Maine Takes a Look at its Chemical Control Law - Is the Kid-Safe Products Act a Goner?

In 2008 lawmakers in the state of Maine passed a law that "enables Maine environmental regulators to recommend bans on potentially hazardous chemicals in consumer products used by children." Called the Kid-Safe Products Act, the law is now getting another look as critics argue that it "is another example of over-regulation stifling business growth in Maine."  Proponents argue that the law "protects children from harmful chemicals."

Now lawmakers are considering two new bills that would modify the original law, for better or worse depending on who you ask.  As the Bangor Daily News (BDN) reports, one of the bills would:

...either add some flexibility to an over-reaching law that discourages business growth or essentially render toothless a statute that protects Maine children from toxic chemicals.

The other bill would adjust the requirements of the law such Maine DEP "would identify 50 to 100 high-priority chemicals for additional scrutiny."  The current law stipulates a list of 1,751 'chemicals of high concern' that many are concerned hamper business investment.  Needless to say the discussion brings out the usual differences between environmental and health advocacy groups and the business community, in particular the Maine Chamber of Commerce.  As Kevin Miller notes in his BDN article:

The Maine State Chamber of Commerce has played a significant — and controversial — role in generating support for Hamper’s bill.

In an “action alert” to members and supporters, the Maine State Chamber of Commerce stated that the definition of a “children’s product” in the law encompasses “any item sold for residential or commercial use” in Maine, including packaging or components.

But critics accuse the Chamber of intentionally misleading members by leaving out the rest of the definition. Children’s products, according to the law, are consumer products “intended for use by children … and any consumer product containing a chemical of high concern that when used or disposed of will likely result in a child’s or a fetus’s being exposed to that chemical.”

Defenders of the Kid-Safe Products Act also accused the Chamber of causing undue concern by suggesting that the law gives the DEP broad powers to ban chemicals when, in actuality, the Legislature has final say on any proposed prohibitions.

Kevin Miller's Bangor Daily News article can be read in full here.

Chris Mooney -Are Scientists Ignorant About Ignorance...When It Comes to Understanding How Climate Denial Works?

Many have probably heard of Chris Mooney, the columnist, blogger and author of several books including "The Republican War on Science" and "Unscientific America" (co-authored with scientist Sheril Kirshenbaum).  He has in the past said that scientists need to get out and talk to the public more.  But today in his column in the blog called Desmogblog Mooney suggests that scientists have to have a better understanding of how climate denial, and science denial in general, works.  It isn't so much about ignorance.  He notes:

As anyone who reads DeSmogBlog knows very well, the top climate skeptics are, you know, scientists. They are not ignorant of the scientific method. They may cleverly twist and abuse its findings, perhaps, but they all learned it, and were awarded advanced degrees for doing so. These are not “poorly educated people” we're dealing with. Not remotely.

I think he may be giving too much credit to "skeptics" as opposed to "denialists," but he makes the case that there are actually skeptics who are scientists and they are most certainly not ignorant of how science works. Mooney goes on to say:

And as for the nonscientist citizens who encounter the climate debate, and don’t know what to think? They may be confused, but it doesn’t make them ignorant about the scientific method. They also may be deflated, uncertain about what’s true—because the media is not doing its job of adjudicating.

Mooney makes a good point, but may also be conflating separate issues here.  As he suggests, there are non-scientists out there who do have enough of an understanding of the scientific method to be able to intellectually understand the scientific principles.  That, however, doesn't mean there aren't also people who have no clue about science, method or otherwise.  Still, one must assume that those who are capable of understanding must intentionally have chosen not to understand the science.  Or perhaps more likely, to simply have chosen to deny the science.

Which presents scientists with the problem facing many scientists, i.e., "frustrated not only by the persistence, but by the powerful resurgence of climate denial, many scientists are outraged."  Outrage in itself rarely succeeds in winning over the public.  And yet scientists must ensure that the science isn't misrepresented by those in denial either, as this carries over to honest, hard working, yet non-scientific members of society who want to do what is right but truly can't separate the wheat from the chaff.

Hopefully Mooney in future columns will explore this issue further.  It will definitely be a topic of this blog in the future.

Read Chris Mooney's full Desmogblog article here.

Newspapers and Two former EPA Administrators Speak Out Against GOP Attacks on EPA Authority

As most of us are aware, there is an effort underway by the Republican-led House of Representatives to restrict the ability of the USEPA to regulate, in particular EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  I came across a post on the climate blog Climate Progress that compiles several of the most recent editorials by newspapers, as well as an Op-Ed by two former EPA Administrators appointed by Republican Presidents.

In the latter, former EPA Administrators William Ruckelshaus (appointed by Ronald Reagan) and Christine Todd Whitman (a former NJ Republican Governor and appointed by George W. Bush) decry:

Today the agency President Richard Nixon created in response to the public outcry over visible air pollution and flammable rivers is under siege. The Senate is poised to vote on a bill that would, for the first time, “disapprove” of a scientifically based finding, in this case that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. 

These two Administrators point out that:

This finding was extensively reviewed by officials in the administrations of presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. It was finalized by the Environmental Protection Agency in response to a 2007 Supreme Court decision that greenhouse gases fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. 

Rather than engage in an honest and responsible debate on possible policy solutions, House Republicans have instead chosen to deny the science in order to avoid responsibility.  In their Op-Ed, Ruckelshaus and Whitman remind Congress that the people demanded EPA deal with the sources of the pollution that had given us air we could see and rivers that caught fire.  Actions taken by Congress (e.g., passing the Clean Air Act), the President (Nixon created the EPA by Executive Order), and the EPA through responsible regulations have given us cleaner and safer air and water along with a host of other changes that protect our health and environment.  The Administrators say:

It has taken four decades to put in place the infrastructure to ensure that pollution is controlled through limitations on corporate, municipal and individual conduct. Dismantle that infrastructure today, and a new one would have to be created tomorrow at great expense and at great sacrifice to America’s public health and environment. The American public will not long stand for an end to regulations that have protected their health and quality of life. 

Links to newspaper editorials can be found on the Climate Progress site.  Climate Progress is run by Dr. Joseph Romm, a former Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy during the Clinton Administration.

EPA Declassifies Previously Confidential Health and Safety Study Information

Following through on its efforts to increase transparency, the USEPA last week declassified the chemical identities of a total of 42 health and safety studies.  Sounds all CIA and spy-ish, doesn't it.  Previously the chemical identity for each of these studies was considered protected by confidential business information (CBI).  Now the public can not only see the studies but know on what chemicals the studies were done.

According to EPA's press release, "in 2010, EPA both challenged industry to declassify unwarranted CBI claims and issued new guidance on EPA's review and declassification process for confidentiality claims for the identity of a chemical in health and safety studies."  So "the posted declassifications of confidentiality claims are the result of both the Agency's and industry's review of CBI claims."

EPA plans to post CBI declassifications on its web site "on a regular basis."  Almost all of the studies had been submitted as part of Section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This section of the law "requires U.S. chemical manufacturers, importers, processors, and distributors to notify EPA immediately after obtaining information on any of their chemical substances or mixtures that reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment. 8(e) notices should be submitted within 30 calendar days after obtaining information that a substance or mixture presents a substantial risk."  In other words, any information suggesting substantial risk.

More information and a list of the documents being declassified can be found here.

Industry is wary of the declassifications, noting that confidential business information protections are needed to keep competitors from finding out what chemicals go into various products.  The NGO, Environmental Defense Fund, on the other hand, welcomed the release.  As EDF scientist Richard Denison put it:

I am very glad to see EPA's payment of this first dividend on its promise to ensure that health and safety information submitted under TSCA is, as Congress clearly intended, made publicly available — including the identity of the chemicals to which the information pertains.  EPA needs also to provide the public with the means to track the status of EPA's challenges, reviews and determinations pertaining to the legitimacy of CBI claims, and of industry's compliance with or challenges to EPA's noble effort...As this effort proceeds, let's hope it reaches the hundreds or thousands of other studies that should have been made public long ago.

 

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.