EPA Administrator Jackson Makes Trip to Africa (Kenya and Ethiopia)

The following is the text of an EPA press release dated February 18, 2011.

********************************************

On Friday, February 18, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P. Jackson will travel to Kenya and Ethiopia to engage in bilateral and multilateral meetings aimed at building relationships with key African counterparts and other environmental leaders. The trip will include attending the 26th United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) Governing Council Meeting and Ministerial Environment Forum, where Jackson and other U.S. representatives will outline the global scope of shared environmental, health and economic challenges and opportunities.
  
Jackson’s meetings in Kenya and Ethiopia will highlight important issues in children’s environmental health, good environmental governance and emerging green technology and innovations.
  
Jackson’s stops in Ethiopia and Kenya will include meetings and events focused on electronic waste, enforcement and compliance, indoor air quality, and clean fuels. While in Kenya, she will be hosted by U.S. Ambassador Michael E. Ranneberger and will lead the U.S. delegation to the UNEP meetings, where the group will continue the precedent set by the U.S. during UNEP’s 2009 meeting by actively engaging international partners in bringing awareness to shared environmental, health and economic challenges. In 2009, the U.S. signaled its commitment to take on a leadership role in working with 140 other countries on a binding international agreement on mercury. At the UNEP meeting, Jackson and UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner will sign the first ever Memorandum of Understanding between the two organizations, furthering the U.S. commitment to more effective collaboration to promote global environmental sustainability. She also will join with the director general of the country’s National Environmental Management Authority to speak on environmental initiatives and will participate in a roundtable with the East Africa Enforcement Network.
 
In Ethiopia, Jackson will be hosted by U.S. Ambassador Donald Booth and will meet with U.S. Ambassador to the African Union Michael Battle. She will represent U.S. interests in bilateral meetings with Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and leaders from Ethiopia’s Environmental Protection Agency. Jackson will also speak with students from Addis Ababa University about opportunities for women to take leadership roles in addressing environmental issues facing Ethiopia. In addition, she will receive a site-briefing and tour an e-waste de-manufacturing facility to highlight improved e-waste management and affirm EPA’s commitment to supporting innovation in the management of electronic waste.
 
These meetings will focus on EPA’s recently launched international priorities and aims to strengthen U.S. relationships with environmental counterparts in the Kenya, Ethiopia and other African nations.

More information on EPA’s international priorities and efforts:
http://www.epa.gov/international/

Lautenberg Confirmed as Senate Subcommittee Chair - Reaffirms Commitment to TSCA Chemical Reform

It's official.  Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey has been confirmed as the continuing Chair of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health.  EPW Committee Chair Barbara Boxer of California made the announcement earlier this week.  Lautenberg has been the force behind repeated attempts over the last 5 years to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  According to his office's press release, Lautenberg noted:

“Our Subcommittee will work to identify solutions for the environmental health challenges facing both our families and our businesses.” Communities in New Jersey and across the country want to clean up contaminated sites to protect public health and boost local economies, and parents want assurances that the products they buy for their families are free of toxic chemicals.  I am optimistic that our panel will work together to find common ground and enact reforms that improve our environmental health while strengthening the American economy.”

The subcommittee held a hearing earlier this month and ranking member James Inhofe promised to work with Lautenberg to find a path forward for the 34-year old law.  All parties agree that some "modernization" of TSCA is needed, though once you get below the general principles there is still quite a bit of differences of opinion on the details.

More information on Lautenberg's priorties and the jurisdiction of the subcommittee can be found here.

First Set of Chemical Substances Ready to be Phased Out (aka banned) by Europe's REACH

The first six chemical substances to be given the hangman's noose, er, put on the REACH authorization list, have been announced by the European Commission.  These "substances of very high concern" had been put onto a "candidate list" for comment, but as of today have been moved to the authorisation list itself, which is known as Annex XIV under Europe's REACH regulation. 

The six substances are:

• musk xylene
• MDA
• HBCDD
• DEHP
• BBP
• DBP

[Okay, I realize the short forms and initials won't be recognizable to some; you can see full names in the press release here.]

Now that these six are in Annex XIV they "cannot be placed on the market or used unless authorisation has been granted for a specific use."  Obviously they are already on the market so for each substance there is a "sunset date" after which they can no longer be manufactured or imported in Europe unless an authorization application is filed and accepted.  Sunset dates for these six chemicals are in 2014 or 2015.  So manufacturers need to be developing an authorization application, which must include substantial health and safety data, information on the uses, a socioeconomic analysis to demonstrate why the societal benefit for keeping them on the market, and the specific uses that will be supported.  Only those uses that are deemed to be of sufficient need and can be controlled will be approved for continued use, and then only for a specified time frame (e.g., 5 years) to allow development of alternatives.

And the company applying for the authorization is responsible for identifying an alternative or providing a plan for how they will develop one.  Of course, competing companies may already have alternatives that can easily slip into the void but that couldn't compete with the usually lower cost, but more hazardous, chemical that already dominated market share.

Keep in mind that these are just the first six chemicals to be put on Annex XIV.  There are many more already on the candidate list, with more to be added periodically.  Manufacturers of chemicals that are "substances of very high concern" should be working to either find alternatives or to argue why they should not be put on the authorization (i.e., to be banned) list.

New Endocrine Disruptor Chemical Bill Introduced in House by Ed Markey

Actually, its a reintroduction of a bill he introduced in the last Congress.  Last year it was H.R. 5210 and was glued into another bill that passed in the House, but a companion bill never made it out of Senate committee.  So Representative Ed Markey of Massachusetts is trying again in the House.  The idea is to update EPA's current Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program.

The new bill, H.R. 553, is called the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Enhancement Act and it would amend the existing regulatory authority, the Safe Drinking Water Act, by:

• requiring EPA to test non-pesticide chemicals that may be found in drinking water and develop a plan and timetable to identify chemicals to be tested;
• requiring EPA to periodically review the current state of the science to determine if testing protocols should be revised; and 
• allow EPA to accelerate the testing of suspected endocrine disruptors and create a petition process that would allow the public to suggest chemicals for accelerated testing.

One problem with the current program (in addition to the fact that it is a decade behind schedule) is that it relies on Tier I studies being done to prioritize those chemicals needing Tier II testing.  Which makes sense except for the fact that EPA doesn't actually know what the Tier II tests will consist of yet.  So one complaint is that you can't possibly know how to prioritize if you don't know what you are prioritizing for!  Still, last November the Agency published a list of 134 "second list" chemicals, 106 of which are found in drinking water.  This is on top of the 67 "first list" chemicals identified in the spring of 2009.

The current bill has been referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce chaired by Republican Fred Upton of Michigan.


dfd

EPA Holds Conference on the "Next Generation" of Chemical Risk Assessment

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is holding "a two-day conference to discuss the Next Generation (NexGen) of Risk Assessment."  The conference starts today and runs through 1 pm ET tomorrow in Washington DC.  According to the EPA announcement:

"NexGen is a program that aims to create an inexpensive, faster system for chemical risk assessment by incorporating new knowledge about molecular biology. EPA scientists are using molecular biology, the study of how cells function, to help them interpret the risk to Americans’ health from exposure to chemicals in our air, water and soils. Through NexGen, EPA is collaborating with federal and state agencies to help people understand risks posed by chemicals in our environment so they can make more informed decisions about their health."

More information on the conference call be found here.

More information on NextGen can be found here. 



WHAT: Advancing the Next Generation of Risk Assessment: Public Dialogue Conference

WHEN: Tuesday, February 15, 8 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. and Wednesday, February 16, 9 a.m. - 1 p.m.

WHERE: Embassy Suites Convention Center; 900 10^th Street N.W., Washington, D.C

Clorox Takes Another Step in its Path to Transparency

Nearly two years ago I did a story on this blog about how cleaning product companies were "coming clean," and listing the ingredients in such Windex and Formula 409.  Now one of those companies, The Clorox Company, is taking another step toward transparency in chemical labeling.  Last week the company issued a press release announcing that "it is now disclosing the following additional information about its products through its Ingredients Inside program:"

• Specific identity of preservatives and dyes in all U.S. and Canadian cleaning, disinfecting and laundry products. This information expands upon the listing of active ingredients, which has been provided to consumers over the last two years.
• Palette of fragrance ingredients - listed in numerical and alphabetical order - used in all U.S. and Canadian cleaning, disinfecting and laundry products. Clorox is also including a link to a PDF file that includes each fragrance ingredient's CAS Registry Number, the unique numerical identifier assigned by the Chemical Abstracts Service to every chemical available in open scientific literature, as well as the fragrance chemical names, provided by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC).

Besides the well known household staple, Clorox bleach, The Clorox Company also makes "Pine-Sol^® cleaners, Poett^® home care products, Fresh Step^® cat litter, Kingsford^® charcoal, Hidden Valley^® and K C Masterpiece^® dressings and sauces, Brita^® water-filtration products, Glad^® bags and wraps and containers, and Burt's Bees^® natural personal care products."

Revealing their chemical ingredients is a big deal given that "nearly 90 percent of Clorox Company brands hold the No. 1 or No. 2 market share positions in their categories."  That means these market leaders will likely have a large influence (aka peer pressure) on other cleaning product companies to reveal their ingredients in order to compete for the "green market" business.

More information about the program can be found on Clorox's "Ingredients Inside" page.

Priority Chemicals Listed by the Minnesota Department of Health - Toxic Free Kids Act

Under the Toxic Free Kids Act, the state of Minnesota Department of Health, in consultation with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, has listed a total of nine chemicals as "priority chemicals."  The statute, which passed in 2009 "required MDH to develop two lists of chemicals: Chemicals of High Concern and Priority Chemicals." The Chemicals of High Concern list was published on July 1, 2010 and be found on the Chemicals of High Concern page. 

The Priority Chemicals list can be found here.  The nine chemicals listed (click on the name for links to PDFs of summary information for each chemical) are:

Bisphenol A

Cadmium

Decabromodiphenyl Ether (DecaBDE)

Formaldehyde

Hexabromocyclododecane

Lead

And three phthalates:

Butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP)
Dibutyl phthalate (DBP)
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)

The Minnesota Department of Health has also provided a handy priority chemicals summary table here.

Additional information on the methodology employed to select priority chemicals, as well as a FAQ sheet, can be found on the MDH web site.

EPA Updates EPI Suite Chemical Estimation Software

The USEPA has long made available a computer program called "EPI Suite," which allows users to estimate  physical-chemical properties, environmental fate, and aquatic toxicology for a variety of chemicals. These estimations allow for rapid screening level assessment of potential harm and of fate and transport in the environment, thus aiding in both research and development decision-making and identifying areas for more focused evaluation.  Now EPA has provided an updated version called EPI Suite v.4.10.  The new version adds several new features and links to other useful database resources.

The updated version of EPI Suite can be downloaded here.

EPI Suite now includes a structure drawing module that "allows users to draw chemical structures and generate SMILES notations for direct entry into EPI programs."  SMILES stands for "Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry Specification" and allows even the most complex structures to be entered as simply ASCII strings for evaluation. 

Additionally, the new version has a new button that can link to several free sources of information.  Key databases linked include:

(1) ECOTOX - The ECOTOXicology database is a source for locating single-chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants and wildlife. ECOTOX was created and is maintained by EPA's Office of Research and Development.

(2) Fate Resource Pointers - The Fate Resource Pointer File contains internet links to 16 sources of information on environmental fate of chemicals.  It can be searched by CAS numbers, names and by a substructure drawing applet.

 (3) SPARC - SPARC Performs Automated Reasoning in Chemistry can calculate a variety of physical and chemical properties.  EPI Suite does not currently include a pKa (dissociation constant) estimation program, but SPARC has an excellent pKa program.  SMILES notation  entered into the EPI Suite Interface is automatically entered into SPARC’s SMILES entry box.

Also, EPI Suite data files are now available in two substructure searchable formats: ISIS/Base and SD.

ECHA Updates its Online IT Tool to Allow Searching by Categories of Chemicals

For those deeply into REACH, the EU's chemical control law, the European Chemical Agency's (ECHA) web site is a treasure trove of helpful guidance and IT tools.  One of the tools available for free download is the "dissemination tool," which can be used to search for those chemical substances that have been registered and also "disseminated" online.  Up until now the tool only allowed for filtering single-substance registrations.  The new version of the tool "can now also filter registration dossiers based on a category approach."

The dissemination tool is pretty handy, at least for that small subset of chemical dossiers that have made it to the public phase.   Many more are still being processed from the thousands of dossiers submitted.  Eventually all of the public information will be online (the deadline for dissemination of all dossiers submitted by November 30, 2010 is March 1, 2011).  Many chemicals were submitted as single chemicals, i.e., one chemical, one dossier.  Other chemicals were submitted as part of what is called a "category approach."  In this approach the registrants can combine the data for several chemicals that a closely related, usually by structure but also by physical-chemical, environmental fate, and toxicological properties.  Having data on one chemical and a thorough understanding of the relationships between chemicals can offer the advantage of using a patchwork of data from a series of related chemicals and obviate the need to do costly testing on every single chemical.  It also results in a significant reduction in unnecessary animal testing.

The dissemination tool is a plug-in to IUCLID, the database system used by the EU and other areas to submit summaries of the chemical and toxicological studies available for registered chemicals.  It can be downloaded on the IUCLID5 website.

More information on the tool and links to the download sites can be found on the ECHA web site.

TSCA Chemical Reform Hearing Going on Now (10:00 am EST)

As I noted a couple of days ago, the US Senate is holding a hearing today on TSCA reform.  Technically, the Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health is holding the hearing, which is called "Assessing the Effectiveness of US Chemical Safety Laws" and features some key players in the ongoing discussions to modernize the 34 year old law. 

PDF copies of their written testimony is now on the hearing web page and are linked to the witnesses below:

The Honorable Steve Owens Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances Environmental Protection Agency

Ms. Kelly M. Semrau Senior Vice President for Global Corporate Affairs, Communication, and Sustainability, SC Johnson

Mr. Steve Goldberg Vice President and Associate General Counsel BASF

Ms. Frances Beinecke President Natural Resources Defense Council

Mr. Cal Dooley President American Chemistry Council

Dean Lynn Goldman, MD, MPH Dean George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services

The Subcommittee hearing page has more information.

Scientists Ask Congress to Drop Partisanship and Focus on Climate Science to Address Global Warming

On January 28th more than a dozen scientists wrote a letter to Congress, asking it to "take a fresh look" at climate data. They reminded Congress that climate science is not a partisan issue - "there are no Democratic or Republican carbon dioxide molecules; they are all invisible and they all trap heat."   The letter "emphasizes the importance of truly understanding the science of climate change, and stresses the need to prevent political ideology from clouding our scientific understanding of how climate change is impacting our way of life."

They also point out that:

Heat-trapping carbon dioxide is building up in the atmosphere because burning coal, oil, and natural gas produces far more carbon dioxide than is absorbed by oceans and forests. No scientist disagrees with that.

The remind Congress that the National Academy of Sciences has stated, 

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities . . . and in many cases is already affecting a broad range of human and natural systems.” 

In short, "climate change is underway and the severity of the risks we face is compounded by delay."

They reiterate that climate scientists can only provide the science, which they have done. It is up to elected officials to exercise their responsibility to take policy action to combat the realities of climate change. The scientists recommended that Congress "hold hearings to understand climate science and what is says about the likely costs and benefits of action and inaction." Conversely, Congress "should not hold hearings to attempt to intimidate scientists or to substitute ideological judgments for scientific ones."

An article can be read on The Hill. Scroll down for the scientists' letter in its entirety. The full letter can also be read here.

TSCA Chemical Reform Hearing in the US Senate Thursday February 3

TSCA reform may be dormant, but apparently not completely dead.  Since there appears to be little chance of the Republican-led House to initiate action this term, the Senate has decided to try to jump start the process again.  With this in mind, the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health will hold a hearing entitled "Assessing the Effectiveness of US Chemical Safety Laws" this Thursday, February 3, 2011. 

The subcommittee is part of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works chaired by Barbara Boxer.  Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey chairs the subcommittee, and as you probably remember he has been the one to introduce the various "Kid Safe" bills in recent years, including last year's Safe Chemicals Act.  Joining Lautenberg is ranking member James Inhofe, who while historically not prone to supporting environmental legislation, has indicated he is committed to work with Lautenberg to come up with a TSCA reform bill that protects human health and the environment while also not unduly inhibiting industry growth.

Witnesses at the hearing, some of whom have become familiar faces at these events, are expected to be:

Panel 1

The Honorable Steve Owens Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances Environmental Protection Agency

Panel 2

Ms. Kelly M. Semrau Senior Vice President for Global Corporate Affairs, Communication, and Sustainability, SC Johnson

Mr. Steve Goldberg Vice President and Associate General Counsel BASF

Ms. Frances Beinecke President Natural Resources Defense Council

Mr. Cal Dooley President American Chemistry Council

Dean Lynn Goldman, MD, MPH Dean George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services

The Subcommittee hearing page will include copies of testimony once given. It will begin at 10:00 am EST in the EPW Hearing Room 406 Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington DC.  As of this writing no indication of whether the hearing will be simulcast or not, but generally this is the case.

Pesticide Trade Association Offers Their Insight Into Recent NGO Endangered Species Act Lawsuit

About 10 days ago I reported on a law suit filed by two NGOs in an attempt to force EPA to "consult" with the Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service on pesticide issues as required by the Endangered Species Act.  Now the major crop protection chemical (i.e., pesticide) trade association has weighed in on the suit.

The trade association, CropLife America, which "represents the developers, manufacturers, formulators and distributors of plant science solutions for agriculture and pest management in the United States," offered the following on their web site:

“The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is an important legislative vehicle which helps facilitate the conservation of endangered plants and animals, yet the litigation filed by CBD and PANNA reflects the much larger issue: real ESA reform is required to protect endangered species,” said Jay Vroom, president and CEO of CLA. “However, litigation does not help to improve a system which can only be fixed through sound policy and legislation.”

CropLife America believes that, while the lawsuit "alleges that EPA has failed to consult with the...Services to ensure that crop protection products do not jeopardize endangered species," the NGOs "overlook the numerous benefits of modern agriculture, its rigorous regulatory oversight and proven role in protecting America’s wildlife."  In other words, think of all the good that pesticides do for society.  But there is more, obviously, to the story as CropLife and the NGOs differ dramatically on the value of pesticides.  CropLife believes that they allow for greater crop growth, which means greater and more efficient food production.  The NGOs believe that pesticides epitomize the problem of reliance on monoculture, which requires heavy chemical usage to combat the resulting pest species that would otherwise not be able to gain a foothold.


Both groups would agree that a better consultation process is needed.  The NGOs think that having EPA make what are essentially summary decisions by themselves is a conflict of interest since EPA also garners fees for registering pesticides.  CropLife believes that bringing in the Services creates a huge stranglehold on innovation and the ability to bring new, and presumably safer, products onto the market.  This argument has been going on for years and perhaps is the real reason behind the NGO law suit - to get a case that can cause there to be decisions made on how to proceed.  Clearly a more effective procedure, both from an efficiency standpoint and from a human health and the environment standpoint, is needed.

Update on Korea REACH Chemical Control Law

Two weeks ago I reported that South Korea was expected to release a REACH-like chemical chemical control law.  Now the Korean Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has issued a news release indicating that MOE, in cooperation with six other ministries, has "set a master plan for chemicals management."

The master plan, which "will be implemented until 2020," intends to minimize harm to human health and the environment by managing chemicals "in an advanced way."  The plan contains "five strategies and 15 core action plans with the aim of securing more than 80% of information on harm and hazard of chemicals and reducing carcinogen of group 1 by 32% by 2020."  The main contents of the master plan include:

￮ In order to secure scientific information on chemicals, hazard assessment item will be increased from 9 to 13 and Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) will be expanded.

￮ A system will be made to prevent and respond to chemical accident and terrorism and small and medium sized companies will be received support for emission reduction.

￮ Mercury, nanomaterials and POPs, subject to international control, will be managed in a more enhanced way and participation by citizens in making policies will be expanded.

The announcement and additional information on the core policies can be found here.