Environmental Groups Sue ECHA for Refusing to Release Names of Chemical Manufacturers

Two European environmental groups have sued the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) for refusing to release the names of chemical manufacturers and importers of some of the most hazardous chemicals in the EU.  The lawsuit claims "several violations of European laws designed to promote transparency, democracy, and legitimacy in EU policy-making."  ChemSec, a Swedish-based NGO, was joined by environmental law organization ClientEarth in filing the suit.

The chemicals in question are the 356 chemicals on ChemSec's "SIN (Substitute it Now!) list."

The list comprises chemicals identified as Substances of Very High Concern under the EU chemicals regulation REACH. These are chemicals that can cause cancer, damage our reproductive system, or alter our DNA, as well as toxic substances that accumulate in nature with serious and long-term irreversible effects.

Last week I reported that ChemSec had added 22 chemicals to their SIN list based on their potential endocrine disruption effects.  Under the EU chemical control law, REACH, ECHA is required to give special attention to these "substances of very high concern." In their lawsuit, ChemSec and ClientEarth argue that:

ECHA has a track record of being slow to disclose information about chemicals; pressure from the chemicals industry has so far been successful in making delays characteristic of the Agency's approach, despite this policy's clear contravention of REACH and EU principles established for almost 20 years.

According to Vito Buonsante, toxics lawyer at ClientEarth: 

The public’s right to information on chemicals is a basic principle of the REACH Regulation. ECHA must not be allowed to withhold information on such a critical issue, especially as it relates to chemicals found in consumer products and present in the EU in large quantities. We have exhausted all avenues to make ECHA meet its transparency obligations and are now compelled to go to court.

More information on the lawsuit can be found on the ChemSec and ClientEarth web pages.

Senate Introduces Bill to Merge and/or Abolish EPA and Department of Energy

Republican Senator Richard Burr (North Carolina) introduced a bill last week that would "consolidate the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency into a single, new agency called the Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE)."  Senator Burr and fifteen other Republican co-sponsors argue that "the bill would provide cost savings by combining duplicative functions while improving the administration of energy and environmental policies by ensuring a coordinated approach."

Others suggest that this is merely an attempt to further gut the EPA.  Republicans in the House and Senate alike have been trying since gaining the majority in the House last fall to block any efforts of the EPA to engage in the regulation in which current laws mandate they engage.  Most notably has been the attempt to halt EPA efforts to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. 

One vocal critic of the bill is Joseph Romm, who writes the blog Climate Progress. Romm was "Acting Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, in charge of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy during 1997 and as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary from August 1995 through June 1998, and Special Assistant for Policy and Planning from 1993 to July 1995."  So while Senator Burr suggests he seeks to reduce duplicative functions, Romm states:

So I can state with a great deal of confidence that DOE and EPA are utterly different agencies that have no meaningful duplicative functions.  [emphasis in original]

The list of the bill's co-sponsors is a tip-off to the real purpose of the bill.  All have been what Romm calls "global warming deniers" vying for the very conservative voting blocks in their home states.

The fate of the bill is uncertain.  Should the bill gain traction in the Senate, which is barely majority Democratic, it would likely be passed as is in the Republican-controlled House, thus leaving it up to President Obama to sign or veto.  Given the general trend toward fiscal austerity, it is highly likely that such a merger would result in severe underfunding, and ineffectiveness, for both agencies.  Which is apparently the goal given multiple past attempts to restrict each from taking any action on some of the most important long-term issues now facing the US and the world.  It's groundhog day all over again.

The Economist Demands Funding for Innovation to be Restored

The Economist, America's foremost "authoritative insight and opinion on international news, politics, business, finance, science and technology," is calling for the reinstatement of funding for the US Patent Office.  In an online editorial the magazine argues that Congress' rush to reduce funding stifles the very innovations that they profess the desire to encourage.

So how come Congress and the White House have decided not merely to underfund a crucial cog in American’s innovation machine but actually to take away revenue it earns?

According to The Economist, there are "more than 700,000" backlogged patent applications.  And "on average, hopeful inventors wait for two years until their applications are even considered. Ten months more may go by before they learn whether they have been successful. While they wait for a decision, the American economy is losing out."

They argue that it makes no sense to further slow the process. 

The backlog extends the uncertainty that the process causes to businesses, applicants and competitors alike, slowing investment and constraining the economy. 

But it doesn't stop there.  Congress has also been considering other patent reforms.  For example, one reform would "let the Patent Office determine its own fees and keep all the money that it collects."  This could help it reduce the backlog of applications.  And more importantly, both stimulate more inventors to innovate and speed up the process of getting those innovations to the people who can use them (perhaps to make even more innovations).

The article can be read in full in the online edition of The Economist.

Endosulfan to be Banned Under the Stockholm Convention

The widely used insecticide endosulfan is now on a path to be phased out and eventually banned under the Stockholm Convention, which is an international agreement designed to limit the use of chemicals that are considered persistent organic pollutants.  The decision was made in Geneva, Switzerland during meetings of the "Conference of the parties" held April 25-29, 2011. 

The Parties agreed to list endosulfan in Annex A to the Convention, with specific exemptions. When the amendment to the Annex A enters into force in one year, endosulfan will become the 22nd POP to be listed under the Convention. 

Annex A listing means that production, use, import, and export of the substance is banned.  This decision is a follow up to the recommendation by the POPs committee last fall.

The exemptions include a relatively long list of special cases requested by the two biggest users of endosulfan, i.e., India and China.  Endosulfan has been banned in about 80 countries because it is considered by many to be highly acutely toxic and an endocrine disrupter, as well as potentially very bioaccumulative.  The ban will take effect in 2012, with about 5 extra years available for the special case exemptions and to allow time to identify and develop safer alternatives.

More information is on the Stockholm Convention site.

NGO Adds 22 More "Endocrine Disrupter" Chemicals to its SIN List

An international chemical secretariat, Chemsec, has released an update to its "Substitute it Now!" list, aka, SIN List.  The first SIN list contained 356 chemicals that the NGO felt qualified as "substances of very high concern."  SIN 2.0 adds another 22 substances based solely on "their endocrine disrupting properties."  Chemsec argues that many of these are "commonly found in toys, food packaging, and cosmetics." According to their press release:

Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) can interfere with our hormone system and have been increasingly linked to a range of health problems including cancer, diabetes, behavioural and attention deficit disorders, as well as impaired fertility. We are all exposed to a range of EDCs via everyday consumer products as well as via food and water.

Chemsec believes that EDCs pose a significant threat to human health, and that while the EU has committed to addressing this threat, they have "so far not properly regulated their use.  Chemsec notes that hundreds of chemicals are considered of high concern, the EU has so far only designated 46 "substances of very high concern" under the REACH chemical control law, and of those, not a single one was listed specifically for their endocrine disrupting properties.


More information on the 22 new chemicals added to SIN 2.0 can be found on Chemsec's web site.

The list of 22 can be viewed here as a PDF file.

Chemsec's full SIN List database can be searched here.

ECHA Explains How Companies Can Apply for Chemical Substance Authorization Under REACH

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) held a seminar on April 12, 2011 to guide companies in how to apply for REACH authorization of chemicals placed on Annex XIV.  Now they have made the seminar presentations available online for all to download.  The seminar "was primarily targeted to potential applicants for an authorisation, and in particular for the first substances included in the Authorisation List, as well as the substances in ECHA's second recommendation for the inclusion of substances in the Authorisation List."

According to ECHA, about 40 people participated in the seminar.

The seminar agenda can be viewed here.  Topics included the content requirements for the Authorization application, the tools and guidance available from ECHA, and then an open discussion period where ECHA representatives and presenters answered questions.

The seminar presentations can be downloaded here.

European Chemical Association Establishes Five REACH/CLP Platforms

The online publication, Chemical Watch, has noted that the European Chemical Industry Council, better known as Cefic, has undertaken an internal restructuring in order to best handle the changing needs of its REACH and CLP industry clients.


According to Chemical Watch, Cefic's new "platforms and their responsibilities" are:

• Registration – focusing on guidance and registration related topics for the next deadline in June 2013 and issues relating to SMEs.
• Dossier Compliance – embracing the aspects of evaluation, including the dossier compliance check and testing proposals, and enforcement.
• Restrictions and authorisation – looking at different aspects ranging from the initial proposals set out in Annex XV dossiers, through to Annex XIV Candidate List proposals and the granting of authorisations, which Mr Annys notes is now starting to be discussed in detail. He said the ECHA authorisation workshop earlier this month was a good first exchange of information and opportunity to understand what ECHA and the Commission expected companies include in their authorisation applications. He predicted that the newness and complexity of the process would likely mean the bulk of applications will come closer to the application date, rather than earlier on. He adds that the upcoming substance evaluation process, set to begin in 2012, will likely be closely related to the authorisation and restriction.
• CLP and GHS – dealing with issues such as harmonised classification and labelling, how to develop common C&Ls, and safety data sheets.
• Global Product Strategy – to fulfil industry’s commitment to meet the requirements of the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management

More information on Cefic's changes can be found in the Chemical Watch article (available at the above link by subscription only) and on the Cefic site.

More information about the publication, Chemical Watch, can be found on their web site.

EPA Heralds 2500 "Safer Products" Under Design for the Environment Program

Last week, "as part of the Earth Day 2011 tribute," the USEPA announced that "more than 2,500 products are now authorized by the agency under its Design for the Environment (DfE) Safer Product Labeling Program."  These products now can display the DfE label, which signifies that they "do not contain known chemicals of potential concern, like carcinogens, reproductive or developmental toxicants."  And coming shortly, says EPA, will be a requirement for "manufacturers with products that bear the DfE logo to disclose their ingredients to consumers."

According to Assistant Administrator Steve Owens in the press release:

“EPA’s DfE Program helps empower people to choose products that are safer for their families and our planet. The DfE program provides important information about the safety of certain products that contain chemicals and gives consumers confidence that DfE products meet rigorous requirements.”

As part of the DfE program, EPA "conducts a scientific evaluation to ensure that candidate products are formulated from the safest possible ingredients," then works with manufacturers to find safer alternatives. The DfE label "means that EPA has screened each ingredient for potential human health and environmental effects and that the product contains only ingredients that, in EPA’s scientific opinion, pose the least concern among chemicals in their class."

More information on the DfE Safer Product Labeling Program and Standard for Safer Products can be found at: http://epa.gov/dfe.

National Research Council Recommends Climate Change and Other Research Plans for the Oceans

The National Research Council (NRC), part of the National Academies of Sciences, has issued a report recommending several actions related to ocean research.  According to the report, "the United States has jurisdiction over 3.4 million square miles of ocean in its exclusive economic zone," which "represents a prime national domain for activities such as maritime transportation, national security, energy and mineral extraction, fisheries and aquaculture, and tourism and recreation." But the NRC notes that "the 2010 Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the 2011 Japanese earthquake and tsunami are vivid reminders that ocean activities and processes have direct human implications both nationally and worldwide, understanding of the ocean system is still incomplete, and ocean research infrastructure is needed to support both fundamental research and societal priorities."

The report, Critical Infrastructure for Ocean Research and Societal Needs in 2030, "identifies major research questions anticipated to be at the forefront of ocean science in 2030 based on national and international assessments, input from the worldwide scientific community, and ongoing research planning activities." It "defines categories of infrastructure that should be included in planning for the nation's ocean research infrastructure of 2030 and that will be required to answer the major research questions of the future."

Ocean research infrastructure supports both fundamental and applied scientific research that addresses urgent societal concerns such as climate change, human health, domestic offshore energy production, national security, marine shipping, tsunami detection and severe storm tracking, sustainable fisheries and aquaculture growth, and changes in marine ecosystem services. However, significant components of national infrastructure are aged, obsolete, or insufficient to meet growing societal demand for scientific information to enable safe, efficient, and environmentally sustainable use of the ocean. A comprehensive range of ocean research infrastructure will be needed to overcome these challenges, and more interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research will require a growing suite of infrastructure.

The report can be ordered from the National Academy Press.  A summary and a "report in brief" can also be read online or downloaded as a PDF file.

Pediatricians Call for Overhaul of TSCA Chemical Law

Industry, NGOs and States have all offered their reaction to Senator Lautenberg's introduction of the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011.  And now the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is calling for "an overhaul of the nation’s chemical management policy."  According to the AAP, "the current system fails to protect children and pregnant women, who are most vulnerable to hazardous chemical exposures."

The AAP notes that the current chemical control law – the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) – has "not undergone any meaningful revision since it was first passed in 1976, and since then, the TSCA has been used to regulate only five chemicals or chemical classes."  The organization, which includes 60,000 pediatricians as members, published a policy statement in the May 2011 issue of Pediatrics that calls for chemical control policy in the US to be “substantially revised” to "consider the consequences on children and their families." Among the AAP's recommendations:

• The regulation of chemicals must be based on evidence, but decisions to ban chemicals should be based on reasonable levels of concern rather than demonstrated harm. 
• Any testing of chemicals should include the impact on women and children, including potential effects on reproduction and development.
• Chemicals should meet safety standards similar to those met by pharmaceuticals or pesticide residues on food.
• There should be post-marketing surveillance of chemicals, and the EPA must have the authority to remove a chemical if needed.
• Federal funding should be provided for research to prevent, identify and evaluate the effects of chemicals on children’s health.

The policy statement can be found here.

States Offer Their Reaction to Lautenberg's Safe Chemical Act

Last week Senator Frank Lautenberg introduced the 2011 version of his Safe Chemicals Act.  I have already given an introduction of the bill, the NGO reaction and Industry reaction.  Today we take a look at the reaction from the states.  On Wednesday the heads of the environmental protection agencies of several states issued a group press release commending Lautenberg "for introducing comprehensive legislation that reforms the 35-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)."  They represent the states of California, Illinois, Oregon, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington.

Overall, the states were very supportive...and in fact, very demanding...of a federal level modernization of TSCA.  According to Ted Sturdevant, Director of the Washington State Department of Ecology:

"We need a fix at the federal level so that we don’t have to do this in the states. States have limited resources and lack the tools of federal agencies to drive a national program. However, until we have a national solution, we will continue to act on chemical safety concerns in our states."

Like Washington State, California has been trying to deal with toxic chemical issues in the absence of an adequate federal law.  According to Linda Adams, Secretary of California EPA:

“In the absence of a unifying approach, interest groups and policy makers have been attempting to take these issues on one-by-one. We need a coordinated, comprehensive national strategy.  As we work toward these national reforms, California will continue to move ahead with its comprehensive green chemistry policy.”

Regulators in other states chimed in with similar stories.  All of them support a modernized TSCA that would, among other things:

• Give EPA the authority to establish chemical safety standards and to take risk management actions when chemicals fail to meet those standards. 
• Shift the burden to industry to demonstrate that chemicals meet safety standards.
• Make available to the public more data and information now claimed as confidential.
• Permit the sharing of confidential information with state regulators.
• Provide for an enhanced state role in implementing the federal law and improved state/federal coordination.

More information on states' reaction to the Lautenberg bill can be found in the combined press release (e.g., this one from the State of Maryland).

Industry Reaction to Lautenberg's Latest Iteration of Safe Chemicals Act

Last week I noted that Senator Frank Lautenberg introduced his Safe Chemicals Act of 2011, which is an updated version of the bill he introduced in the last Congress.  It incorporates much of the feedback received from a wide variety of stakeholders last year.  On Tuesday I provided some of the initial reactions from NGOs, most notably from Richard Denison of EDF.  Denison hoped that this bill would be a starting point for serious discussions that would lead to modernization of the 35-year old TSCA law.  Today I note some of the industry reactions to Lautenberg's bill.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC), which represents most of the largest chemical manufacturers in the country, offered a mixed early reaction.  According to ACC President Cal Dooley:

ACC supported many of the goals and objectives of the senator's legislation in the last Congress, but his earlier proposal was inconsistent with the principles that we have set out for a successful TSCA modernization in several important respects. Further, the bill contained provisions that would not have produced the benefits intended by its authors. Unfortunately, it appears many of our concerns have not been addressed in this new version, and the bill introduced today could put American innovation and jobs at risk.

The Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) also felt that the bill was an improvement but that it still left many concerns unanswered.  According to CSPA President Chris Cathcart:

The new bill introduced today moves in the right direction as it seeks to adopt important concepts of prioritization and tiered minimum data set requirements.  These two elements, along with the preservation of a risk based system, are essential components of any workable regulatory framework under TSCA.  However, we remain concerned about other sections of the bill, including its approach on Reporting and Declarations, the protection of confidential business information (CBI) and the safety standard. A bi-partisan dialogue can resolve these issues.

The industry/free market advocacy group American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) made no pretense of liking parts of the bill, with its President Elizabeth Whelan asserting:

This law is based on the premise that trace level exposure to chemicals is hazardous to health. Sen. Lautenberg is trying to ‘protect’ us from these chemicals, but there’s absolutely no evidence they have harmed humans or the environment.

The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA) seemed more concerned over the bills impact on the economy than health and safety.  According to NPRA President Charles Drevna:

NPRA acknowledges Senator Lautenberg's efforts to exclude chemical mixtures from certain requirements and to incorporate some risk-based parameters into the proposed regulatory process. The draft bill, however, would give EPA unprecedented authority over the American economy, allowing the agency to make decisions on what materials can and cannot be used in manufacturing without requiring scientific justification for those decisions. The bill would also give EPA greater authority to force companies to spend enormous sums of money on animal testing, regardless of the likelihood or extent of potential human exposure to particular materials. 

So what next? It seems that both NGOs and industry see improvement over last year's version of Lautenberg's bill, but will there be a willingness to move forward on the common ground established in an effort to actually put a TSCA reform bill into law?

The ball is in the middle of the court.  Now we have to wait to see if any team wants to show up and play.

Is the Lautenberg Safe Chemicals Act A Jump Start on Serious Discussions About TSCA Reform?

As I noted last week, Senator Frank Lautenberg has introduced the 2011 version of his Safe Chemicals Act.  The question at that time was whether the bill would end up in the same place as the 2010 bill, that is, nowhere.  Some, but not all, industry organizations found positive changes made in the bill.  Now at least one NGO is hoping that the changes will jump start serious discussions and engage industry in finding a path forward for what all parties agree is a need to reform the 35 year old Toxic Substances Control Act.

Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has expressed his hope that "this bill, with its enhancements, will push the reset button on the stalled discussion over TSCA reform, and bring all of the parties to the table for an honest dialogue on how we can finally bring this vital law into the modern era."  He further states:

It is in everyone’s interest – health advocates and industry alike – to restore market, consumer and public confidence in the safety of chemicals.

Denison offers the following highlights of the changes made in the new bill:

• It establishes an orderly process that categorizes chemicals into high-, some- and low-concern classes and directs those chemicals along specific paths of action.
• It requires expedited action be taken to reduce exposure to chemicals of high concern – those that are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) to which people are exposed.
• It calls for EPA to identify and prioritize chemicals requiring safety determinations, and tie the pace of that activity to EPA’s capacity to expeditiously make these needed determinations.
• It clarifies that EPA would tailor minimum data requirements to different types or classes of chemicals, while still ensuring that basic safety information is provided in a timely manner for all chemicals.
• It clarifies that States receiving confidential business information (CBI) must have an agreement in place to ensure the information is kept confidential.
• It ensures that State governments have a right to take actions that are different from or in addition to those under TSCA, unless compliance with both the TSCA and the State requirement or standard is impossible.

He has even put together a handy table providing a "side-by-side" comparison of the 2010 and 2011 versions of the bill.

So will this bill stimulate some honest discussion? While Denison and others hope so, it seems unlikely in this divided Congress with a critical presidential and congressional election already looming in the minds of incumbents and contenders alike.  Especially since there is a good chance the Senate will switch parties next year.  Still, since all parties agree that change is needed, it will be interesting to see if they put in a serious effort or just give it lip service.

ECHA REACH News - Companies Must Notify Substances of Very High Concern by June 1, 2011

For those who thought their REACH obligations were over after diligently registering their substances last fall and notifying their classifications by January...wrong.  ECHA has issued a press release reminding companies that they must notify the Agency "if any Substance of Very High Concern (SVHC) included on the candidate lists is present in their articles above the threshold of 0.1% weight by weight and if the quantity of such substance in those articles is over 1 tonne per producer/importer per year."

The Candidate List is a list of substances that have been officially identified as being of very high concern due to their hazardous properties in relation to the environment and/or human health. Companies will have to notify ECHA of the presence of such a substance in their articles not later than 6 months after the inclusion of such a substance in the Candidate List. For those substances included in the Candidate List by 1 December 2010, the relevant notifications have to be submitted not later than 1 June 2011. 

ECHA recently updated their online submission tool REACH-IT to allow the submission of notifications for substances in articles. They have also prepared a new Data Submission Manual for substances in articles, which can be downloaded as a PDF file here.


More information about the deadline and requirements can be found on the ECHA web site.