Jim Willis - EPA Chemical Control Division Director - Leaving for UNEP

The director of the EPA's chemical control division, Jim Willis, has tendered his resignation from the EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT).  He will become the Executive Secretary of the Basel, Stockholm and Rotterdam Conventions under the United Nations Environment Program.  He will be based in Geneva, Switzerland.

I have discussed these international conventions in previous articles. The Stockholm and Rotterdam Conventions deal with reduction or elimination of specific listed chemicals that are considered to be hazardous and persistent in the environment. The Basel Convention is designed to control hazardous waste disposal.  Since they primarily deal with PBT (persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic) chemicals, especially those that may be transported long distances, the role seems perfect for Willis and his experience at EPA.  Ironically, while the US signed the treaties Congress has never ratified them.  That means we can offer our views but must sit by without a vote.

According to the letter sent to EPA staff by Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, Director of OPPT"

"Jim will be responsible for managing the secretariats for the three treaties, which together encompass the global legal regime for the environmentally sound management of chemicals and wastes...Jim's accomplishments at EPA are many and he will be greatly missed."

Cleland-Hamnett also noted that Maria Doa will take over Willis' position as Director of the Chemical Control Division at EPA.  Tala Henry will be acting director of the National Program Chemicals Division (Doa's current job) and Brian Symmes will return to his position as the Deputy in that group.

ECHA plans 6th Stakeholder Day in Helsinki to Update on REACH chemical progress

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) will be holding their Sixth Stakeholders’ Day on May 18, 2011 in Helsinki.  As with the previous five stakeholder days, this one will provide updates on the progress of REACH, as well as share insights and expectations of future obligations.  There will also be various training sessions on REACH, CLP, and new for this day, the Chesar tool. 

The Chesar tool day of training will be held on May 17th and is critical for constructing and running exposure assessments.  Chesar is the Chemical Assessment and Reporting tool and is extremely useful for the safety assessment and chemical safety report, if one knows how to use it.  So the training day is a welcome addition.

Information on the Stakeholder's Day can be found on the ECHA website.

More information about the Chesar training can be found here.

Waiting for TSCA Chemical Reform? Keep Waiting

Readers of this site will know that I have talked a lot about the efforts to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  Bills were introduced in 2010 by both the House and Senate, and many hearings and stakeholder meetings were held.  But what seemed to be a clear path to passing an update to the 35 year old law now seems to be a distant memory.  The likelihood of legislation being introduced, never mind passed, in the current Congress is pretty much zero.

This is the sense suggested by several recent events.  The industry still notes their general concurrence that a federal level program update is needed, the actual follow through seems unlikely any time soon.  One reason is because industry feels that the bills introduced by Democrats Lautenberg in the Senate and Waxman/Rush in the House were completely unworkable.  So much so that to try to modify them would be an impossible task.

While it would seem a good time to get more industry-friendly legislation enacted during the current Congress, there is a sense that the next Congress will be even more conducive to business interests.  This is largely based on the assumption that the Republican party will not only hold (and perhaps expand) the majority in the House, but that they will likely take the majority in the Senate as well.  Given the number of Democratic Senators up for reelection and/or retiring, that likelihood seems almost certain.  So with both houses controlled by the Republicans the feeling is that there would be no need to compromise as much with the Senate as would be needed now.

The ultimate goal of any TSCA modernization from industry's perspective is to enable continued innovation in the development of new chemicals, where the US had led Europe and other nations for many years.

So expect no serious effort to pass TSCA reform in 2011 or 2012, with the prospects for 2013 and 2014 depending largely on the results of the 2012 elections.

Gains in Reducing Persistent Chemicals May be Lost to Climate Change

The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (thankfully called simply POPs) has been working to reduce the emissions of these chemicals for many years.  But a new report suggests that some of the gains made may be reversed by the effects of climate change.  The report, "Climate Change and POPs: Predicting the Impacts" was issued by the United Nations Environment Program last month.

The report notes that:

Significant climate-induced changes are foreseen in relation to future releases of POPs into the environment, their long-range transport and environmental fate, and human and environmental exposure, subsequently leading to higher health risks for both human populations and the environment. The report also addresses the synergies between the climate change and POPs policy agendas and identifies areas of uncertainty and existing gaps in data, information and knowledge.

The report suggests that persistent chemicals, i.e., those that stay in the environment for a long time without breaking down into components of lesser concern, may mobilize from wherever they are and be available for long-range transport.  Warmer temperatures overall could increase emissions of POPs from soil, water, and ice, which could have significant ramifications.

The full report can be downloaded here.

Google.Org to Facilitate Scientists' Communication of Climate Change

The philanthropic arm of Google, aka Google.Org, has organized a team of 21 climate scientists to help communicate the realities of climate science.  The main goal is to counter the "climate change skeptics who have created a political megaphone in Washington" to "create noise" and disinform, rather than inform, the public and policy-makers.  The level of disinformation was evident in the recent Republican led denial of scientific knowledge.

The 21 scientists will serve for one year as Google Science Communication Fellows. According to google.org, "these fellows were elected from a pool of applicants of early to mid-career Ph.D. scientists nominated by leaders in climate change research and science-based institutions across the U.S."  The focus of the fellows is on communicating the science, so google.org "chose scientists who had the strongest potential to become excellent communicators."  The list of scientists can be found here.

Paul Higgins, who is one of the Google Fellows and an associate policy director at the American Meteorological Society, noted the disconnect between scientists and policy-makers:

"We are seeing very clearly with climate change that our policy choices are currently not grounded in knowledge and understanding...If we were well informed as a society — and if policymakers were well informed — then they would be taking the risk that climate change should be taken seriously."

According to Google, Kelly Levin, a senior research associate at the World Resources Institute, hoped that the program would "engage wider audiences in the scientific discussion."  Further, she noted:

"Given the pace and scale of human-induced climate change, it is of great importance that climate change science, and the urgency of addressing the climate change problem, is communicated effectively to the public and decision makers."

 More information about the program can be read here.

Korea Joins Effort to Reduce Animal Testing of Chemicals - Find Alternative Methods

Europe has one (ECVAM), the United States has one (ICCVAM), and now Korea has one (KoCVAM).  Last week the Republic of Korea (i.e., South Korea)'s Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods (KoCVAM) officially joined a collaborative effort to find alternative chemical test methods.  The international agreement, the International Cooperation on Alternative Test Methods (ICATM), "was officially created in April 2009, when an agreement was signed between validation bodies from Europe, USA, Canada and Japan." 

The goal of collaboration is to develop and validate chemical testing methods that reduce, or preferably eliminate, the need for live animals (i.e., in vivo methods).  The non-animal methods (in vitro) can include any number of tests ranging from excised tissues, artificially grown tissues or cells, and genetic methods, as well as computer generated structure activity relationship (SAR) modeling.  The formal addition of KoCVAM to the agreement, it's fifth member, occurred during the 50th annual meeting of the Society of Toxicology in Washington DC.

With REACH entering its next stage, which includes review of proposed testing plans from the first registration deadline, and new chemical control efforts in Korea, Turkey, Switzerland and (maybe) the United States, a great deal of effort is being made to find alternatives to traditional animal testing.  REACH specifically encourages the use of non-animal methods such as QSARs, in vitro, ex vivo, and read-across from data available for related chemicals. 

For more information.

TSCA Oral History Project - From Inception to Reform (with Video)

The Chemical Heritage Foundation, a Philadelphia based policy center, has an ongoing program they call the TSCA Oral History Project.  Videos of two recent events are now on their web site.

The first video includes speakers from a November 19, 2010 seminar called "From Inception to Reform: Unpacking the History of the Toxic Substances Control Act through Archives and Oral Histories."  The main speakers were Jody Roberts and Jessica Schifano.

Of perhaps even greater interest was another public discussion held on March 3, 2011 at the American Association for the Advancement of Science headquarters in Washington, DC.  It featured some of the key players in the chemicals regulatory framework over the years, specifically:

• James V. Aidala
• Charles M. Auer
• Charles L. Elkins
• Mark A. Greenwood
• Glenn E. Schweitzer

Each offered their insights into the history of the Toxic Substances Control Act and what factors are important in the (sometimes) continuing debate over how to reform it.  You can watch the YouTube video below:



More information can be found at the Chemical Heritage Foundation's web site.

ECHA Committee Adopts First Proposals to Restrict Chemical Substances Under REACH

A key committee responsible for determining chemicals that should be restricted under REACH has issued its first two opinions.  The Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) decided on March 8-11, 2011 that dimethylfumarate (DMFu) should be restricted in articles and lead and lead compounds should be restricted in jewelry.  Both of these chemical substances will now be severely restricted from being used.

The RAC found that:

There is a serious risk to consumers from the use of articles treated with DMFu and that the suggested restriction on the production and placing on the market of articles containing DMFu is appropriate in order to reduce the risk to consumers.

There will now be a temporary ban of the inclusion of DMFu in articles placed on the market in the EU until March 15, 2102, after which a decision will need to be made on whether to make the ban permanent.  DMFu had been used as an anti-mold agent, but there had been "several reports in many Member States of severe skin reactions (dermatitis) in consumers exposed to DMFu in articles, such as leather sofas and shoes." 

The RAC also found that:

Lead contained in jewellery may significantly contribute to the exposure of children to lead by them putting it in their mouths, and that a restriction is therefore appropriate...[A]fter assessing the dossier and the information submitted during the public consultation...basing the restriction on the content of lead in articles unless it could be demonstrated that lead is not released should a child put a piece of jewellery in his or her mouth. 

The main concern is the increased exposure to children, whose behavior often includes sucking or even swallowing small jewelry, and the well-known severe adverse effects to development of the central nervous system in children.

Along with the RAC determinations were parallel determinations on these two substances by the Committee for Socio-economic Analysis (SEAC).  More information on both can be found on the ECHA web site.  The opinions will also be available soon following the links.

House Republicans (but not Paul) Vote Three Times to Deny Science

House Republicans continued their denial of climate science today by voting three times against amendments offered by the Democrats in the Energy and Commerce Committee. The Committee, chaired by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), was considering amendments to its proposed bill that would politically repeal EPA's scientific endangerment finding on greenhouse gases.  The bill would in fact block EPA's ability to take any science based regulatory action on greenhouse gases. 

The first amendment was offered by Ranking member Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA):

"Congress accepts the scientific finding of the Environmental Protection Agency that 'warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.'"

It was defeated 20-31, with all Republican members voting to deny EPA's scientific findings.

The second amendment was offered by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) and read:

“’the scientific evidence is compelling’ that elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from anthropogenic emissions ‘are the root cause of recently observed climate change.’”

This amendment was defeated 21-30, again with all Republicans voting against the amendment.

The third amendment was offered by Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) and it said that human-caused climate change is a threat to public health and welfare. Again, the vote was 21-31 with all Republicans voting against the scientific consensus. 

It should be made clear that the US National Academies of Sciences last year noted that:

A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems….

In addition, recent studies have documented that very nearly all active climate researchers concur that the planet is warming and greenhouse gases are the predominant factor.  Also, the most recent IPCC report, the National Academies of all of the major countries of the world, and pretty much all of the major scientific organizations on the planet concur that the climate is changing and that human activity is the major cause.  The US National Academies called it "settled fact."  So when Republicans unanimously vote against basic scientific principles they are in fact voting to deny the science.

Read more about the vote in articles in The Hill and Politico.

How to help the earthquake and tsunami victims in Japan

The Associated Press lists some ways to help victims of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan.  Please do all you can.

— AMERICAN RED CROSS — U.S. mobile phone users can text REDCROSS to 90999 to add $10 automatically to your phone bill. Or visit http://www.redcross.org or call 1-800-RED-CROSS.

— INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL CORPS — Sending relief teams and supplies to the area. Call 1-800-481-4462, or visit http://internationalmedicalcorps.org .

— SAVE THE CHILDREN — The relief effort providing food, medical care and education to children is accepting donations through mobile phones by texting JAPAN to 20222 to donate $10. People can also call 1-800-728-3843 during business hours or visit www.savethechildren.org/japanquake to donate online.

— GLOBAL GIVING — The non-profit which works through grassroots efforts says Americans can text JAPAN to 50555 to give $10 through their phone bill. Or visit http://www.globalgiving.org/ .

— INTERACTION — The group is the largest alliance of U.S.-based international nongovernmental organizations and lists many ways to help on its site, http://www.interaction.org .

— NETWORK FOR GOOD — The aggregator of charities has a list of programs and ways to donate to relief efforts. Visit http://www.networkforgood.org.

European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) Meets Deadline for Chemical Dossier Completeness Checks

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has reported that it has met its statutory obligation to finish "completeness checks" on chemical dossiers submitted for REACH registration.  REACH required ECHA to complete these reviews within three months following the deadline, which for the first group was November 30, 2010.  The completeness check requirement applies only to registrations for phase-in substances submitted in the last two months before the first registration deadline.  A total of 15,366 dossiers were submitted during that two month period.  According to ECHA:

Registration numbers have been granted for 20 175 of the 20 723 dossiers that were submitted by the first registration deadline, resulting in a total of 3 483 phase-in substances being registered under REACH. Dissemination of information from these dossiers has been accelerated.

The completeness check is only to "check that all required elements have been provided," i.e., that some data are there.  Much of this check is done automatically and registrants can pre-check their dossiers using a Technical Completeness Check (TCC) tool made available to all via the ECHA web site.  ECHA then repeats the TCC upon receipt and also may check other business rules.  This completeness check is different from a compliance check, which involves ECHA staff actually reviewing the substance of the data submitted.

Information about the chemicals registered and access to dossiers once they have been disseminated can be found here.

Chemical Industry Calls for Improvements to US Regulatory System

Representatives from the chemical industry called on Congress to improve the federal regulatory system," including a requirement for cumulative impact assessments of proposed rules, to protect U.S. innovation, investment and jobs."  Testifying before the House Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight & Government Spending (yes, it's a long title), American Chemistry Council (ACC) Vice President of Regulatory and Technical Affairs Michael Walls noted:

"If manufacturing is to make a significant contribution to economic recovery, including the creation and maintenance of well-paying jobs, it is imperative that we have an accurate understanding of the impact of proposed regulations on industry.  The full regulatory burden for a particular sector can only be known if the cumulative impact of overlapping regulations is identified."

In particular, Walls indicated that industry felt “the lack of cumulative impact assessments is a fundamental shortcoming in the way government agencies develop and evaluate proposed rules.”  According to the ACC press release, Walls offered four recommendations to improve the economic analysis of proposed rules:

1. Conduct cumulative impact assessments to identify the full regulatory burden being created by a proposed rule.
2. Track the sectors affected by new regulations so the most heavily regulated sectors can be easily identified and regulations can be streamlined appropriately.
3. Seek input from the businesses that will be affected before developing rules in order to better understand the effects that a potential rule may have.
4. Conduct a more comprehensive analysis of the impact of a proposed rule on jobs that considers the type and quality of jobs being affected.  

More information, including Walls' testimony (PDF), can be found on the ACC web site.

US House Hearing Today on Climate Science - With (Mostly) Actual Climate Scientists

Today, March 8, 2011, there will be a hearing of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power entitled "Climate Science and EPA's Greenhouse Gas Regulations."  The subcommittee is a part of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, now chaired by Republican Fred Upton.  Upton was responding to a request by former chair and now ranking member Democrat Henry Waxman requesting "a hearing on the science of climate change" prior to moving forward on Republican attempts to craft legislation restricting EPA's ability to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases.  Author and Blogger Chris Mooney points out that Democrats wanted even more scientists to testify, and that former subcommittee chair Bobby Rush had noted in the hearing Upton had called last month "Don't you find it strange that this hearing is being conducted with no scientists at all?" 

So unlike past hearings in which Republicans called as witnesses non-scientists like fiction writer Michael Crichton and professional speaker Lord Viscount Christopher Monckton, as well as industry scientists such as the Cato Institute's Pat Michaels, this hearing will have a full set of actual practicing climate scientists to testify.  While it is nice to see that the committee will rely on scientists for input on the science, the line up does tend to represent, as Joe Romm put it, "the usual suspects," presumably because the number of actual climate scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus is pretty limited.

The invited witnesses are:

Dr. John R. Christy
Director, Earth System Science Center
University of Alabama in Huntsville

Dr. Christopher Field
Director, Department of Global Ecology
Carnegie Institution of Washington
Stanford, CA

Dr. Knute Nadelhoffer
Director, University of Michigan Biological Station
University of Michigan

Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr.
Senior Research Scientist,
Cooperative Institute for Research in
Environmental Sciences
University of Colorado at Boulder

Dr. Donald Roberts
Professor Emeritus,
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
Bethesda, MD

Dr. Richard Somerville
Distinguished Professor Emeritus,
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego

Dr. Francis W. Zwiers
Director, Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium
University of Victoria
Victoria, British Columbia

While most are climate scientists, the inclusion of Dr. Roberts is rather puzzling since he is a medical doctor and retired professor of health sciences who is most notable for his writings supporting the use of DDT.  For the rest who actually study climate, all agree that the planet is warming and that human activity is a major factor, though perhaps some equivocate on the degree of human influence.

For those in Washington DC, the hearing will take place at 10:00 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.  A webcast will be posted on the Committee's web site.

Public Comment Period Open for Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory

Last week in the February 28 edition of the Federal Register, EPA announced the availability of the draft 1990-2009 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory.  The public can now offer comments by March 25, 2011.
The document summarizes "the latest information on U.S. anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission trends from 1990 through 2009" and are "presented by source category and sector."  The inventory contains estimates of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) emissions.

This emissions inventory is critical for understanding and developing policy options to address climate change.  According to the Executive Summary, the inventory adheres to both

1) a comprehensive and detailed set of methodologies for estimating sources and sinks of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and

2) a common and consistent mechanism that enables Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to compare the relative contribution of different emission sources and greenhouse gases to climate change.

The full draft inventory report is available on EPA's dedicated web page, where it can be looked at by chapter online or downloaded as PDF documents.  The linked web page explains how to submit comments.

Comments will be accepted from the public up to March 25, 2011, though comments received after that date will be incorporated into the next edition.