, implementing conservation techniques, and re-using materials rather than putting them into the waste stream."

Doesn't sound too sexy, but P2 has "served as the foundation for efforts that have significantly reduced pollution at its source -- helping to protect children and families from the risks of exposure to pollutants, as well as reducing the amount of pollutants released into the environment."  So last week the EPA reminded people of the "the success of EPA programs such as Energy Star, WaterSense, EPEAT and DfE, which have collectively helped save billions of dollars, preserve precious resources, reduce waste and the use of toxic chemicals, and protect public and environmental health."

By the way, the "DfE" in the above paragraph stands for "Design for the Environment," and is just one of the programs in which EPA has been working with manufacturers, formulators, and downstream users to find better, more environmentally friendly ways to accomplish the same goals.  I'll do a program review of DfE at some point in the future.

As President Obama notes in his P2 message,

“Together, we can work to create a cleaner, safer world for our children and grandchildren to inherit.”

More information P2 can be found on the EPA web site.

OMB Watch Says DOI Policy Inadequate to Protect Scientific Integrity

OMB Watch, a watchdog organization focusing on scrutinizing Office of Management and Budget activities, has given support to comments filed criticizing the Department of Interior's proposed scientific integrity policy.  The policy is in response to the March 2009 memo from President Obama establishing six principles for scientific integrity.  OMB Watch joins comments filed by the Union of Concerned Scientists and other public interest and environmental groups in saying that the policy "fails to address the full range of threats to scientific integrity at DOI, such as those evidenced by abuses at the former Minerals Management Service."

The commenters do agree that the proposed policy "does take steps to prevent misconduct by scientists."  But they charge that it "fails to protect scientist whistleblowers" and "does little to improve either the transparency of scientific activities or the ways that scientific information is used in decision making."  They further state that the proposed policy effectively "does nothing to prevent political interference with science."

OMB Watch and the Union of Concerned Scientists provide comments that discuss three areas where reforms are needed: 1) protecting government scientists, 2) making government more transparent, and 3) gathering scientific information and advice.  More information can be found at OMB Watch, the comments themselves, and the web site of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Recommedations are more than a year overdue.

Environmental Groups Urge Congress to Reinstate Congress' Science Office

Believe it or not, Congress once had a science office. The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), from 1872 to 1995, provided research and reports to Congress on a variety of important science issues. Targeted first during the Reagan years, the OTA was unceremoniously defunded during the Gingrich "Contract with America" era. But a coalition of 90 environmental and health advocacy groups want it back.

The coalition, which includes such diverse members as Friends of the Earth, OMB Watch and Republicans for Environmental Protection, have formally requested that Congress allocate an unspecified amount of funding to reinstate the OTA. Technically, they argue, the OTA wasn't actually abolished, just defunded, and as such would simply need funds appropriated.

Unfortunately, I don't see this happening. While the economy does seem to be (begrudgingly) improving, the current economic conditions of the US remain tentative. And a plausible argument could be made that the functions of the OTA are being met by the General Accountability Office, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, and the National Academy of Science.

Another option could be a proposal by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars called "Reinventing Technology Assessment." It emphasized "citizen engagement" and suggested that a "nationwide network of non-partisan policy research organizations, universities and science museums" could be created, which they called the Expert & Citizen Assessment of Science & Technology (ECAST) network.

Either way, Congress clearly needs to rely on actual science when making decisions.

EPA and Industry Butt Heads on Recently Released Chemical Action Plans

On December 30, 2009 the USEPA released four "chemical action plans" that summarized the Agency's plan to regulate four chemicals: Phthalates, Short-chain chlorinated paraffins, Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and Perfluorinated chemicals (including PFOA). That same day the largest chemical trade group issued a news release expressing "strong concerns about EPA's approach." EPA says that the scientific basis for selection of the four chemicals is sound and in accordance with the procedure outlined on its website.

That doesn't mean industry is satisfied. According to the news release, the organization "and its member companies are disappointed that the initial set of chemicals seem to have been selected based on little more than their current “high-profile” nature." They are also concerned about what they believe is a lack of transparency in the way the "action plans" were developed. EPA disagrees and says it has no plans to refine the process.

This little give-and-take between EPA and the major trade association representing industry is to be expected as EPA lays out its plans and industry reacts with challenges. While it's unlikely that EPA will change anything in the short-term, the action plans do provide quite a bit of wiggle room for future flexibility. For example, a couple of the plans indicate that EPA "will consider initiating Section 6 rulemaking" in 2012 or 2013, which gives another 2 or 3 years to work out voluntary phase outs of the chemicals (and in fact EPA recently announced such a phase out by the manufacturer of decaBDE). Even if EPA does initiate a Section 6 rulemaking, the process could take anywhere from months to years to complete, during which time lots of other things could happen.

So while a little tiff between EPA and industry might make headlines, what it really signals is that EPA is going to push the envelope on using the authority that it believes TSCA already gives them. Authority that EPA really hasn't been particularly forceful in using in the past. The reasons for doing it now are uncertain and perhaps quite complex. It may simply be that the new Administration wants to accomplish the worthwhile goals of "protecting human health and the environment." Or it may be that they know they might get sued for "overreaching" that perceived authority, which might light a fire under Congress to finally introduce a bill to modernize TSCA.

Either way, the next few months should be very interesting. Stay tuned!

Chemical Industry Rebuts "Secret Chemical" Report as Erroneous

As mentioned yesterday, the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit advocacy group based in Washington DC, issued a report suggesting that many chemicals on the market today are "secret." The basis for this is that the identity of these chemicals is protected by confidential business information provisions under the existing TSCA chemical control law. On Monday the main chemical industry trade association offered a response in which it claimed that EWG misrepresented the CBI provisions.

According to ACC's news release available on its web site,

"[t]here are no 'secret' chemicals on the market. In those cases where a specific chemical identity has been claimed confidential - in order to protect the significant investment of time, money and human resources that went into the research and development process - the manufacturing and use of that substance must always fully comply with the requirements of the law."

The EWG report and the ACC response demonstrates that while both groups, along with most other stakeholders, are in general agreement on the need for TSCA reform and the basic principles of modernization, there are still some fundamental differences on many of the details. In this case, the advocacy groups feel that the more information available to the public and the more transparency the better. The industry, on the other hand, must deal with the fact that competitors can free ride off of the research expenditures of others and thus have a need to keep some information to themselves.

The key seems to be in developing a system that gives confidence that chemicals are adequately tested for safety prior to being put on the market. If the public can be convinced that the process protects them, then they will be less concerned if there are confidentiality protections for companies. But if the public feels that the process is insufficient to protect them from chemicals because those chemicals have not been demonstrated to be safe, then the public will want to see more information to allow them to make choices on their end.

The saga continues. I expect there to be quite a bit of activity in the next few weeks and months as Congress leads up to introducing a bill in the first quarter of this year.

Environmental Working Group Releases "Secret Chemicals" Report

On a note related to my post of yesterday, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has released a report called "Off the Books: Industry's Secret Chemicals." In the report they call TSCA "an extraordinarily ineffective law."

EWG is a non-profit organization founded in 1993 by Ken Cook and Richard Wiles, the latter whom is a co-author on the current report. EWG's mission "to use the power of public information to protect public health and the environment." In the fall of 2009 the organization sponsored a widely attended stakeholder "dialogue" that included Lisa Jackson and Steve Owens from EPA, the heads of many industry trade associations, the advocacy community, and other interested stakeholders.

In their report, EWG is quite critical of the current system under TSCA and feels that industry has abused the privilege of claiming confidential business information. The report also faults EPA for allowing so many - 17,000 of the 83,000 on the TSCA Inventory - to be kept "secret" from the public, which according to EWG is "a de-facto witness protection program for chemicals," a large number of which are "used everyday in consumer products."

With advocacy groups seemingly intent on pressing the issue, I reiterate my belief that the "new TSCA" will significantly restrict the amount and type of CBI that companies may claim for new chemicals. The burden will also shift to industry to prove that their CBI claims are legitimate, rather than putting the onus on resource-strapped EPA to make an effort to reject claims. Whether this is a good or bad thing will have to wait until the details are worked out.

Scientists Need to Talk to the Public - It's Time to Speak Up!!

So says Chris Mooney in an opinion piece in the Washington Post this weekend. Mooney is co-author with marine scientist Sheril Kirshenbaum of "Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future." Mooney warns us the the deniers of science, for example those that deny climate change and evolution, are highly organized and experienced in getting their message out. Even if it is false. Or perhaps especially because it is false.

Scientists do their science in labs and the field and communicate through journals and scientific conferences with their peers, but traditionally have left the communication to the public of that science to others. If it was communicated to the public at all. It doesn't help that scientists often distrust the media's ability to get it right. According to Mooney, "[r]ather than spurring greater efforts at communication, such mistrust and resignation have further motivated some scientists to avoid talking to reporters and going on television."

He further notes that scientists "no longer have that luxury. After all, global-warming skeptics suffer no such compunctions." And with "traditional science journalists who have long sought to bridge the gap between scientists and the public" being let go by the struggling media outlets, "[i]f scientists don't take a central communications role, nobody else with the same expertise and credibility will do it for them."

Quoting Scripps Institution of Oceanography marine biologist Jeremy Jackson, who teaches a summer course that introduces young scientists to the media, blogging and even filmmaking:

"Traditionally, scientists have been loathe to interact with the media," Jackson said in a recent interview. But in his class, "the students understand that good science is only the beginning to solving environmental problems, and that nothing will be accomplished without more effective communication to the general public."

So Mooney suggests, "[s]cientists need not wait for former vice presidents to make hit movies to teach the public about their fields -- they must act themselves." To teach scientists how to do this, he recommends two recent books: Randy Olson's "Don't Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style" and Cornelia Dean's "Am I Making Myself Clear?: A Scientist's Guide to Talking to the Public."

Here is my earlier review of Mooney and Kirshenbaum's Unscientific America. Ironically, I just finished reading Dean's "Am I Making Myself Clear?" and a few months ago read Olson's "Don't be Such a Scientist."

Other scientific book reviews can be found here.

Consumer Product Safety Commission Names Phthalate Advisory Panel Members

Phthalates are big. Well, at least from a public health policy perspective. These chemicals are the most commonly used plasticizers worldwide, being used to soften PVC and other products. One of the biggest concerns by regulators and activists is the use of phthalates in toys. A few days ago the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in the United States appointed seven independent scientists to serve on a Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP) to assess the potential health risks from exposure to phthalates and phthalate substitutes.

The CHAP is required under the provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, signed into law by then-President George W. Bush in 2008. The specific charge of the CHAP is to examine the potential effects on children's health of phthalates and any alternatives to phthalates as used in children's toys and child care articles.

The seven scientists appointed from a list nominated by the President of the National Academy of Sciences are:

Chris Gennings, Ph.D.
Medical College of Virginia

Russell Hauser, M.D., Sc.D., M.P.H.
Harvard School of Public Health

Holger M. Koch, Ph.D.
Ruhum University of Bochum, Germany

Andreas Kortenkamp, Ph.D.
University of London

Paul J. Lioy, Ph.D.
Robert Wood Johnson Medical School

Philip E. Mirkes, Ph.D.
Washington State University, Vancouver

Bernard A. Schwetz, D.V.M., Ph.D.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (retired)

Thomas Friedman and the Earth Race - How to Combat Climate Change and Use the Market to Build a New Energy Future

For those who know of Thomas L. Friedman, they know that he is an award winning writer and journalist, and also someone who knows more about the world than most folks. His best-selling book The World is Flat is just one of several books in which he shows his keen insight into the future.

Friedman now offers his thoughts following the recently completed United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. While he says that the "Earth Day" approach accomplished some goals, we need to shift more into what he calls and "Earth Race" approach.

The Earth Race

He suggests:

Therefore, the goal of Earth Racers is to focus on getting the U.S. Senate to pass an energy bill, with a long-term price on carbon that will really stimulate America to become the world leader in clean-tech. If we lead by example, more people will follow us by emulation than by compulsion of some U.N. treaty.

He says that:

In the cold war, we had the space race: who could be the first to put a man on the moon. Only two countries competed, and there could be only one winner. Today, we need the Earth Race: who can be the first to invent the most clean technologies so men and women can live safely here on Earth. [my emphasis added]

He suggests that what President Obama should have done in Copenhagen is to:

"...look China’s prime minister in the eye and say: “I am going to get our Senate to pass an energy bill with a price on carbon so we can clean your clock in clean-tech. This is my moon shot. Game on.”

An interesting concept. The US should unilaterally say, hey, we're going to beat your pants off in this Earth Race, coming up with new energy technologies that leave you (China) in the dust, and you (OPEC oil barons) wondering what you're going to do with your oil, and you (Russia) doing whatever it is that you are doing today, begging us to share the new technology with you. Which we will do....for a price.

So, anyone think this will work?

13 US States Issue Recommendations for TSCA Chemical Control Reform

Recently the House held hearings on reform of the over 30-year old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and yesterday the Senate followed suit with its own hearing. Yesterday also was important because thirteen US states released "a set of principles designed to ensure that the debate over reforming the nation’s outdated chemical policy stays focused on protecting public health and the environment.:

“Current federal chemical regulations fail to adequately protect the nation’s citizens and environment from toxic chemicals and unsafe products,” said David Littell, Commissioner of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. “The effects of exposure to toxic chemicals on human health, the environment, and the economy are enormous and often avoidable.”

Not surprisingly, California is one of the states taking action. In addition, Maine and Washington are taking state level action. The other states contributing to the principles are Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Vermont.

The eight recommendations listed are:

1) Require Chemical Data Reporting

2) Demonstrate Chemicals and Products are Safe

3) Prioritize Chemicals of Concern

4) Protect the Most Vulnerable

5) Promote Safer Chemicals and Products

6) Address Emerging Contaminants

7) Strengthen Federal Law & Preserve States' Rights

8) Fund State Programs

A press release summarizing these recommendation is available on the Maine DEP web site. I'll continue to monitor developments both on the state and federal levels. See here for the opening remarks of yesterday's Senate hearing. I'll post summaries of the remarks of all the witnesses in the following days as well as analysis of what all these hearings mean for the modernization of TSCA.

Witnesses Identified to Testify in Senate Hearing on TSCA Chemical Control Reform

The Senate has announced the witnesses that will by testifying at a joint hearing of both the full committee and subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health scheduled for Wednesday, December 2, 2009.

The title of the hearing is "Oversight Hearing on the Federal Toxic Substances Control Act.”

Witnesses include, after opening remarks by the Chairwoman:

Panel 1

The Honorable Lisa Jackson
Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency


Panel 2

John B. Stephenson
Director, Natural Resources & Environment
U.S. Government Accountability Office

Linda Birnbaum Ph.D.
Director
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program


This hearing is part of the duties of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which Barbara Boxer chairs and James Inhofe is ranking minority member.

The hearing will begin at 2:30 pm EST in the EPW Hearing Room - 406 Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Recently the House also held a hearing on TSCA reform, focusing on prioritization of chemicals first to be addressed. See my series of articles beginning with this summary and followed on subsequent days with more in-depth summaries of each of the witnesses.

A webcast of the hearing is now available.

I will also provide additional information on witness testimony following this Senate hearing.

Beth Bosley Testimony at Congressional Hearing on TSCA Chemical Control

Today I continue with the testimony of the final witness present at the November 17, 2009 Congressional hearings on "Prioritizing Chemicals for Safety Determination." Earlier I gave an overall summary. Beth Bosley is Managing Director of the Boron Specialties company, but spoke on behalf of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA). SOCMA is a trade association that represents the batch and custom chemical industry, which are typically small to medium-sized businesses and thus may not have the more extensive resources of the larger chemical firms.

Bosley noted that SOCMA agrees with the idea that TSCA needs to be modernized, but said that this should be done in a way that "doesn't devastate a strategic American industry that is already facing recession and foreign competition." She offered two essential principles for "a sustainable chemical management law that won't eliminate jobs, economic growth, or products."

1) Priorities must be based on risk: Bosley noted that this means "basing priorities and regulatory criteria on the scientific evaluation of toxicological response and exposure factors." She gave an example of a chemical that may be highly toxic but used only in strictly controlled industrial environments or in small quantities, and as such would actually have a fairly small risk to public health.

2) Proven regulatory mechanisms should be the basis for modernization: Bosley insisted that the modernized TSCA must rely on leveraging regulatory mechanisms that work in the US. She said that applying an approach like the European REACH approach in the US "would devastate small and medium sized companies...and do so unnecessarily since a more practical alternative is available. She suggested that "the Canadian approach to chemicals management has systematically prioritized that nation's inventory and is, therefore, much farther ahead of the EU with respect to evaluating chemicals in commerce."

Bosley also said that SOCMA supports the idea of an "inventory reset," which was part of EPA's Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP), a program that was recently discontinued. She noted that of the "over 80,000 chemicals now listed on the inventory, data suggest that only about 1/3 of these are presently in commerce." Thus, "resetting" the inventory to include only those now in production would significantly reduce the number of chemicals that need to be prioritized and categorized. Bosley suggested that "ChAMP should not have been abandoned, because it will just have to be reinstituted under another name."

Bosley said that we should "embrace TSCA mechanisms that have worked well, like the New Chemicals Program," which through its PreManufacture Notice (PMN) process reviews over 1,000 new chemicals every year. She also encouraged everyone to recognize "the massive amount of data that was generated by EPA's High Production Volume Program and leverage that data in making initial determinations of risk." She felt that "with reasonable amendments," TSCA could provide an easier mechanism to collect data from manufacturers and users related to a) volumes manufactured, processed or used, b) health effects, and c) exposure characteristics.

Finally, she noted that the "safety" standard used by EPA to make determinations should involve:

1) Not overlooking the basic principle of risk (i.e., the evaluation of both hazard and exposure, not just hazard),

2) Not let EPA get burdened with having to determine that each chemical is safe for its intended use (i.e., chemicals need to be prioritized so that only those really of concern should need to be evaluated in depth, and for only those uses that are of concern), and

3) EPA must be adequately funded no matter what approach Congres takes in modernizing TSCA. Bosley noted that "the biggest shortcoming of the TSCA program today is lack of resources, not lack of authority."

Well, that summarizes all of the witnesses who testified at the November 17, 2009 House subcommittee hearing. This is the follow up to a House hearing held back on February 26, 2009, which I discussed earlier.

In addition to the in-person witnesses there was some written testimony provided to the subcommittee. There were also statements published by several other interested stakeholders such at the American Chemistry Council, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Environmental Working Group, and others. I'll be reviewing these in the coming days. I'll also be providing some critical analysis contrasting the different viewpoints and looking at what a final bill might look like.

Bill Greggs Testimony at Congressional Hearing on TSCA Chemical Control

This is a continuation of my series taking a closer look at the November 17, 2009 Congressional hearings on "Prioritizing Chemicals for Safety Determination." Earlier I gave an overall summary. Today I look at the testimony of William (Bill) Greggs, who is now a private Chemical and Environmental Policy Consultant but for 37 years was a chemical engineer and global chemical policy expert with the Procter & Gamble Company. Greggs was testifying on behalf of three processor and user organizations, namely the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA), the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), and the Soap and Detergent Association (SDA).

Greggs noted that "CSPA, GMA and SDA are committed to manufacturing and marketing safe and innovative products." He emphasized that the organizations agree that TSCA needs to be modernized and that it is critical that there be "development of a mechanism by which EPA will prioritize existing chemicals for review and assessment." He believes that "a priority setting process developed by Congress must be risk-based, taking into account both a chemical's hazards and potential exposures. Chemicals identified as the high priorities should be those substances with both the highest hazards and the highest potential exposures." (emphasis in original)

He noted that the three organizations have "collaborated with various industry representatives on the development of a risk-based and efficient tool that EPA can use to prioritize chemical substances." They recommend a framework that accounts for increasing levels of hazard on one axis and increasing levels of exposure on the other axis. On the hazard axis the criteria could include whether the substance was a carcinogen, mutagen or reproductive toxicant (CMR) or persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT), as well as others. For exposure axis the indicators could include the use pattern of the chemical, its biomonitoring findings (e.g., the CDC data), industrial releases as reported through the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), and whether the chemical is found in water or the air.

The belief is that this process would identify the chemicals with greatest potential risk for prioritized review. Greggs asserted that stakeholders must be allowed to review and comment on the draft assessments, and that they must be given the opportunity to "provide additional information enabling a more informed decision or to remedy erroneous results of the priority setting process." He noted that "this is a critical component Congress must include that will significantly improve the results of this very important exercise."

Greggs felt that "done properly, this priority setting process would rank all chemicals from highest to lowest in a relatively short period of time." He noted that "the complete priority setting process will take EPA some time to accomplish," and therefore he encouraged Congress "to develop an additional mechanism that will enable EPA to identify the chemicals of highest priority for immediate assessment." To accomplish this, he recommended a process "that would require EPA to screen the data from the most recent Inventory Update Rule (IUR) submissions to identify chemicals that have the highest hazards and highest potential exposures. (emphasis in original) Through this process he believes "EPA could identify 50 to 100 chemicals that could quickly move into EPA's safety assessment process while the Agency works on prioritizing the remaining chemicals in commerce" using the tool described above.

Tomorrow I will take a look at the testimony of Beth Bosley, a consultant for the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA).