As Europe Bans BPA in Baby Bottles, USEPA Works with BPA Manufacturers in Design for the Enviroment

Bisphenol-A, more commonly known as BPA, has gotten a lot of attention lately.  As noted last week, the EU has voted to ban BPA from baby bottles beginning in March 2011, and not long ago Canada declared BPA to be CEPA-toxic.  Meanwhile in the USA the Environmental Protection Agency is following through on at least some of the provisions of its Chemical Action Plan for BPA.  One of those provisions was for EPA to engage industry in its Design for the Environment program, or DfE.

Initially the DfE program is focusing on "finding safer alternatives to BPA used as a developer for dyes in thermal paper, which is often used in cash register or sales receipts."  This narrowing down into a specific use of the chemical is typical of DfE, where the goal is to examine all the ways to solve one particular identified risk area.  In the case of BPA, the DfE program officially kicked off in July 2010 and is just now compiling a list of viable BPA alternatives and alternative technologies.  The goal is to complete a draft evaluation of ecological and human health hazards and environmental fate by May of 2011, with a final report in October 2011.

According to the DfE site, "some receipts made of thermal paper may now contain as much as 10 mg of BPA, which could pose a risk for human exposure, as well as account for substantial environmental releases of BPA. The goal of this assessment is to facilitate movement towards safer alternatives used in thermal paper."

More information on the program, and a list of participating companies and their representatives, see here.  Participants include thermal paper manufacturers and converters, chemical manufacturers, retailers, trade associations, trade unions, NGOs, government representatives, green chemistry consultants, and others.  All working to find solutions for a particular identified chemical use pattern.

ECHA offers help for REACH registrants still blocked by data sharing disputes

Tomorrow (November 30) is the final day to register chemicals manufactured or imported at over 1000 tonnes per annum under the REACH regulation in Europe.  Most companies have registered their chemicals (and many are rushing to complete the process now).  But some companies are still having some problems negotiating letters of access (LOAs) with data owners for endpoints they are hoping to fulfill with read-across or other data owned by other companies.

ECHA stipulates that companies should have worked out these details long ago, but understands that there are cases where cost disputes are still raging.  So they have offered some assistance.

Until 30 November at noon (Helsinki time), companies can request ECHA's help when they cannot agree with a previous registrant on sharing the costs of data already registered. 

The goal is to allow companies "to submit a registration dossier, even if the final decision has not been taken on their data sharing complaint. This is a temporary solution to enable these potential registrants to submit dossiers while their data sharing dispute is still awaiting resolution."  But ECHA goes on to say that "in any case, these potential registrants must be able to demonstrate that they have made every effort to share the cost of submitted data in a fair, transparent and non discriminatory way and that the other party did not make such efforts."

If your company is facing this problem, you are still responsible for registering your substance.  Contact ECHA immediately.

More more information, see the ECHA web site.

ECHA Will Charge a Fee if You Said You Were an SME (REACH Rhymes)

The European Chemical Agency (ECHA) has issued a notice that it will charge an administrative fee to those companies who wrongly claimed to be a small or medium sized enterprise (SME). Apparently quite a few companies have claimed that they were smaller than they actually are, either through misunderstanding of how to calculate their size or through an attempt to benefit from reduced registration fees for smaller entities.  According to ECHA:

"As from 1 December 2010, ECHA will collect an administrative charge from registrants who wrongly claimed to be entitled to a fee reduction or a fee waiver. If ECHA concludes that the size of a company is larger than registered under REACH, the company will not only have to pay the difference in registration fee but also an administrative charge as follows (all values in Euros):"

Size of company	Administrative charges
Large (non-SME)	20 700
Medium	14 500
Small	8 300
Micro (*)	2 070

(*) Refers to fee waivers only

Also according to ECHA, with only a few days left to the November 30th registration deadline, over 16,000 registration dossiers have been received.  This is less than ECHA anticipated, which means either there will be a large proportion registering at the last minute or a lot of chemicals will not meet the statutory deadline.  The latter means that companies would not be able to continue production until they submit and pass all the completeness checks for their dossiers.

EU Moves to Ban BPA from Baby Bottles

This week the European Commission's Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health moved to ban the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in baby bottles beginning next spring.  BPA is an organic chemical used to make polycarbonate plastics like those in baby bottles and thousands of other plastic products.  It has come under attack as a possible endocrine disruptor, which "can mimic the body's own hormones and may lead to negative health effects."

That said, various government and regulatory bodies around the world have defined "safe levels" for humans, though new studies have raised new concerns about whether those levels truly are safe.  The problem is that effects are much more subtle and hard to define, and tests to measure (and then understand the significance of) potential endocrine disruption are still being developed.  Still, last year The Endocrine Society issued a position statement on endocrine disrupting chemicals.


Responses from the EU plastics industry and health advocacy groups was as one might expect.  Industry feels that the decision goes against the totality of the scientific evidence.  Health NGOs believe the EU action doesn't go far enough as it doesn't address other uses of BPA that also may lead to infant and child exposures.

In any case, the Commission's decision will lead to a Directive to prohibit the manufacture of BPA infant bottles by March 1, 2011 and prohibit the placing on the market and import of BPA infant bottles after June 1, 2011.  Member States have until February 15th to develop national level regulations to implement the Directive.

EPA Goes After "Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals"

In 1996 Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments, both of which included a provision requiring that EPA screen pesticide chemicals for their potential to produce effects similar to those produced by the female hormones.  The two laws gave EPA the authority to screen certain other chemicals and to include other endocrine effects. In fact, the two laws mandated action.

Fast forward to 14 years later and EPA is way behind on any effort to follow through on those mandates.  In large part this is because the technology for measuring endocrine effects just wasn't there back then (and some argue still is not there).  Throw in some political reticence to adding more regulatory burden to industry and you have a situation where action has been slow to come. 

But now EPA seems to have stepped up the activity level and has just issued its Second List of Chemicals for Tier 1 Screening. This list "includes 134 chemicals and substances that have been listed as priorities within EPA’s drinking water and pesticides programs."   It follows on the heels of "the initial list of chemicals to be screened for their potential effects on the endocrine system," which was released on April 15, 2009 and "the first test orders were issued on October 29, 2009."

Find out more about the endocrine disruptor testing program on the EPA site, including the status of test orders and EPA's policies and procedures.

No TSCA Chemical Reform This Year - What About Next Year?

The TSCA reform proposals put forth in bills by the Democratically controlled House and Senate in 2010 are now in the "didn't get to it" bin for the few weeks left in the current Congressional session.  In January the current minority party becomes the majority in the House, and closes the gap in the Senate.  So the question on everyone's mind (well, everyone that is a stakeholder interested in reform/modernization of the 34-year old TSCA law) is "What will happen in 2011?"

Or maybe 2012?

Because of the way Congress works any TSCA reform bills will need to be reintroduced in the next Congress before any action can be taken.  The House bill was introduced this past year by Democrats Henry Waxman and Bobby Rush, both of whom won reelection but will no longer be chairing the full committee and subcommittee, respectively, responsible for shepherding the law through the House.  As of this writing the Republican party had not yet determined who would take over the chairmanships of the key committee, but the contenders have been fairly public about their priorities and TSCA reform isn't necessarily at the top of their list.  The Senate will remain in Democratic control, though perhaps with a bit less leeway than this past Congress.  Senator Lautenberg has been passionate about TSCA reform (Kid Safe Chemical Act/Safe Chemical Act), but health and age may (or may not) limit his future influence.

Industry remains dedicated to modernizing TSCA, in large part because one federal law is easier to handle than 50 (or more) state, regional, and local laws.  With a likely more industry-friendly chairmanship in the House, this might be a good opportunity to get a new law passed that will keep what industry considers to be "what works" of the old law while enhancing protections for human health and the environment.  But different industry groups differ on how to go about doing that.

The advocacy community remains adamant that TSCA is outdated, and in fact never really worked well at all from a health protection point of view.  They continue to push for a new law, both through renewed activism at the state level and by putting pressure on industry to come up with "concrete proposals" for a revised law.

As is normal for situations in which party control of one or both houses of Congress changes, there will be time needed to "staff up" the committees, "feel out" the likelihood of compromise by various stakeholders, and "learn something" from ongoing international activities like the Canadian chemical management plan and Europe's REACH registration.  So we should expect not to see much overt action for at least the first six to 10 months of this next Congress (though there may be some behind the scenes wrangling going on).  That suggests that TSCA reform bills might not hit the floor until late 2011 or even into 2012.  That said, with a likely contentious presidential election year going on in 2012, there are concerns among many that TSCA reform might be a priority for a future time.

EPA (Almost) Ready to Release New Chemical Action Plans

Well, in the broad definition of the word "almost."  EPA has been promising release of two new chemical action plans - siloxanes and diisocyanates - for quite some time now, but internal discussions and external input from manufacturers and users have kept EPA from finalizing them.  Still, key EPA directors have indicated they plan to put them online by the end of the year.

Beyond that EPA is still trying to decide how to proceed.  With TSCA reform not being passed this year and some uncertainty about the potential timing and/or outcome of reintroduction next year, EPA has indicated that it will continue to push the envelope on its authority under the existing TSCA law.  On the other hand, several members of the incoming majority in the House (and the closer minority in the Senate) have indicated that they think EPA has overstepped that authority in the issuance of these action plans.  So I suspect EPA is working through the options for moving forward, either with or without TSCA reform.

And as I reported yesterday, the individual states are not sitting around idly waiting for Congress to pass a new law.

With Uncertainty About the Future of TSCA Chemical Reform in Congress , States Increase Regulatory Action

I have spent a lot of time on this site talking about various aspects of the attempts to reform/update/modernize the 34-year old Toxic Substances Control Act.  One aspect I've mentioned several times is the work of various states to "fill in the gaps" of the federal level law.  A new report shows that states have stepped up their activity in light of the lack of substantive movement on TSCA reform legislation in the US Congress.

The report, by two health advocacy coalitions - SAFER States and Safer Chemicals Healthy Families - is called "Healthy States" and documents that "states aren’t waiting for Congress to take action on toxic chemicals—they are taking matters into their own hands."

According to the report, "state restrictions on toxic chemicals are on the rise, and will probably continue to increase until Congress overhauls failing federal legislation."  Among other activities, the report highlights:

• In the last eight years, eighteen states have passed 71 chemical safety laws.
• The pace of state policy making on chemicals has more than tripled in eight years.
• Sixty-six laws banned bisphenol A (BPA) in baby and toddler products (with 98% support), phased out toxic flame retardants (PBDEs) in home products (93%), reduced children’s exposure from common products containing lead (88%) and cadmium (86%), and promoted green cleaning.
• State legislators strongly supported recent state laws that create new programs for broad regulation of toxic chemicals. This includes comprehensive laws passed in California, Maine, Minnesota and Washington state.

According to SAFER States, "while Washington DC is stuck in chemical industry politics, the states are growing frustrated and taking matters into their own hands -- passing laws which will help to temper the public outcry until a day comes when we are comfortable with the chemicals that are infiltrating every part of our lives."

The chemical industry has in the past supported the concept (though not necessarily the details) of federal-level TSCA modernization, in large part because they don't want the kind of patchwork regulatory quilt in which state-level regulations would result.  With the 2010 Safe Chemicals Act bills left to die without action, new versions of the bills will need to be introduced in the next Congress.  The change of majority party in the House and the subsequent differences in viewpoint between many key incoming House members and the opposite majority party in the Senate have created some uncertainty about the path forward.  What this report shows is that the states will continue, and likely increase, their state-level action in an effort to 1) deal with the lack of federal-level action in Congress, and 2) stimulate federal-level action in Congress.

The report can be downloaded on either of the two advocacy sites linked above.  A PDF is available here.

A Rational Discussion of Climate Change - Live on C-SPAN3 [Upated with Replay]

As I mentioned yesterday there is a House hearing going on today called "A Rational Discussion of Climate Change."  You can watch it on C-SPAN3 as I write this.  I'll follow up on this after the hearing.

See yesterday for more information and links.

Here is an interesting replay of a live commenting feed from the hearing.  A lot of running commentary during the hearing (sponsored by the online version of Science magazine) by such people as Gavin Schmidt (RealClimate), Joe Romm (Climate Progress), and a variety of others who signed into the feed.  Very interesting commentary.

A Rational Discussion of Climate Change - House Hearing on November 17, 2010

Congress is back in session, and at least one Democratic committee chair is ready for a hearing called "A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response."  The hearing will be held in the Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2325, from 10:30 am to 12:30 pm, Wednesday, November 17, 2010. It will be interesting to see how rational it is given the lame duck status of Congress.  But the line up of witnesses bears promise as they are mostly prominent scientists and other authorities testifying, mostly on the status of the science and impacts of not taking action.

Witnesses include:

Dr. Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences

Dr. Heidi Cullen, CEO and Director of Communications at Climate Central

Dr. Gerald Meehl, Senior Scientist in the Climate and Global Dynamics Division at the National Center for Atmospheric Research

Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Benjamin Santer, Atmospheric Scientist in the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Dr. Richard Alley, Evan Pugh Professor in the Department of Geosciences and an Associate of the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute at Pennsylvania State University

Dr. Richard Feely, Senior Scientist at the Pacific Marine Environment Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Rear Admiral David Titley, Oceanographer and Navigator for the United States Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

Mr. James Lopez, Senior Advisor to the Deputy Secretary at the Department of Housing and Urban Development

Mr. William Geer, Director of the Center for Western Lands for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

Dr. Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology

Their written remarks should be posted on the committee web site above once they give testimony.  The committee has already released a PDF of the hearing charter, which summarizes the topics each witness will address.  It also provides some useful background on the state of climate science that I highly recommend everyone read.

Oil will run out 100 years before new fuels are developed

Wondering what to get your kids for Christmas?  How about a science kit so they can develop a new fuel to replace petroleum.  A new study suggests it could make them rich.

Okay, so your kids probably aren't going to discover some new fuel source (or will they?).  But a new study reported in that great science source (Yahoo! News) suggests that we better get started looking for a new source, because we're going to run out of oil long before we find something to replace it.

If the world's oil reserves were the 1.332 trillion barrels they were estimated to be in 2008 and oil consumption was some 85.22 million barrels a day and growing at 1.3 percent a year, oil would be depleted by 2041, says the study published online last week in Environmental Science and Technology.

Then researchers from the University of California at Davis analyzed share prices of 25 oil companies and determined (to no one's surprise) that much more money is put into the conventional energy markets than to renewable or alternative energy markets.  They then "used advanced pricing equations" and calculated that "there would not be a widely available replacement for oil-based fuels before 2140, which, even if the more optimistic date of 2054 for oil depletion is retained."  All of this means that "there could be a nearly 90-year gap when it might be difficult to run a motor vehicle."

The Yahoo! article can be read here.  The original study can be found in the journal, ES&T, is published by the American Chemical Society.

More Than 1/2 Million Chemical Classification Notifications Received by ECHA

Along with REACH registrations, companies in Europe must notify all their chemicals under the new "European Regulation on Classification, Labelling and Packaging of chemical substances and mixtures" (CLP). The CLP is how the United Nations’ Globally Harmonised System (UN GHS) for classifying and labelling chemicals is being implemented in Europe.  Companies must notify by January 3, 2011, and as of now more than 500,000 notifications have been received by ECHA.

Companies who must register their substances by the fast approaching November 30, 2010  REACH registration deadline will also include CLP classifications, and this meets the obligation to notify.  However, those companies who make substances at lower tonnages and have 2013 or 2018 REACH registration deadlines must still notify under the CLP by January 3, 2011.  In short, "if you are a manufacturer or importer, you must notify hazardous substances that you place on the market on their own or contained in hazardous mixtures above certain applicable concentration limits, regardless of the annual tonnage manufactured or imported, as well as substances subject to registration under REACH and that you place on the market, to the Classification & Labelling Inventory established at the Agency."

More information on the CLP and the upcoming deadlines can be found on the ECHA web site.

ChemCon Americas Conference Debates REACH, TSCA Reform, GHS

This past week has been the ChemCon Americas conference in Philadelphia, where mostly industry representatives, regulatory experts, and scientists get together to discuss important issues affecting the chemical industry.  And this week was no exception.  Hot topics included the scramble to make the November 30th REACH deadline, the confusion over how various countries are implementing (or not implementing) GHS, and the uncertainty over what may or may not happen with TSCA reform in the United States.

Representatives from EPA continued to make the case that the 34-year old Toxic Substances Control Act just does not give them the authority to efficiently review tens of thousands of existing chemicals grandfathered onto the TSCA Inventory (for later review). With the chairmanships of the House set to switch from the Democratic Waxman and Rush to "Republicans to be named later," there still seems to be the belief that some form of TSCA reform will happen in the next Congress.  Meanwhile, a lawyer representing industry interests reminded attendees that the individual states are pressing forward with their own versions of reform, perhaps presenting industry with an even more complicated patchwork of regulations to monitor.

REACH also received attention.  A representative from the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) encouraged companies to keep on pushing to meet the fast approaching deadline.  Tens of thousands of registrations have been received and many more are expected in the mad rush during the next two weeks.  Oh, and then there is the CLP - Europe's version of the Globally Harmonized System for classification and labeling, for which companies must notify all of their chemicals by January 3rd (even those not scheduled for REACH registration until 2013 or 2018).  And let's not forget Turkey. And China and Japan. And New Zealand and Australia.  And cosmetics?

No wonder everyone looks a little knackered.

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

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

The four substances are:

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

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

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

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

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