National Research Council to Release New Report on Climate Stabilization Targets Tomorrow!

On Friday, July 16th, at 2 pm EDT, the National Research Council will release a new report called Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia, which draws on the most current science available to quantify the relationships between emissions, concentrations, warming, and future impacts. The report examines the implications of a range of different greenhouse gas emission levels being discussed, including likely impacts and the potential for serious or irreversible climate changes.

According to the NRC announcement, the public is invited to join a web seminar and teleconference highlighting the report's findings presented by Dr. Susan Solomon, chair of the report's authoring committee and senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colorado. Following Dr. Solomon's presentation, there will be a brief question and answer session.

Though separate from their previous series of reports, tomorrow's report is related to the America's Climate Choices program.

Formal House TSCA Bill Expected This Week

As previously discussed, Representatives Waxman and Rush have been having meetings with stakeholders on the TSCA reform "discussion draft" introduced in April. It appears they are ready to introduce the formal bill on July 15th. A hearing on the bill the following week is likely. What happens to it after that is less certain.

Expect to see several changes from the discussion draft to incorporate the input from industry, advocacy groups, EPA and others. All stakeholders are looking for a good faith effort on the part of the House committee staff to insert their feedback. Key stakeholders, including EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, are likely to testify at the hearing.

But then what? In all likelihood, not much. There are only a handful of legislative days left before the mid-term elections and no one seems to be in the mood to do much legislating until then. Most are eager to get back to their districts and commune with voters in an effort to hold onto their seats. With anti-incumbent fever running pretty hot in the electorate, many legislators are hoping for some home-grown remedies.

Given the strong likelihood that nothing will pass this session, the House and Senate bills would have to be reintroduced in the next session of Congress, beginning in January 2011. And all parties are aware that major gains by the Republican party could have significant impacts on the final look of the bills, in particular if the current minority party gains the majority in either the House or the Senate (or both).

Based on the current status of things I would be very much surprised if the current bills, which lean more toward the advocacy group positions, don't migrate significantly toward more industry-friendly final bills in 2011. Which likely means that there will not be an across-the-board data call-in for all chemicals a la REACH. More likely there will be a focused data call-in on chemicals identified as priorities based on specific characteristics like persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity (PBT) and/or likely carcinogenicity, mutagenicity or reproductive toxicity (CMR), or widespread consumer use and exposure.

More commentary after the bill is introduced.

Six Chemicals in Draft Proposal to be Added to REACH Authorization Annex

The European Commission has drafted a proposal to amend Annex XIV of the REACH regulation. Annex XIV lists the substances which are subject to the authorization requirements. For those who have followed The Dake Page, all of the substances listed in the various candidate lists (and upcoming ones) are in line for the authorization phase should manufacturers or importers choose to support continued limited uses pending development of replacements.

The six chemicals proposed in the draft include musk xylene, MDA, HBCDD, DEHP, BBP and DBP into Annex XIV.

After the "sunset date," these substances would only be eligible to remain on the market for specific uses, and only for those specific operators who have applied for and been granted an authorization in accordance with REACH.

More in the coming days. Lots of US TSCA related activity.

California Dept Toxic Substances Control Announces Green Chemistry Initiative Symposium

The California Department of Toxic Substances Control announces that it will hold a symposium to "explore the alternative analysis process of chemicals in consumer products through case studies from experts actively engaged in various segments of the marketplace."

The event, called "Alternative Analysis Symposium II - Case Studies from the Field," will be held in Sacramento and be webcast live on July 28, 2010.

Presenters include:

George Thompson, Ph.D., Chemical Compliance Systems

Thomas Carter, The Wercs

Margaret Whittaker, Ph.D., Toxservices

Teresa McGrath, NSF International

Pam Palitz, Environment California

Helen Holder, Hewlett-Packard Company

Michael Schmeida, Tremco Inc.

Dennis McGavis, Shaw Industries

More information and an agenda will be available at the event web site.

Business-NGO Working Group Calls for TSCA Chemical Reform

The Business-NGO Working Group (BizNGO) issued a call last week for Congress to deal with the sticky problem of confidential business information (CBI) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The BizNGO is especially concerned about how CBI impacts communication down the supply chain. Downstream users say they need to know about what chemical ingredients are in what products, something that is currently hard to do.

In a press release press release issued by Clean Production Action, one of the key players in the BizNGO coalition, Mark Rossi states:

“Downstream businesses, consumers, investors and governments need chemicals and products that have low to no toxicity and degrade into innocuous substances in the environment. But the current lack of data on the hazardous properties of chemicals and their presence in products -- along with other weaknesses in the existing regulatory structure -- makes it extremely difficult to meet this need. While a handful of businesses and health care organizations require full or partial disclosure of chemicals in products from their suppliers, and a few suppliers publicly provide such information, government action is needed to instill transparency on chemical ingredients in products.”

The bottom line is that downstream users want more information from manufacturers of chemicals that they use. They note that in the current law "there is a loophole that permits chemical producers to avoid disclosing ingredients to companies that use them in their products. Therefore, consumer product manufacturers don’t know if their products contain toxic chemicals."

They insist that any new legislation "to update federal chemicals policy must address this issue."

House Chairman Presents "Must Haves" for TSCA Reform

Congressman Bobby Rush chairs the subcommittee that is in charge of developing the TSCA reform legislation in the US House of Representatives. Along with Henry Waxman, chair of the full committee, Rush introduced the House version of the Toxic Substances Safety Act in April. Recently he offered his views on what in his mind "must" be in the final legislation.

* First, revamped legislation must put the responsibility, and liability, for ensuring the safety of chemical substances squarely at the feet of the manufacturers who produce and sell the substances.

* The Federal government must have the ability to effectively monitor, test or otherwise oversee assorted industries through strengthened legislation.

* Legislation should protect populations that are the most vulnerable to ingesting or being exposed to environmental toxins, but are least able to obtain redress from their government.

* The Environmental Protection Agency should have greater oversight authority to allow it to quickly respond to evidence of environmental toxins.

* New chemical compounds should also pass rigorous safety standards before they are introduced to the marketplace.

The House has been holding meetings to hear from a variety of stakeholders on the discussion draft previously circulated. Apparently there has been cooperation across the aisle to come up with a workable bill to which both parties can agree. The hope is that the formal House legislation will be introduced this summer, but with only a handful of actual legislative days left in the term and a busy campaign season coming up, it's unclear if any action will take place in this Congress.

EPA Testing of BP Oil Spill Dispersants - Nearly Equal Toxicity

The ongoing BP oil spill (though I'm not sure "spill" is the right word for an open tap of oil gushing into the ocean uncontrolled) has stimulated a lot of interest in the toxicity of the chemical dispersant being used. Concerns were that the one BP is using, Corexit, is more toxic and less effective than alternative chemicals. Given that BP has already dumped over 1.6 million gallons of Corexit into the ocean, the question is not insignificant.

EPA initially ordered BP to identify a less toxic brand of dispersant, but BP indicated that "they were unable to find a dispersant that is less toxic than Corexit 9500, the product currently in use." It's unclear how hard BP tried to find an alternative given that they had millions of gallons of Corexit stockpiled and none of any alternative. It's also cheaper. They are also busy trying to stop the flow of oil into the Gulf and thus don't really have the resources at the moment to do a research project. Which, of course, begs the question as to why wasn't this research carried out already so that stockpiles of the most effective yet least toxic chemical dispersant could be ready for the catastrophe that many suggest was inevitable?

Given BP's inability to find an alternative, EPA decided to test a variety of dispersants with the intention of telling BP that they had to switch. But after the first round of toxicity testing, the results seem to show that they are all about the same.

EPA is not yet prepared to tell BP to switch to another brand of oil dispersant for use in response to the ongoing spill in the Gulf of Mexico, after releasing a first round of toxicity testing data that showed all available varieties had roughly similar toxicological properties. EPA did determine that "none of the eight dispersants tested, including the product in use in the Gulf, displayed biologically significant endocrine disrupting activity."

The toxicity of the dispersant is a tradeoff, and all of the chemicals appear to be less toxic than the oil itself. However, one drawback is that the testing is being done only on the individual chemicals; it's unclear whether there would be enhanced, or decreased, toxicity once the dispersant is mixed with the oil. Given that different fractions of the crude oil degrade at different rates (and react with the chemical dispersant differently), there are a lot of uncertainties that remain. EPA will continue to do testing and report their findings on the Response web site.

Meanwhile, problems with the cap have resulted in even more oil gushing into the Gulf and the first hurricane of the season - Alex, now a Category 2 - will pass well below the spill site, though surge effects from it will likely push more oil onshore. Hurricanes also will affect the ongoing activities in the Gulf. And this is expected by hurricane forecasters to be a particularly active season.

Let's hope they're wrong.

Book Review – Doubt is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health by David Michaels

“Doubt is our product” is how a tobacco company executive once described the industry’s attempt to hide the fact that smoking cigarettes caused lung cancer and related diseases. And that is the theme that David Michaels uses throughout his book. He argues rather persuasively that the tactic of denying the science first perfected by the tobacco companies has been used over and over again by other industries. The goal – to protect profits and avoid litigation liability from exposing people to dangerous chemicals and other practices.

The book is replete with case studies and examples, many from his personal experience as an epidemiologist and a former Assistant Secretary of Energy responsible for protecting the health and safety of workers, neighboring communities, and the environment surrounding the nation’s nuclear weapons facilities. He talks about problems with lead and children, workplace cancers from beryllium, “popcorn lung” destruction from diacetyl, secondhand smoke, asbestos, chromium, vinyl chloride in plastics, diet drugs fen-phen, Vioxx, and nuclear radiation, among others. In each case the responsible industry delayed action and avoided taking responsibility while the regulators were hamstrung by a combination of insufficient authority, political unwillingness, and nearly always deficient resources.

Throughout the case studies Michaels also discusses some of the tactics and strategies used by industry to keep from being regulated. While he only gives a passing mention of climate change, the tactics he describes in this 2008 book are clearly evident in this new opportunity for delay. I’m familiar with most of the cases he mentions, some quite familiar and others less so, but I learned quite a bit more about the behind the scenes high jinks that frankly I found a bit startling. As the title suggests, the primary tactic is “create doubt,” otherwise known as “highlight the uncertainty.” Science can never be fully certain because there is always another question that can be asked. Industry has exploited this by emphasizing any uncertainty so that no regulatory decision can be made. One common method is to employ “reanalysis.” That is, get the raw data from a study that is adverse to your position, then reanalyze it over and over, changing assumptions and conditions, enough to get a different conclusion, which then can be used to cast doubt. If reanalysis doesn’t do it, then conduct a new study, often designed specifically to create conflicting data, so again there is uncertainty. Call whatever industry does “sound science” (a term invented by the lobbying firm Hill and Knowlton for the tobacco industry) and call whatever regulators do “junk science” (a term made famous by long-time industry propagandist Steven Milloy, who of course got his start from the tobacco industry).

There is much more, of course. The book is extremely well documented, with many pages of end notes. Michaels is himself a former regulator and so experienced many of his case studies first hand. For those who are not familiar with the history of industry-created doubt, the book will be a real eye-opener. Unfortunately, I found it all too familiar.

Find other science related book reviews (click and scroll down).

Nano Nano - Europe Yesterday, US Today

Yesterday I noted that the UK issued a report arguing that there was an almost total lack of exposure data for carbon nanotubes (CNT) present in consumer products. Earlier in the year the EU issued a report from the "FramingNano project" that called for the establishment of a nanotechnology governance platform that would both provide technical advise and help make decisions on appropriate actions moving forward. And now last week the US got into the nanotechnology act with a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) called "Nanomaterials Are Widely Used in Commerce, But EPA Faces Challenges in Regulating Risks."

The report made the following recommendations for executive action. First, they recommended that the EPA:

• Complete its plan to issue a Significant New Use rule for nanomaterials.

• Modify FIFRA pesticide registration guidelines to require applicants to identify nanomaterial ingredients in pesticides.

• Complete its plan to clarify that nanoscale ingredients in already registered pesticides, as well as in those products for which registration is being sought, are to be reported to EPA and that EPA will consider nanoscale ingredients to be new.

In addition, the report recommended that EPA should make greater use of the agency’s authorities to gather information under existing environmental statutes. Specifically, according to the GAO, EPA should:

• complete its plan to use data gathering and testing authorities under TSCA to gather information on nanomaterials, including production volumes, methods of manufacture and processing, exposure and release, as well as available health and safety studies; and

• use information-gathering provisions of the Clean Water Act to collect information about potential discharges containing nanomaterials.

Finally, the GAO recommended that EPA consider revising the Inventory Update Rule under TSCA so that it will capture information on the production and use of nanomaterials and so that the agency will receive periodic updates on this material.

The full GAO report can be read in PDF format here.

British Report Laments Lack of Exposure Data on Carbon NanoTubes

The UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has issued a report arguing that there is an almost total lack of exposure data for carbon nanotubes (CNT) present in consumer products. The report "A Lifecycle Assessment Study of the Route and Extent of Human Exposure via Inhalation for Commercially Available Products and Applications Containing Carbon Nanotubes," was conducted by the Safety of nanomaterial Interdisciplinary Research Centre (SnIRC), with participation of other Academic and Industrial Experts.

As part of the study, "a review of all available CNT-containing products was carried out, and a representative subset of the products was identified for exposure analysis." The selected CNT-containing products were lithium-ion batteries, epoxy adhesive resins, and textiles. The study "assessed the suitability of current lifecycle assessment (LCA) protocols for assessing inhalation exposure from CNT and other nano-products."

The findings of the study indicate that:

* LCA is not a tool for exposure assessment. On the contrary, exposure assessments can provide information to LCA that is relevant for impact assessment of CNT releases. LCA is, however, useful in identifying the stages in the lifecycle during which exposure may be relevant.

* There is an almost complete lack of data to enable both a full-scale LCA, or a quantitative exposure assessment. Due to unavailability of the required data, a simplified LCA approach was adopted in this study, focusing on the potential inhalation exposure during the lifecycle of the selected CNT-containing products. Also, the exposure assessment was limited to qualitative analysis because of the lack
of data necessary for a quantitative assessment.

Furthermore, "both LCA and exposure analysis have shown that the material synthesis stage is prone to giving rise to inhalation exposure to CNTs. However, the few studies carried out so far have generally shown that nanoparticle emissions during synthesis can be effectively controlled through appropriate engineering measures. Significant inhalation exposure to CNT material at this stage should be preventable provided such processes are carried out under appropriate emission control and waste management procedures."

Therefore, the study concludes that "the main emphasis from the exposure point of view...needs to be on other stages/processes in the lifecycle of products, where any sophisticated emission control measures are not likely to exist." They specifically suggest as examples "postproduction handling, transportation, accidental release, and use and disposal of the relevant materials and products."

More on how the November elections may impact the TSCA Chemical Reform bills being debated

Yesterday I wrote a commentary piece about how the likely change in numbers of Republicans and Democrats could affect the ongoing discussions to revise TSCA. A commenter raised some good points so I thought today I would expand on my responses.

To begin with the commenter opined that my "political analysis in this case is simplistic and overly tied to conventional wisdom." He (or she, the comment was Anonymous) noted that "the industry position on TSCA reform is not at all monolithic. There are divisions within the ranks and conflicting needs from within the business community. Some industry industry interests want more than has been proposed. Others want the burden shifted to other sectors."

To which I wholeheartedly agree. In my reply I noted that "the industry position is not at all monolithic, nor for that matter is the NGO position or the positions of the individual companies (or of the American people, should they even have an opinion)." I also pointed out that "clearly the end user, small enterprise, and specialty manufacturers and formulators have different desires, and concerns, than the larger manufacturers. This is especially true in comparison to the multinational companies who may find that their significant resources and prior data generation for HPV and REACH gives them a distinct competitive advantage."

The "environmental/health friendly tone" you ascribe to the current bills belies the fact that there are many in that camp that find portions of the proposals to be unworkable and incomplete on practical grounds.

Again, I agree. Not surprisingly "there are portions of the proposals that are more than acceptable, and patently unacceptable, to both sides (and all the other sides)." Furthermore, I also agreed "that the situation is much more intricate, intertwined, and complicated than what can be presented in the very limited space I had available." I believe I've discussed many of these differences of opinion and the desired options of various stakeholders in my previous writings in this post. Yesterday's posting was one of my occasional commentaries in which I speculated "on the influences of a likely change in political power after November."

Then there's the American people, who overwhelmingly want safer products. Then there's the state chemical policy experiment where every new law has been voted in with overwhelming bipartisan support.

I actually didn't address this directly in my reply but here again the commenter makes an excellent observation. Clearly "the American people" want safe products. However, defining what is "safe" and how to demonstrate it is obviously more difficult than simply saying you want safe products. Many of the "American people," for example, also don't want too much government interference that could stifle innovation. Where is that line?

The political landscape for safer chemicals legislation is complicated and will defy conventional partisan analysis in the end.

I suppose my piece yesterday did seem to suggest "conventional partisan analysis," but if that is the case it certainly doesn't reflect my understanding of the process. On the other hand, wisdom becomes conventional for a reason...there is usually good support for it, at least on the general level.

I agree we'll see substantive TSCA reform, but I find it senseless to speculate around a duality of who it will be friendlier to when that reality doesn't really exist.

I disagree that such speculation is senseless. I noted that "to ignore the differences of position, even if they are generalities, is to ignore the realities of the debate." While I agreed earlier that the "conventional wisdom" is oversimplified (rather than merely "simplistic"), the fact is that the two parties have very different views on the level of government regulation that is appropriate. I think Representative Barton and the Republican Study Committee made that point quite clear this past week.

The fact is that most in industry feel the bills go too far in modernizing the law. And most of the advocacy NGOs would feel the bills do not go far enough in many respects. As the old adage says, "the devil is in the details." And I think most would agree that the preferred details lean one direction for the Republicans and the other direction for the Democrats. And while certainly within the caucuses there are shades of opinion, in the current partisan environment those shades are less and less gray and more and more black and white. I think this will have an influence on the nature of the final bills when they get reintroduced next year. Others may disagree.

Will the November Elections "Reform" TSCA Chemical Reform?

As anyone reading my posts on this site knows already, the US Congress has introduced bills in the House and Senate to reform/modernize TSCA, the 34 year old Toxic Substances Control Act. But those following the process also know that this year is a mid-term election year and that the minority party - the Republicans - are expected to make substantial gains in the number of seats they hold. Some believe that the Republican party will gain the majority in either the House or Senate, or both.

So what does this mean for TSCA reform?

It could mean a lot. The Democratic majority in key committees is led by very environmentally minded leadership from California - Barbara Boxer for the Senate EPW committee and Henry Waxman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Frank Lautenberg from New Jersey has also taken the lead in the Senate as chairman of the relevant subcommittee in Boxer's EPW committee. A Republican takeover would put significantly less environmentally and health-aware chairs in place. Even significant gains in seats would shift the balance of power more into the Republican view, which tends to put more emphasis on industry than would the Democratic view.

So would Republican gains kill TSCA reform? No. At least, probably not. Industry is generally in agreement that modernization of TSCA is necessary, primarily because industry would rather deal with one federal-level law than a hodgepodge of 50 state laws (plus a few regional rules tossed in to further complicate compliance).

So while some sort of TSCA reform in 2011 seems inevitable, most would agree that it will be more industry-friendly than the current bills being offered.

Another major concern is funding of EPA. No matter what the final law looks like, and despite the desire to shift the burden of proof onto industry, it is clear that EPA will have much more work to do with the updated regulations. In short, much more information means much more review. In the EU, REACH created an entirely new agency to do the work. In the US, EPA has struggled with reduced funding for many years, and the current economic situation most assuredly will limit any new funding to deal with new mandates.

So what will the final Safe Chemicals Act look like? We don't know for sure. But it's a safe bet that after the November elections it will shift from the more environmental/health friendly tone of the current bills to a more industry friendly tone in the final bills likely to be reintroduced in 2011.

Climate Scientists James Hansen and Robert Watson Win Prestigious Blue Planet Prize

Climate scientists have recently been fending off harassment, professional character assassination, and even death threats as lobbying groups have stepped up their attacks on the science. But this past week two prominent climate scientists were named as recipients of the 2010 Blue Planet Prize, which is "an international environmental award...considered to be Japan's equivalent of the Nobel Prize."

The two winners are Dr. James Hansen, director at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. Hansen is well known in the United States for his vocal communication of the urgency of climate change. The other winner is British scientist Dr. Robert Watson, who is chief scientific adviser of the UK Department for Environment and chair of environmental science and science director at Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, the University of East Anglia. Watson is the former head of the IPCC.

According to the attached announcement:

"the prize, first awarded in 1992, is sponsored by the Asahi Glass Foundation. It goes to individuals or organizations with outstanding achievements in applied scientific research who have helped to solve global environmental problems.Watson and Hansen will receive their awards on October 26 in Tokyo, where they will each give a commemorative lecture."

In 1992, the year of the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the Asahi Glass Foundation established the Blue Planet Prize, "in the hopes of encouraging efforts to bring about the healing of the Earth's fragile environment."

China Publishes Revised Draft Guidance for Chemicals Notification

While REACH dominates the attention of Europe and TSCA reform is keeping everyone in the US guessing, the Chinese Environment Ministry has updated its draft guidance to reflect changes to the Environmental Management on New Chemical Substances law. Comments on the draft guidance are open until 1 July. In short, it is China REACH.

Entry in force of the law is set for October 2010 and several big changes are included. For example, new chemicals to be notified much be classified according to the UN Globally Harmonized System (GHS). The new law also introduces a new category of highly toxic, persistent and bioaccumulative substances (PBTs), and a new system of volume-based notification. There also is some reduced requirements for low-risk substances.

In anticipation of the new law, the Environment Ministry has published six guidance documents covering the requirements of the new law, though at this point they are only in Chinese. But a stakeholder's workshop will be held in Beijing on June 25, 2010 for those able to make it.