Poll Shows Most Americans Want to Update Chemical Control Law

A new poll conducted by Public Opinion Strategies, a leading Republican polling firm, shows that "voters are concerned about the effects of exposure to toxic chemicals in day to day life." The poll also shows that "most voters support 'stricter regulation of chemicals produced and used in everyday products.'"

POS conducted the national telephone survey of 800 registered voters on June 25-27, 2012. The overall margin of error is +3.46%. Interviews were distributed proportionally throughout the country. More information on the poll results and methods can be found here.

Poll results show that 77% of respondents support specific legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the law passed in 1976 for which all stakeholders (industry, NGOs, EPA, health and environmental advocates) agree needs to be modernized. Support for reform of the law was "wide-spread and broad-based," i.e., large majorities of all demographics surveyed agreed that the law was in need of updating.

POS concluded that "U.S. voters overwhelmingly support reform to regulations overseeing chemicals produced and used in everyday products, particularly when provided with specifics about what the reform might entail." Even when robust arguments on both sides of the issue were presented, "voters continue to side with supporters of reform."

TSCA reform has been the subject of many attempts by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and others to introduce legislation. Lautenberg's most recent effort, the Safe Chemicals Act, has languished in Committee without action. This might change this week, however, as Lautenberg says he expects to bring the bill to markup this week, which may lead to a Committee vote as early as Wednesday.

Meanwhile, the subcommittee and full committee of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday, July 24th to discuss Congressional oversight of EPA authorities related to TSCA. Of specific interest is a recent investigative series by the Chicago Tribune that suggested the brominated flame retardant industry had overstated benefits and understated risks of a class of flame retardants called PBDEs. This builds on a hearing held recently by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL).

Canada Confirms Order Designating Four Chemicals as CEPA Toxic

Canada has published an "Order Adding Toxic Substances to Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999." The order confirms the CEPA toxic designation of four chemicals, thus allowing for Canada to regulate them.  The four chemicals are:

• Propane, 2-nitro- (Chemical Abstracts Service [CAS] (see footnote 2) Registry No. 79-46-9), hereafter referred to as “2-nitropropane”; 

• Benzene, 1-methyl-2-nitro- (CAS No. 88-72-2), hereafter referred to as “2-nitrotoluene”;

• Phenol, 2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-(1-methylpropyl)- (CAS No. 17540-75-9), hereafter referred to as “DTBSBP”; and

• Methylium, [4-(dimethylamino)phenyl]bis[4-(ethylamino)-3-methylphenyl]-, acetate (CAS No. 72102-55-7), hereafter referred to as “MAPBAP acetate.”

Draft regulations have been proposed for at least one of the chemicals.  According to the Canada Gazette:

The Order adds the four above-mentioned substances to Schedule 1 to CEPA 1999, thereby allowing the Ministers to meet their obligation to publish proposed regulations or other instruments no later than July 31, 2012, and finalize them no later than January 31, 2014. Developing an implementation plan or a compliance strategy or establishing service standards are not considered necessary if no specific risk management proposals are made. An appropriate assessment of implementation, compliance and enforcement will be undertaken during the development of proposed regulations or control instrument(s) respecting preventive or control actions for these substances.  

More information can be found in the Canada Gazette notice.

With No TSCA Chemical Reform on the Horizon, States Take the Lead

With TSCA reform at the federal level highly unlikely to occur in this election year, the individual states are expected to step up their ongoing battle to protect human health and the environment from chemicals. According to Safer States, "at least 28 state legislatures will consider proposals to address continued concerns about toxic chemicals in consumer products."  This builds on "over 80 chemical safety laws [that] have been passed with an overwhelming margin of bi-partisan support in statehouses across the country" during the last nine years.

Safer States is "a network of diverse environmental health coalitions and organizations in states around the country" and is a part of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a "coalition of groups united by their common concern about chemicals in our homes, places of work, and products we use every day."

The organization has posted what they see as highlights of the 2012 state legislative efforts, as follows:

• Identification and Disclosure of Chemicals Harmful to Children. At least 13 states, including Alaska, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington will consider policies to identify and ultimately reduce exposures to chemicals of concern, including prioritizing chemicals for state action and requiring manufacturers of consumer products to disclose the chemicals in their products.
• BPA Phase Outs. At least 20 states will consider policy to restrict the use of the hormone-disrupting chemical BPA in infant formula cans, other food packaging, children's products, and receipt paper. Alaska, Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, New Jersey, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin are all states considering such legislation.
• Tris Flame Retardant Phase Outs. At least four state legislatures will introduce policies to phase out the use of the flame retardant chlorinated Tris in children's products. Chlorinated Tris is a flame retardant that was removed from children's pajamas in the 1970s because of concerns over adverse health effects, including cancer, but has reappeared in other children's products. Connecticut, Maryland, New York, and Washington are legislatures considering such a ban. In addition, Alaska, Michigan, New Jersey and New York legislatures will consider policies to reduce exposure to the flame retardant decaBDE.
• Green Cleaning in Schools. Earlier this month, Vermont passed policy requiring manufacturers to only sell environmentally preferable cleaning products to schools. Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and North Carolina are considering similar policy.
• Cadmium Bans in Children's Products. At least 5 states will be introducing or have introduced policies to ban the use of cadmium in children's products, including Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, New York, and Tennessee. Cadmium is linked to cancer and other health effects.
• Other policies. Oregon has introduced policy to require the state to reduce toxics through its procurement process. New York is considering policy to restrict formaldehyde in beauty products. Massachusetts and Georgia are also considering policy to improve the safety of cosmetics. Other states have introduced individual chemical restrictions, such as lindane in Michigan and perchloroethelyene in Vermont.

Ironically, while the chemical industry has indicated that it prefers the reform of TSCA on the federal level rather than a patchwork of state and local laws, the lack of action on TSCA is serving as a catalyst for states and municipalities to create that patchwork in earnest.

The full Safer States press release can be viewed and downloaded as a PDF here.

Democratic Congressman Waxman Requests PBT Data from Chemical Companies

Democratic Representative Henry A. Waxman (CA), who is Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, is asking chemical manufacturers to provide information on "the production of chemicals that are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT’s)."  Waxman, along with Illionios Congressman Bobby Rush, introduced the House's version of the TSCA reform legislation in 2010.  Since those bills died at the end of the last Congress with no action, and little prospect of the Republican-led House introducing bill this year, Waxman seems intent on keeping the pressure on the chemical industry to reveal data.  According to the press release on the minority site for the House Committee on Energy & Commerce, Waxman states:

“These chemicals are of particular concern.  We need better information from manufacturers to understand what is already being done to protect the American people, and what more may need to be done through modernization of the Toxic Substances Control Act.”

PBTs are "highly resistant to degradation in the environment," "build up in the food chain and in the human body," and "cause adverse health effects in exposed individuals."  These persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic properties have been used by the EPA and other jurisdictions (including Canada and the EU) to prioritize chemicals of greatest concern for closer evaluation.

Waxman sent letters to the CEOs of 15 major chemical manufacturers, including 3M, DuPont, BASF, Huntsman, Chevron, PPG, and others requesting information on what they are doing to determine if a chemical they plan to start producing is a PBT, and if so, whether they would continue to develop the chemical for production.  He also asked what companies are doing to determine if existing chemicals they already produce are PBT, and if so, whether they plan to continue production.  In both cases, if the decision is to continue to place the PBT chemical on the market, what steps are they taking to adequately address "the risks posed by the chemical."

Rep. Waxman indicated that he "would appreciate a response to these questions no later than April 22, 2011."

Waiting for TSCA Chemical Reform? Keep Waiting

Readers of this site will know that I have talked a lot about the efforts to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  Bills were introduced in 2010 by both the House and Senate, and many hearings and stakeholder meetings were held.  But what seemed to be a clear path to passing an update to the 35 year old law now seems to be a distant memory.  The likelihood of legislation being introduced, never mind passed, in the current Congress is pretty much zero.

This is the sense suggested by several recent events.  The industry still notes their general concurrence that a federal level program update is needed, the actual follow through seems unlikely any time soon.  One reason is because industry feels that the bills introduced by Democrats Lautenberg in the Senate and Waxman/Rush in the House were completely unworkable.  So much so that to try to modify them would be an impossible task.

While it would seem a good time to get more industry-friendly legislation enacted during the current Congress, there is a sense that the next Congress will be even more conducive to business interests.  This is largely based on the assumption that the Republican party will not only hold (and perhaps expand) the majority in the House, but that they will likely take the majority in the Senate as well.  Given the number of Democratic Senators up for reelection and/or retiring, that likelihood seems almost certain.  So with both houses controlled by the Republicans the feeling is that there would be no need to compromise as much with the Senate as would be needed now.

The ultimate goal of any TSCA modernization from industry's perspective is to enable continued innovation in the development of new chemicals, where the US had led Europe and other nations for many years.

So expect no serious effort to pass TSCA reform in 2011 or 2012, with the prospects for 2013 and 2014 depending largely on the results of the 2012 elections.

Washington State Moves Forward on Children's Safe Chemical Rules in Lieu of TSCA Action

I have mentioned previously here that with TSCA chemical reform trudging through Congress on the federal level, the States have continued to move forward with attempts to protect human health and the environment on a more local scale.  One of these efforts is the Children's Safe Product Act (CSPA) passed by Washington State in 2008.  While Governor Gregoire has suspended rulemaking in general because of the state of the economy, she has exempted this particular rule to continue through the development process.  The goal of the proposed law is to focus on protecting children from toxic chemicals.

According to the Department of Ecology, which manages health and safety issues in Washington, the CSPA consists of two parts:

The first part "limited the amount of lead, cadmium and phthalates allowed in children's products sold in Washington after July 1, 2009. These standards were substantially preempted when the U.S. Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) in July, 2008. The federal Consumer Product Safety Commission will enforce this act."  So this part is essentially dormant.

"The second part of the CSPA requires Ecology, in consultation with the Department of Health, to develop a list of chemicals that manufacturers must report on. As required by the law, chemicals on the list are toxic and have either been found in children’s products or have been documented to be present in human tissue (blood, breast milk, etc.). However, the mere presence of these chemicals in children’s products does not necessarily indicate that there is a risk of exposure." 

Rules to implement this second part of the CSPA are currently open for public comment until December 31st.  These draft rule list 59 chemicals considered to be of high concern to children.  Most are familiar to people in the chemical control business as they have been targeted by other states as well as federal and international laws.  The law stipulates that the chemicals selected must be known to be toxic, commonly found in products used by children, are used in home environments, and found in biomonitoring of human blood and tissue samples. 

Once the final rules are issued, "manufacturers of children's products must report to Ecology if their products contain these chemicals."  These notifications will be required by law on a particular schedule, but the CSPA does not stipulate what happens once they are notified.  Presumably the state is interested in collecting data on what chemicals, and in what volumes, are used in the state so they can take any needed action.

EPA Brings to 1000 the Number of Chemicals Being Tested with ToxCast

Perhaps lost in all the attention with the REACH deadline was an announcement last week by the USEPA that ToxCast screening program has "entered a new phase," in which it will add another 700 chemicals for testing "potential toxicity to people and the environment."  About 300 chemicals, mostly pesticides, were tested in the first phase, which puts chemicals through a series of fast, automated assays to screen for possible toxicity.  The hope is that ToxCast will be able to rapidly screen the roughly 85,000 chemicals on the TSCA Inventory, as well as screen new chemicals before they are put on the market.  Those chemicals for which ToxCast suggests some concern would be put into a more comprehensive evaluation process.

More information on ToxCast can be found here.

ToxCast employs a battery of rapid assays. Rather than rely on animal testing to discern toxicity, the battery includes tests that look at such things as gene expression, real-time electronic sensing, in vitro genomics, biochemical markers, and for those that want to see actual organisms, zebra fish development.

More information on the chemicals being tested can be found here and more information on EPA's computational toxicology program is here.

Canada Lists 4 Chemicals to its Schedule 1 List of Toxic Substances

While the US struggles with what to do to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Europe has been busy with the first registration phase of it's Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) program and Canada is well into its Chemical Management Plan evaluating their Inventory of existing chemicals.  As part of that process Canada recently proposed to add four additional chemicals its Schedule 1 "list of toxic substances" under CEPA (the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999).   

The four substances are:

Vanadium pentoxide: A naturally occurring substance in the environment, "used primarily in Canada in the manufacture of ferrovanadium and as a catalyst in the production of sulphuric acid." According to Environment Canada, "vanadium pentoxide is released to air, to water and to land, mainly through combustion of fossil fuels and wood fuels from industrial activities."  It "was identified as a high priority for assessment because of its classification as a carcinogen by national and international agencies."

Potassium bromate: A man-made substance "used primarily in Canada in industrial and commercial applications," including "as an oxidizing reagent in laboratories, in the dying of textiles, and in permanent wave neutralizing solutions in the cosmetics industry."  While it appears there is limited current reporting of use in Canada, and no reported consumer uses, the substance was listed "based principally on the weight-of-evidence assessment or classification from international or other national agencies..., the critical effect of exposure...is carcinogenicity," as well as reports of genotoxicity and "a variety of non-cancer effects."

TGOPE: A thankfully brief acronym for a long chemical name, TGOPE "is a man-made component of epoxy resin used as an adhesive or binding agent" used primarily "in the manufacture of paints, coatings designed for industrial use and certain consumer epoxy-patch adhesives." Exposure is expected to be minimal because it is it seems to have limited current manufacture in Canada (but is imported) and has limited consumer uses (mostly epoxy adhesives).  Health effects assessments have not been identified, but "in vitro experiments and weight-of-evidence assessment or classification from several other analogues...show that TGOPE may cause cancer."

Methyl eugenol: Mainly "a naturally occurring organic substance in the essential oils of several plant species," used primarily "as flavour ingredients in food and beverages and as fragrance ingredients and emollients in personal care, cosmetics and other household products." According to the Canadian assessment, "the substance may also be produced synthetically."  Exposure is "mainly from its naturally occurring presence in food and beverages with smaller contributions from the use of personal care products and citronella-based personal insect repellents."  Canada has determined "that methyl eugenol may cause cancer," and may also "be genotoxic in a range of experimental studies...Therefore, it cannot be precluded that the substance may have interacted with the genetic material."

More information on these four substances can be found here.  In addition to these four listed, there were 13 substances from "Batch 9" that were not found to meet the criteria for listing.  These can be seen here.

American Cleaning Institute Finds Fault with California "Safer Products" Regulations

The American Cleaning Institute (ACI; formerly the Soap and Detergent Association) has filed comments to the California Department of Toxic Substances stating that the new regulations are "bureaucratic, punitive, and adversarial."  In their press release, ACI states:

California’s proposed regulations for “safer consumer product alternatives” are bureaucratic in the extreme, resource intensive for California government and the regulated community, punitive and adversarial, according to the American Cleaning Institute. 

ACI's detailed comments (93 pages, including attachments) urge the California DTSC to work with stakeholders to address proposals in need of "significant revision" as the current proposal would not accomplish "the goals
of the state’s Green Chemistry Initiative."  ACI complained about many parts of the proposed regulations, including their overly broad scope, a "flawed" chemical prioritization process, onerous reporting requirements, and what they see as "disincentives" to the development of safer consumer productes.

The full ACI comments can be read here.