Post-Election Questions - Will EPA Step Up Action, Step Down Action, or No Changes Ahead?

Now that their has been a change in the majority party in the House (or more accurately, there will be starting when the next Congress takes their seats in January 2011), how will this effect EPA's ongoing rule-making and actions?  While we don't really know the answer to that question yet, there are a few insights we can presume.

First, despite what many suggest, EPA doesn't just get to make up regulations when they feel like it.  They are bound by, and compelled by, laws passed by Congress to regulate the release of chemicals and other environmental issues.  They are required by law to move forward, and are often sued by either - and sometimes both - sides of the issue to act (or not to act).  The recent greenhouse gas (GHG) endangerment finding wasn't something they pulled out of a hat; the Court found that EPA MUST take an endangerment stand.

Second, many programs are simply ongoing activities.  While the top of the EPA hierarchy are political appointees, the vast majority of EPA staff are career professionals who simply go to work each day and do their jobs.  So work moves forward no matter what political tug-of-war may be keeping the press busy.

That said, Congressional action, or inaction, can significantly impact EPA effectiveness.  Many in the incoming majority in the House have indicated a desire to step up oversight of EPA.  So it is likely that the EPA Administrator and other senior officials will be spending more time in hearings looking at possible overstep of EPA authority rather than the many hearings held over the last two years geared towards finding a path forward to address key issues like chemical right-to-know, children's exposure, GHG emissions and climate change. 

As I mentioned in my last post, the future of the TSCA reform law is uncertain.  All stakeholders have expressed a desire, and acknowledged the need, to modernize the 34-year old law.  But doing so will require the new Congress to focus on moving forward instead of looking toward the past.  It's unclear whether that is the case.  In the end it will probably come down to industry pushing for a new law to 1) avoid a patchwork of ever-increasing state laws and 2) put in place a manageable, i.e., doable, law that protects public health and the environment.

Future of TSCA Chemical Reform Law Uncertain After Election Results

The mid-term elections in the United States have put the future of the TSCA reform into question, for a variety of reasons:

1) The current House bill was introduced by California Representative Henry Waxman and Illinois Representative Bobby Rush, who served as chairs of the relevant committee and subcommittee, respectively. Both won reelection, but with the Republicans gaining control of the House that means Waxman and Rush will be demoted to ranking members.  While the new chairs have yet to be determined, they will be Republicans and are likely to have a different vision of how to proceed.  If they proceed at all.

2) The current bills in the House and Senate probably lean slightly more toward the environmental and health advocacy position (though they might disagree with that characterization).  With Republicans now the majority in the House the new bills, which would have to be reintroduced in the next Congress anyway, will likely lean more toward the industry position (though like the advocacy side, there is quite a bit of differences of opinion between various industry stakeholders).

3) Several potential chairs of key environmental, health, and oversight committees have indicated a desire to undertake oversight hearings. So while there were many hearings on TSCA reform during the last year or two, those hearings were on finding a path forward for reform.  The will likely be some of those as well under the new chairs in the House, but the oversight committee is likely to be holding hearings on whether EPA is overstepping its current authority under TSCA as it exists now.  This could dilute the effort towards reforming the law.

There are other reasons that yesterday's election creates additional uncertainty in the continuing attempts to reform the 34-year old chemical control law, and I'll take a look at those as more information on the changed legislative dynamics in Washington becomes available.

International Scientists Sign "San Antonio Statement" Calling for Regulation of Brominated Flame Retardants

Recently a group of scientists met to discuss the growing concern about "the persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic properties of brominated and chlorinated organic flame retardants (BFRs and CFRs, respectively) and the exposure to humans and wildlife as a result of intensive use."  The result is the “San Antonio Statement on Brominated and Chlorinated Flame Retardants.”

The signatories, nearly 150 scientists from 22 countries, are all "experts on the health effects and environmental fate of BFRs and CFRs and environmental contaminants in general. The International Panel on Chemical Pollution (IPCP), an international network of scientists working on various aspects of chemical pollution, also has approved the statement."

The San Antonio statement includes 20 points that acknowledge the scientific concern for these substances, and the fact that three brominated flame retardants have already been listed in the Stockholm Convention treaty for global elimination. They note that these materials are persistent and "can undergo long-range environmental transport."

The full San Antonio Statement in published in the online edition of Environmental Health Perspectives.  There is also an introduction to the Statement by NIEHS Director Linda Birnbaum and IPCP Board member and Professor Ake Bergman.

Director of Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health Testifies at Toxic Chemicals Hearing

Last, but not least, of the witnesses in Tuesday's Senate subcommittee hearing on "Toxic Chemicals and Children's Environmental Health" in New Jersey, was Dr. Frederica Perera.  Dr. Perera is Director, Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health (CCCEH), Professor of Public Health, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health Columbia University.  In her testimony, she focused on "endocrine disrupting chemicals and neurodevelopmental disorders, noting that an estimated 5-17% of United States children have been diagnosed with a learning or attention disorder."


She reported largely based on the work done at CCCEH, which since 1998 has "conducted international studies of cohorts of mothers and children followed from pregnancy."  Even back then, she noted, "we knew that there were ever-increasing human exposures to environmental toxicants and that rates of neurodevelopmental disorders and chronic illnesses such as childhood asthma and cancer were on the rise."  She made it clear "that these diseases had multiple causes, environmental exposures such as lead, mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls were known to contribute," but also said that it had "become evident over the previous decades that the placenta does not adequately protect the fetus from toxicants and that, due to their rapid development and immature defense systems, the developing fetus, infant and child are especially susceptible to environmental toxicants."

After sharing some of the Center's research in this area, she noted that the research demonstrates "the link between fetal and child exposures to phthalates, BPA, and PBDEs, and adverse developmental and neurodevelopment effects."  She suggested that "a preventive approach is clearly needed," and offered the example of the case of lead removal from gasoline as an illustration of the effectiveness of such an approach. She acknowledged that there were still many uncertainties in cause and effect, but suggested that:

"given the widespread exposure to chemicals such as those I have discussed, these uncertainties do not outweigh the need for a preventative approach to children’s health. The public health and economic benefits of prevention are clearly great. Our data and those of many others support a preventative chemical policy to protect our youngest and most susceptible population."

More on the hearing can be found on the subcommittee web site.

Head of Poison Information and Education System Testifies at Toxic Chemicals and Children's Environmental Health Hearing

As noted in my other posts this week, on Tuesday there was a Senate subcommittee hearing on "Toxic Chemicals and Children's Environmental Health" in New Jersey.  In addition to testimony by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and CNN's Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta, there was testimony by Dr. Steven Marcus, Executive and Medical Director, New Jersey Poison Information and Education System, Professor, Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, Associate Professor of Pediatrics
New Jersey Medical School of The University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey.

Dr. Marcus emphasized the importance of poison control centers around the country.  He noted that "poison centers respond to the needs of the US citizens in every state and territory of the country 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year."  He noted that, nationally, "there are over 4 million exposures reported to poison centers with over 50% of the victims of these exposures occurring in children under 5 years of age."

"To put that into perspective, once every 15 seconds a child in this country is reported to be exposed to some potential toxin."

His take home message at the end of his testimony was that there "are actions which can and should be taken now" that "will help respond to the risk of exposure to chemical substances of all nature, medications, spoiled food, etc."  He listed:

1. Find a way to “shore up” the funding of existing poison centers

2. Supply funds to allow enhanced surveillance activities of poison centers

3. Supply funds to train medical toxicologists outside of the Medicare cap and encourage
pediatricians to seek such training.

More information at the subcommittee web site.

CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta Testifies at "Toxic Chemicals and Children's Environmental Health" Hearing

Continuing with the news of the last two days, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, the highly visible physician and medical correspondent for CNN testified at the Senate subcommittee hearing on "Toxic Chemicals and Children's Environmental Health" in New Jersey on Tuesday. 

Gupta had looked at the potential for reproductive and developmental effects related to chemical exposure in a CNN special program called "Toxic America" first aired several months ago.  In his testimony, Gupta noted that "children are especially vulnerable to toxic chemicals. Children are not simply small adults. For one thing, children have a faster metabolism. They take in – pound for pound --- more air, water and food than adults."  Further, "infants and toddlers also spend a lot of time close to the ground, where dust accumulates. And we know from research this dust can contain toxic chemicals like flame retardants, shed from our televisions and other appliances. Young children can breathe in this dust. As a father, I also know first-hand how little kids like to put their hands in their mouths. That’s another potential route of exposure."

While in the CNN article Gupta acknowledges that "there is no science that demonstrates a conclusive cause-and-effect relationship between chemicals children are born with and particular health problems," he argues that "studies are finding associations between elevated levels of chemicals in a baby's body and their development."  In his testimony he notes that "children are also more susceptible because their immune systems are still developing. Kids are simply not as good at getting rid of toxic chemicals. That means toxic chemicals stay in their bodies longer. Also, their growing bodies are not as good at repairing damage from exposures to toxic chemicals."

And that is the take home message on which Gupta ended his testimony:

Finally, we know our exposure to many chemicals accumulates over time – what’s known as body burden. So what children are exposed to now can build as they age, and their risks of harm from these chemicals could rise with their body burden. So we need to take into account the long-term risks of chemical. After all, children – and the rest of us – are still being exposed to PCBs, which the government calls “probable carcinogens,” and PCBs have been banned for more than 30 years.

More testimony and an archived web cast can be found on the subcommittee web page.

EPA Administrator Jackson Addresses "Toxic Chemicals and Children's Health"

As noted yesterday, today was a subcommittee hearing called "Toxic Chemicals and Children's Environmental Health" in Newark, New Jersey and chaired by New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg.  The lead testimony was from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.

Jackson noted that "[w]hile chemicals have improved our lives in many ways, there are still significant scientific gaps in our understanding of the health risks of many chemicals."  She called out the special nature of protecting children from chemical exposure, and that there are cultural and socioeconomic differences as well:

Ensuring that our children are protected from exposure to environmental threats is central to EPA’s work. Children face greater threats from environmental pollutants than adults due to differences in their physiology, activity patterns and development. And not all children are the same: we continue to see disparities in exposures and health outcomes among the poor, African American, Latino, Native American and other ethnic minorities.

She also reminded us all that children have differences in metabolism, eating habits, and motor behavior that significantly increase their chances of exposure as well as the potential ramifications of such exposure on physiological, morphological, and immunological systems that are not fully developed.

Jackson reiterated the six principles that she had introduced just over a year ago and called again for Congress to take action to reform the 34 year old Toxic Substances Control Act.  And finished by noting:

Further, legislative reform of TSCA should address a number of other areas the Administration believers are important in modernizing this nation’s chemicals management efforts, such as encouraging the development and use of green chemistry and adoption of safer alternatives. It should impose stricter requirements for assertion of confidentiality claims while allowing the sharing of critical data – with appropriate safeguards – with state governments also regulating chemicals.

Her full testimony and that of the other witnesses can be found here.

Senate Hearing on Toxic Chemicals and Children's Environmental Health - Tuesday (Oct. 26th)

In a subcommittee event to be held away from Washington DC, the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics, and Environmental Health will hold a hearing in Newark, New Jersey called "Toxic Chemicals and Children’s Environmental Health."  Headlining the event will be EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, who is returning to her old turf (she was previously head of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection).  

The meeting will be held tomorrow, October 26th, in the Oral Health Pavilion Multi-purpose room at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey in Newark. The hearing starts at 10:30 am EDT.

While Jackson will provide the sole remarks in the first panel, many will recognize the name of Sanjay Gupta, CNN Chief Medical Correspondent and once floated as a possible Surgeon General, who will lead off the second panel.  Also testifying in the second panel will be Lisa Huguenin (a New Jersey mother of child with autism and an immune system disorder), Steven Marcus (Executive and Medical Director of the New Jersey Poison Information and Education System and Professor at the New Jersey Medical School of The University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey), and Frederica Perera (Director of the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health and Professor at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health).  

The subcommittee chair is New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg, who introduced the Kid Safe Chemical Acts of 2005 and 2008 (neither of which made it out of committee) and the Safe Chemicals Act of 2010 (which is likely also to sit largely untouched for the rest of this legislative term).  


More information and copies of testimony will be available at the subcommittee web site.

Japan Chemical Association Highlights Japanese Business Trends

The Japan Chemical Industry Association (JCIA) has released a powerpoint presentation highlighting business trends in the chemical industry.  After posting significant decreases in production and shipment from early 2008 through early 2009, both started recovering by the end of the first quarter 2009 and have now reached levels consistent with inventories.

A series of powerpoints can be downloaded here.

The JCIA has about 180 member companies and about 80 organizations engaged in the manufacturing and handling of chemical products and related services. "Under the basic idea of "coexistence and co-prosperity with society," JCIA has continued to undertake activities for almost half a century to fulfill its mission of promoting the stable development of the chemical industry and thus contributing to the economic prosperity of Japan and elevation of its living standards."

ECHA Suggests Companies Verify Which Substances Have Been Registered Under REACH

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has posted an update to its list of substances proposed for registration in 2010.  And now the list contains information on which of the substances have already been registered.  As of this writing there were 4742 substances that had been proposed, with a little less than half - 2128 - already through the registration process.

And with the first deadline for registration of November 30, 2010 rapidly approaching, there will be a lot of new registrations going online in the next few weeks.  ECHA promises to update the list weekly.

ECHA also recommends that downstream users check the substances that they use in their products to make sure they are being registered on time by the manufacturer or importer.  Substances that are not registered on time will no longer be allowed for sale until the full registration dossier is submitted.  Of course, not all substances are due this year - only those manufactured or imported in volumes exceeding 1000 tpa or are substances of high concern.  The remaining substances produced in lesser volumes are not due to be registered until either 2013 or 2018 depending on tonnage.

More information can be found on the ECHA site, including the list in PDF and other downloadable formats.

Stockholm Convention POPs Committee Reviews 3 Chemicals - Recommends to Get Rid of Endosulfan

"The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPRC), a subsidiary body to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, adopted a dozen decisions at its sixth meeting, concluded last Friday, including ones aimed at strengthening chemicals science on climate change and POPs."  So says the press release issued two days ago.  On the cutting block - Endosulfan - the widely used pesticide for which the committee recommended listing in Annex A of the Convention. Such a listing normally leads to a chemical's elimination from commerce.

According to the findings, "Endosulfan is used on many crops such as soy, cotton, rice, and tea.  It is highly toxic to humans and many other animals and has been found in the environment, including the Arctic."

The long range transport, persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity characteristics were deemed sufficient for action even though there remains some scientific uncertainty and contentious disagreements from some of the parties.

The POPs committee also adopted the risk profile on hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), which is "a flame retardant used mainly in expanded and extruded polystyrene."  Based on its "adverse effects, persistence, bioaccumulation and long-range transport," the committee determined that HBCD "should proceed to the risk management phase, the next step in the committee’s review process."

However, they postponed making a decision on short-chained chlorinated paraffins (SCCP), which they felt needed more data collection.  SCCPs are "used in metalworking, and the formulation and manufacturing of products such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastics and metalworking fluids."


The committee's recommendations are passed on to the fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the Stockholm Convention, which will be held in Geneva in April 2011.

New Report Says Flooring and Wallpaper Emit Toxic Chemicals

A non-profit group in Michigan - the Ecology Center - has released a new study on home improvement products and found "toxic chemicals in commonly-used flooring and wallpaper."  They tested "more than 1,000 flooring samples and nearly 2,300 types of wallpaper for substances that have been linked to asthma, birth defects, learning disabilities, reproductive problems, liver toxicity and cancer."

Publishing under the project name of HealthyStuff.org, they noted that:

Heavy metals and other additives are commonly found in residential flooring and wallpaper. These chemicals include lead, cadmium, flame retardants, tin compounds and phthalates -- harmful chemicals that are linked to asthma, reproductive problems, developmental and learning disabilities, hormone problems and cancer. 

More information can be found on the study web site.

Does Canada's Declaration that BPA is Toxic Make Sense?

I noted last week that the Canadian government formally labeled Bisphenol A (BPA) as "toxic," and added it to Schedule I of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999. But does their action make any sense?  After all, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had only days before stated their belief that BPA is safe for use in food-contact items.  The USEPA isn't basing any of its proposed actions on human health effects.  The USFDA seems to think BPA is okay to use.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC), which represents major chemical manufacturers and plastics chemical manufacturers (including BPA), notes that:

"...Environment Canada’s announcement is contrary to the weight of worldwide scientific evidence, unwarranted and will unnecessarily confuse and alarm the public."

According to ACC, Enviroment Canada's "decision also appears to contradict the very recent opinion of Health Canada, which stated in August that ‘the current dietary exposure to BPA through food packaging is not expected to pose a health risk to the general population, including newborns and infants.’"

Canada has issued a series of risk management action milestones that include such actions as prohibiting the importation of baby bottles containing BPA, reviewing all medical devices and notifications for substances used in the packaging of baby formulas, and facilitating the assessment of proposed industry alternatives to bisphenol A used in can linings.

While there seems to be quite a difference of opinion on the hazards of BPA, or lack of hazard, the primary concern of Canada is that "the neurodevelopmental and behavioural dataset in rodents, though highly uncertain, is suggestive of potential effects at doses at the same order of magnitude to 1-2 orders of magnitude higher than exposures."  So the potential for hazard is still contentious, but Canada feels that the the "potential sensitivity to the pregnant woman/fetus and infant," and the suggestion from rodent studies that there is "heightened susceptibility during stages of development in rodents."  As such they have determined that "it is considered appropriate to apply a precautionary approach when characterizing risk."

ECHA to Automatically Make REACH Registration Documents Public Without First Checking on CBI

Today the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) announced that it will soon institute a dissemination system in which REACH registration dossiers will be made public without ECHA having to communicate first with companies to check on confidential business information (CBI) claims.  The new system supposedly automatically holds back anything marked as confidential, so in theory no CBI will be released even though ECHA won't be checking first.  Previously ECHA contacted registrants before releasing the information, mostly because there was concern that registrants may not completely understand how to flag their CBI information as CBI in the complex IUCLID dossier creation software.

The rationale for making the change now - besides reducing the burden on ECHA - is that ECHA has made available an IT tool and a series of manuals to help registrants enter the information correctly and to check to ensure their CBI is properly protected.  This dissemination tool is akin to the Technical Completeness Check (TCC) tool that allows REACH registrants to check their dossiers before sending them electronically to ECHA.  The philosophy is that it is better to work out the bugs before sending than to back up technical evaluations after submission.  The TCC tool has been invaluable to registrants.  And they should be quick to use the dissemination tool as well to ensure that only non-confidential information is released publicly.

More information can be found on the ECHA web site. The site includes several links to details and the IUCLID site where current registrants can download the tool.