Canada Declares Bisphenol A (BPA) Toxic...Will the US Follow Suit?

The Canadian government has formally labeled Bisphenol A, commonly called BPA, as "toxic," and added it to Schedule I of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999.  They now will propose mechanisms to protect human health and the environment from the risks of BPA exposure.  They have already banned the use of polycarbonate baby bottles that contain BPA.   The assessment also offers additional recommedations for removing or restricting BPA use in food contact materials and cosmetics, as well as provisions for recycling and limiting discharges in industrial effluents. Ironically, this announcement comes only days after the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reaffirmed its belief that BPA is safe for use in food-contact items.

 More information can be found on the assessment web page.

The question now turns to what will happen in the United States.  The USEPA had already issued an "action plan" for BPA under their current TSCA authority.  In that plan the EPA noted that it was considering a 5(b)(4) rulemaking to "identify BPA on the Concern List as a substance that may present an unreasonable risk of injury to the environment on the basis of its potential for long-term adverse effects on growth, reproduction and development in aquatic species at concentrations similar to those found in the environment."  They also were considering initiating a section 4 rulemaking to obtain more data and work on a collaboration with industry to find alternatives under EPA's "Design for the Environment" program.

Interestingly, EPA was not initiating any action based on concerns for human health, as they felt that particular area was too uncertain to take action at that time.  It seems Canada has disagreed.

So it remains to be seen whether the Canadian action will spawn similar action in the US.  Whether or not this happens it seems clear that state and local jurisdictions are not waiting for EPA and/or FDA; they are initiating their own restrictions and bans.

A PDF of the EPA action plan can be found here.

Obama Lifts Gulf Oil Drilling Moratorium...Earthjustice Files a Lawsuit

Earlier this week the Obama administration lifted the temporary moratorium of offshore oil drilling the the Gulf of Mexico.  The moratorium was put in place after the BP Deepwater Horizon oil leak and lifted after BP demonstrated (at least enough) that they could avoid a recurrence.  The very next day a coalition of environmental and health advocacy groups led by Earthjustice filed a petition to EPA under the Clean Water Act to revisit the process of assessing the toxicity of chemical dispersants such as those used to "clean up" the Deepwater spill.  According to their press release:

“Unprecedented use of toxic dispersants during the BP Deepwater Horizon Disaster without prior scientific study and evaluation on the effect to Gulf of Mexico marine ecosystems and human health was a horrific mistake that should never have been allowed to happen,” said Clint Guidry of the Louisiana Shrimp Association. “Potential ecosystem collapse caused by toxic dispersant use during this disaster will have immediate and long term effects on the Gulf's traditional fishing communities’  ability to sustain our culture and heritage.”

Earthjustice is no stranger to filing lawsuits and writing reports in an effort to protect the environment. Last month they published a report on the "toxic threat" of coal ash "to our health and environment" and are lobbying to get EPA to strengthen their proposed coal ash rule.

For their current filing Earthjustice wants EPA to require additional toxicity testing and ingredient disclosure.  When Deepwater happened it was determined that EPA really didn't have suitable toxicity data on the main dispersant used or its alternatives, and they rushed to do some toxicity testing.  Of course, this took time, and basically was meaningless as BP had to keep using the original dispersant while EPA "did research."  Earthjustice wants this research to be done now, and for companies to have to reveal what is actually in the dispersant mixes likely to be used.

“We need to make sure that we understand the full effects of dispersants on the environment and human health,” said Florida Wildlife Federation President Manley Fuller. “And when dispersants are used, we need to be sure they are as safe as possible.”

USEPA Strategic Plan Announces a "5-Year Plan" of Priorities

 The USEPA last week released it's Strategic Plan for Fiscal Year 2011-2015, which serves as the framework for its work for the next five years.  According to the announcement, "the five strategic goals for advancing the agency’s environmental and human-health mission are:"









Taking action on climate change and improving air quality
Protecting America’s waters
Cleaning up communities and advancing sustainable development
Ensuring the safety of chemicals and preventing pollution
Enforcing environmental laws


The plan also introduces five of what EPA calls "cross-cutting fundamental strategies which set clear expectations for changing the way EPA does business in achieving its results:"

• Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism
• Working for Environmental Justice and Children’s Health
• Advancing Science, Research, and Technological Innovation
• Strengthening State, Tribal, and International Partnerships
• Strengthening EPA’s Workforce and Capabilities 

The full 5-year strategic plan can be downloaded here as a PDF file.  I'll have more on each goal in future posts.

EPA's Office of Research and Development Has an Ecotoxicology Database? Who Knew?

One of the USEPA's offices is the Office of Research and Development (ORD).  Based in Washington DC, ORD is run by Assistant Administrator Paul Anastas, whom you may have heard known as the "Father of Green Chemistry" for his research on "the design, manufacture, and use of minimally-toxic, environmentally-friendly chemicals."  As its name suggests, ORD is in the forefront of doing research on a variety of fronts.

One of the things done at ORD is the provision of research resources such as the ToxCast program, and databases of chemical data, such as the IRIS and ECOTOX databases.

ECOTOX, which is short for "ecotoxicology" data such as toxicity to fish, invertebrates and aquatic plants, as well as terrestrial organisms, is a resource open to the public, industry, and academics.  It "integrates three previously independent databases...into a unique system which includes toxicity data derived predominately from the peer-reviewed literature."  And it is easy to use.  Assuming you know something about the chemicals you are looking for and how to interpret the toxicity results you'll obtain.

Users can click on the "Quick Database Query" to hunt for test results on specific chemicals, or use the "Advanced Database Query" to fine tune your search.  You can run just the aquatic search, or just the terrestrial search, or both.  The results come in table form for easy scanning, with a "View Details" link to more information about the study, including dose response information, application frequency, details about the test species and exposures, etc.  And most importantly, the database tells you what published study the data came from so you can look up the original source (which I highly recommend).

ECOTOX is just one of several databases made accessible by EPA and other agencies.  Periodically I will mention them here so start bookmarking!

As REACH deadline approaches, European Chemicals Agency holds a stakeholders day

The first registration deadline for REACH, the European chemicals law, is fast approaching.  Manufacturers and importers of chemicals in Europe in excess of 1000 tonnes per year are required to submit extensive health and safety data dossiers in order to get - or stay - on the market.  To facilitate this effort the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in Helsinki, Finland, held the 5th in its series of stakeholder days on October 4th.

The 5th Stakeholder's Day focused on three main topics:

1) Registration and Classification and Labeling Notification: Besides the registration obligations, companies also have the obligation to notify their substances for classification and labeling. They can do this either as part of their registration package, or if their registration isn't due until one of the next deadlines (in 2013 and 2018) they must submit a separate notification effective December 1, 2010.

2) Registration, Evaluation and Notification - Best Practice: Keeping in mind that REACH is an acronym, besides being mindful of Registration obligations, chemical companies and downstream users must also pay attention to the potential for Evaluation of their chemicals by member states, as well as the already mentioned Notification obligations.

3) Authorization: How to Select Candidate Substances: The "A" in REACH is Authorization and ECHA has been busy coming out with "candidate lists" of chemicals they feel are "substances of very high concern" and should be put into Annex XIV.  The ECHA stakeholder's gave their experiences to date and got feedback from the agency.

More information on the meeting, video recordings, and copies of the presentations can be found on the stakeholder's day web site at ECHA.

Book Review - Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway

This book made me angry.  And it should make you angry as well.  The title "Merchants of Doubt" comes from the famous line of a tobacco company executive many years ago, that their goal was to "manufacture doubt" in the minds of the public and policy-makers so that no policy-making action would occur, or at least so that it should be delayed as long as possible.  And the tobacco industry succeeded for decades after they themselves knew that tobacco/nicotine was addictive, and caused cancer

Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway are science historians.  What they have uncovered with this book is how just a handful of scientists and their collaborators have had a hand in nearly every major science denial episode for the last 40 years.  And in the center of it all is the George C. Marshall Institute, Fred Seitz, S. Fred Singer, William Nierenberg and Robert Jastrow.

After the tactics were perfected in the fight to deny that smoking causes cancer, these handful of men with close ties to the Reagan and conservative ideologies employed them over and over again to deny that smokestack emissions causes acid rain, CFCs causes ozone depletion, second hand smoke causes cancer in non-smokers, and greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming.  In all cases the science has been right, and this group of men helped delay action for many years until even their deceit couldn't hide the truth.

And those tactics, repeated to deny the science in each of these issues, were all the same: employ a few scientists willing to shill for the industry or who are "skeptical" (to create the illusion of credibility), focus the efforts through well-funded right wing think tanks (to create the illusion of independence), create "new" science specifically designed to create uncertainty (i.e., not to answer questions, but to create contrasting data they can misrepresent), hyperventilate about how "the science is not settled" (knowing that science is never settled, as there is always more research that can be done), and of course, using their PR skills, Frank Luntz wordsmithing, and punchy catchphrases like "sound science" to make it sound like they are saying something when they are not saying anything.

What I found amazing was how the origins of the George C. Marshall Institute and all of its subsequent science denialism came out of the cold war fight against communism.  These handful of scientists were atomic bomb builders and astrophysicists who had no expertise in any of the science they were denying.  But they had connections, most notably with the Reagan administration and the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) for which the George C. Marshall Institute was started to sell to the public, the military, and conservative legislators.  Yet despite this lack of any expertise they continued to insert themselves into the acid rain debate, the CFC debate, the second hand smoke debate, and the climate change debate.  And each and every time their goal was to push the denial of the science.  They equated environmentalism with communism ("green on the outside, red on the inside").  And using their lobbying skills and influence they were able to create the impression that there was still a raging debate in the science, even though in all cases the science was overwhelming and they represented a very minority opinion (and an opinion not backed by any science).  Actually, in all cases they were not being scientists at all, but rather advocates for non-action (all of these men had long-since stopped doing actual research, and none of them had ever done research in the areas of science they were denying).

What is most disturbing is that they routinely employed unscientific methods and deceit to wage personal attacks on scientists, including taking advantage of Roger Revelle on his death bed, then going after his student Justin Lancaster, then Ben Santer and now climate scientists like Michael Mann and Phil Jones have become the victims of the latest iterations of harassment in the denialist industry's tactics.

Oreskes and Conway end their book with "A New View of Science," which I'll let people read for themselves.  And they should.  In fact, they must.  This book must be on the reading list of anyone and everyone interested in science, so they can read for themselves how just a handful of unscrupulous scientists with deep political connections and a near religious anti-communism fervor have been at the heart of every denial of science in the last several decades. 

Other science book reviews

Obama Administration Revisits Scientific Integrity Policy

Over a year and a half ago I reported on the Obama Admininstration's call for Agencies to develop scientific integrity rules, and even asked for the public's input. The main activist group representing government scientists also called for a formal policy.  Just last week I noted that the Department of Interior has finally issued their rules, though OMBWatch, the Office of Management and Budget watchdog organization, felt they didn't go far enough. Now the National Commission set up earlier this year to monitor and evaluate the response to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico has come out to say that the White House could have done a better job.

So where is the Administration on developing these guidelines, and why is it taking so long?

Remember that the rationale for developing scientific integrity rules in the first place was because there were so many complaints about how the Bush Administration had suppressed science that conflicted with its political goals.  As Francesca Grifo from the Union of Concerned Scientists says in a recent edition of "All Things Considered" on NPR: 

The point is that you don't want to have political appointees using science as a cover and changing the science so that it appears that what they're doing is science-based when it's not. And that's certainly what we had eight years of. And we really were hoping, with this administration, that that was not what we're going to see. 

The problem seems to be one of the trials of getting new policies through the federal bureaucracy, including the OMB, and the fact that this administrations agenda has been been quite full during the first 21 months, as opposed to any attempt to suppress science.  But clearly the administration needs to step up the pace and ensure policies are in place.  According to John Holdren, Obama's "science czar," (again, from the NPR transcript) they expect to have guidelines in place by December.  Holdren also says that "the administration is already living by the principles of scientific integrity. But he adds, even when the guidelines are finally published, putting them in practice will be a challenge."

The full recording of the NPR discussion and a transcript can be found here.

Controversial Wind Farm Off Coast of Nantucket Receives Lease

The much contentious Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound is moving forward.  The Department of Interior approved a lease for a commercial wind farm on the Outer Continental Shelf to Cape Wind Associates for its controversial 130-turbine project off of Nantucket Sound.  This marks the first commercial lease for a major wind energy project granted by the department, but Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said officials plan to “work with a consortium of states” to expedite the permitting process for more projects.

More information on the lease and the project can be found at the Cape Wind web site.

EPA Reviews Hexavalent Chromium Toxicity

Last week the USEPA announced the availability of an "external review draft" of their Toxicological Review of  Hexavalent Chromium.  EPA is conducting a peer review of the scientific basis supporting the human health hazard and dose-response assessment of hexavalent chromium, also called "chromium VI" or simply "Cr(VI)," so that it can be posted on EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database.  While the water insoluble forms of chromium (e.g., chromium(III)) and chromium metal are not considered a health hazard, the toxicity and carcinogenic properties of chromium(VI) have been known for a long time.

Primarily the concern is related to chronic exposure to hexavalent chromium via ingestion. But EPA also looked at how much "the general population may be exposed to chromium by inhaling ambient air, and ingesting food and drinking water containing chromium."  EPA also says that "dermal exposure to chromium can occur from skin contact with certain consumer products or soils that contain chromium."

The deadline for comments is November 29, 2010.

Industry representatives indicate that while they support "a comprehensive risk assessment," they wonder "why EPA feels it is necessary to act now, rather than wait to review the Cr(VI) studies underway."  These additional studies are expected to be completed in early 2011.


A PDF of the Draft Toxicological Review can be downloaded on the EPA web site.

While Congress Waffles on TSCA, the White House Pushes for Ratification of International Chemicals Treaties

I have talked before about the three international treaties of which the United States originally signed on for but for which Congress has yet to ratify.  And it's been a while, folks.  So while Congress busily punts on TSCA reform at least until next year, the Obama White House has decided to push for ratification.

And the White House's point person in the Senate is none other than Frank Lautenberg, the New Jersey Democrat who has spearheaded the effort to introduce (and reintroduce...and reintroduce) the ever evolving [Kid] Safe Chemical Act. 

The main reason to ratify the three treaties - Stockholm Convention on POPs, Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent, and Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution POPs Protocol - is because we don't have a seat at the table.  Okay, that's not quite right.  We have an "observer" seat at the table, and representatives can be quite vocal in pressing their point.  But when it comes time to vote the US has to sit back and let everyone else decide what happens to us.  We're not powerless, but we're also not as persuasive as we could be if they have to take our vote into consideration.

Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your point of view, ratification of these treaties will likely also go nowhere until after the election, and then the new Congress (perhaps, very new Congress) may have a different take on the political versus scientific advantages of active participation that ratification would provide.

Is TSCA chemical reform good for business?

It depends on who you ask.

If you ask the major NGOs, the answer is yes, of course it is good for business.  To begin with, TSCA reform would help protect both workers and the public from exposure to hazardous chemicals.  Safety is hard to prove as of now because for most chemicals there are very little actual health and safety data.  Reform would provide the data needed to more accurately assess risk.  Ensuring that all chemicals have data will also allow the public to gain more confidence that the system is protecting them.  While most people don't think about it all that often, any time there is a "chemical scare," either real or imagined, the public loses confidence in both the chemical industry and the regulatory apparatus.  And finally, TSCA reform would stimulate innovation as it would encourage the development of newer, greener chemicals.

The chemical industry is split on this point.  The manufacturing trade associations, especially those representing smaller and more specialty manufacturers, believe that increased regulatory burden is just too much for them to handle and that this will effect jobs.  Larger manufacturers tend to advocate both for and against positions, depending on the audience.  Greater requirements to provide data will obviously require more resources put toward testing and/or development of alternative data.  On the other hand, many manufacturers, especially those multinationals who do business in Europe, would already have had to develop those data to comply with the EU REACH program.  So they may find it a competitive advantage to "raise the bar" on US data requirements.  In any case they most likely have collaborations with more innovative firms to develop the next wave of more sustainable chemistries.

Behind all of this, of course, is the need for ensuring public health and safety and protection of the environment.

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.

Department of Interior issues policy on scientific integrity

The US Department of the Interior, led by Secretary Ken Salazar, has finally issued a new policy to ensure scientific integrity.  According to the "Secretary's Order," the policy is designed to "guide and ensure the integrity of science and scientific products developed and used by the [DOI] in decision making and in the creation of policy related to the conservation and responsible development of our Nation's natural resources, protecting our heritage, and honoring native cultures and tribal communities."

The policy is in line with President Obama's call last year for all agencies and departments to establish a means by which they could ensure scientific integrity.  One of the main rationales for calling for policies was the numerous accusations of suppression or manipulation of scientific data in previous administrations, most notably those regarding protection of endangered species and climate change.

While the Union of Concerned Scientists praises the DOI policy as "a great first step," the watchdog organization OMB Watch suggests it doesn't go far enough.  As the representative from UCS says,

“While this is a great framework, the real work begins now. Without specifics and a timeline, these principles will end up as just another good idea. There are many details the plan must address, including deadlines for releasing information and disclosing meetings with special interests. Interior must move quickly to put flesh on these bones."

ECHA to use its "discretionary right" to support REACH chemical registrants that can't meet the November 30th deadline

Well, within limits.  As the November 30, 2010 deadline rapidly approaches, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is anticipating that at least some (or perhaps many) companies will be unable to complete their REACH registration packages for REACH by the time.  In a September 27th press release, ECHA says:

Companies facing exceptional situations that are likely to prevent them from registering on time should inform ECHA well ahead of the deadline of 30 November 2010.

However, this support will only be available in "exceptional cases," specifically under five scenarios:

• Difficulties to provide data required in Annex VII and Annex VIII in due time or difficulties for importers of mixtures to obtain compositional and analytical data of the substances in the mixture from their suppliers (Issue No. 10)
• Impossibility of transferring pre-registrations or submitting a late pre-registration due to legal entity changes (Issue No. 15)
• Failure by the lead registrant to submit a fully REACH compliant dossier (Issue No. 20)
• Downstream users are obliged to become importers, as a substance is not registered by any EU based supplier (Issue No. 21)
• Registrants need to accommodate new/updated guidance and hence have difficulties to provide data in Annex VII and Annex VIII in due time (Issue No. 10)