ECHA Calls for Comment on 10 Chemicals to be Banned

ECHA, the European Chemicals Agency based in Helsinki, issued a request for comment yesterday on proposals to ban ten additional chemicals under the Authorization phase of REACH.  All of the chemicals have been on the "candidate list" of Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC).  Currently there are 84 substances on the candidate list, of which 14 have already been placed in Annex XIV for eventual removal from the marketplace.  The first sunset date is in early 2013, pending applications for authorization from manufacturers who want to keep the chemical on the market while they develop alternatives.

The ten chemicals out for public comment are:

• Pentazinc chromate octahydroxide 
• Arsenic acid
• Formaldehyde, oligometric reaction products with aniline (technical MDA)
• Potassium hyroxyoctaoxodizincated dichromate
• Strontium chromate
• 1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC)
• Dichromium tris(chromate)
• 2,2'-dichloro-4,4'-methylenedianiline (MOCA)
• N,N-Dimethylacetamide (DMAC)
• Bis(2-methoxyethyl) ether (Diglyme)

According to ECHA, interested parties may submit comments on the draft recommendation by September 19, 2012.


More information can be found on the ECHA site.

Australia IMAP Lists 3000 "Stage One" Chemicals for Assessment

The Australian chemicals agency, which goes by NICNAS, has announced that it will implement its new Inventory Multi-tiered Assessment and Prioritisation (IMAP) framework "in a staged manner." Beginning July 2012, "NICNAS will begin assessing around 3,000 existing chemicals," which are now designated “Stage One chemicals.”

The characteristics used to identify "stage one" chemicals are listed in the table on the NICNAS site and include a) chemicals for which NICNAS holds exposure data, b) chemicals identified as
a concern or for which action has been taken overseas, and c) chemicals detected in international studies analysing chemicals present in the blood in babies’ umbilical cords.

NICNAS has set up an online searchable database for anyone wishing to find out which chemicals are included in Stage One.

Factsheets on the program can be found here.

ECHA Drops Proposal to Restrict Four Phthalates

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has dropped its plan to restrict the use of four phthalate chemicals. The proposal had been put forth last year on the chemicals commonly called DIBP, DBP, BBP, DEHP.  However, after review an expert committee determined that the proposed restrictions could not be justified, ECHA last week retracted the proposal.


Denmark had asserted in 2011 that the four phthalates could affect sexual development.  The expert committee disagreed - they noted that the "available data does not indicate that there is currently a risk from combined exposure to the four phthalates." The committee also concluded that regulatory actions already being put into place would result in significant reduction of exposures, thus making the proposed restrictions somewhat redundant, yet overly punitive.


The decision is the first time the expert committee has refuted a proposed restriction from ECHA.  


A summary of the Danish report can be read here.

The full proposal can be downloaded here.

Is EPA Ready to Use TSCA Section 6 Again?

Bloomberg BNA is reporting that EPA may be on the verge of pulling out the TSCA Section 6 rulemaking book again, something they haven't touched since 1991 with the failed attempt to regulate asbestos.  The article, penned by long-time Chemical Regulation Reporter writer Pat Rizzuto, notes that the suggestion was made by current Acting Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Jim Jones.

According to Rizzuto, Jones said "We will try and exercise some muscle we have not exercised for decades."

His statements were made at a recent Environmental Council for the States (ECOS) forum.

Use of TSCA Section 6 authority has a high hurdle for EPA, who must demonstrate that the chemical in question poses a significant risk.  Since many existing chemicals often have little health and safety data available to review, and the request for such data requires demonstrating risk (something hard to do without data), the onus of Section 6 has been one of the major driving points for the recent attempts to reform TSCA. 

As has been noted many times here, it seems highly unlikely that Congress will make a serious attempt to pass TSCA reform legislation before the election...despite claims by all stakeholders that they are in favor of modernizing the 36 year old law.  It is perhaps that reality in mind that led to Jim Jones' suggestion - what better way to emphasize the need for TSCA reform than to fail again in using one of its primary authorities?  Perhaps this will give some impetus to Congress to change the law.

And even without Congressional action, maybe, just maybe the EPA can actually address the risks of some chemicals of concern.  As the article notes Jim Jones as saying: "If the chemical is safe, our work will be done."

If it isn't, EPA's work will have just begun.

The Bloomberg BNA article can be read in full here.

EPA Extends Reporting Deadline for Chemical Data Rule

News Flash - The USEPA has announced an extension of the reporting deadline for the CDR (formerly the IUR):

Jim Jones, EPA’s Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, has today signed a Federal Register Notice under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to extend the Chemical Data Rule (CDR) reporting period by six weeks to August 13, 2012, from the original due date of June 30, 2012.

More details are available in the prepublication version of the Federal Register notice.

More on EPA's Work Plan Chemicals for 2013 and 2014

As noted previously, EPA has 18 additional chemicals that it will review and assess in 2013 and 2014. The list builds on the March 2012 release of the Agency’s work plan of 83 chemicals.  All are being assessed under the authority of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  Each of the chemicals met a combination of various selection criteria as defined by EPA, including "specific hazards such as potential carcinogenicity or reproductive or developmental toxicity; chemicals presenting persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic potential; and chemicals found in biomonitoring or reported in consumer products." Other listed chemicals, "such as the five chlorinated hydrocarbons, the three flame retardants, and the four fragrance chemicals, may present an effective opportunity to assess groups of related chemicals together."

Those 18 chemicals are:

•     1-Bromopropane
•     Five Chlorinated Hydrocarbons:
•         1,1-Dichloroethane
•         1,2-Dichloropropane
•         1,2-Dichloroethane
•         1,2-Dichloropropane
•         trans-1-2-Dichloroethylene
•         1,1,2-Trichloroethane
•     4-tert-Octylphenol
•     Three Flame Retardants:
•         Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)-3,4,5,6-tetrabromophthalate (TBPH)
•         2-Ethylhexyl-2,3,4,5-tetrabromobenzoate (TBB)
•         Tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate (TCEP)
•     Four Fragrance Chemicals:
•         Ethanone, 1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-octahydro- 2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl)-4-sec-Butyl-2,6-di-tert-butylphenol
•         Ethanone, 1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-octahydro- 2,3,5,5-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl)-
•         Ethanone, 1-(1,2,3,5,6,7,8,8a-octahydro- 2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl)-
•         Ethanone, 1-(1,2,3,4,6,7,8,8a-octahydro- 2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl)-
•     4-sec-Butyl-2,6-di-tert-butylphenol
•     2,4,6-Tri-tert-butylphenol
•     P,p'-Oxybis(benzenesulfonyl hydrazide)
•     Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4)

While EPA will compile data based on the sources listed in their Work Plan methodology, they would also "welcome the submission of additional relevant information on these chemicals, such as unpublished studies not already available through the existing literature, or information on uses and potential exposures."

Companies are asked to submit any relevant information to the Agency on or before August 31, 2012.

More information can be found on EPA's web site.

EPA Identifies Work Plan Chemicals for 2013 and 2014

From the USEPA:

As part of EPA’s comprehensive approach to enhance the Agency’s chemicals management program, EPA has identified 18 chemicals for review and assessment in 2013 and 2014.  This follows the March release of the Agency’s work plan of 83 chemicals for review and assessment under the Toxic Substances Control Act.  The work plan identified seven chemicals on which the Agency will conduct risk assessments in 2012 and indicated that EPA would identify the 2013 and 2014 chemicals this spring. These draft risk assessments will be posted for public review and comment as they are completed.  

I'll have more analysis on this shortly.

Additional information on this effort, including a list of the 18 chemicals, can be found at on EPA's web site.

Elsevier Discusses "Article of the Future" - Is This Open Access?

In the last post I talked about the efforts of some people to shift published research from the firewalled journal article to an open access format.  The argument is that the public, who indirectly fund a lot of basic scientific research via taxpayer-funded research grants, should have access to the research without having to pay for expensive journal subscriptions.  The blog I linked noted a significant scientific boycott of Elsevier, one of the major scientific journal publishing houses.

Today I'll introduce something that Elsevier is doing to harness the power of online publishing for its scientific journals.  In what they call the "Article of the Future" project, Elsevier notes their "ongoing initiative aiming to revolutionize the traditional format of the academic paper in regard to three key elements: presentation, content and context."  They have provided a short video on their web site as an overview of their progress:




As the video notes, the new access systems significantly enhance the amount of information that can be derived over the traditional "flat page" journal article.  But is it open access?  Not really since a subscription to the journal is still required, or at least access through academic libraries that have purchased online subscriptions for use by students in their individual schools.

So what is the solution?

Calls for Open Access Include a Boycott of Elsevier

Recently there has been a lot of talk about making scientific journals open access.  The argument is that much of science is funded by the taxpayers via government grants, etc., and therefore the public should have access to that research.  As we all know, most scientific research is published in peer-reviewed journals, and those journals are published by companies who obviously require a profit in order to continue to fund publishing the journals.

With the growth of the internet the argument is that costs of publishing have significantly decreased, and in fact many journals no longer even print a hard copy.  Digital rules.  Still, there are costs associated with the process and publishers need to cover those costs in order to remain in business.  No business, they say, no published journal on the internet - digital doesn't create itself.

It's a difficult issue.  Clearly the future of information is online.  So what business model is best for the changing times?

I came across this blog and video that advocates for complete open access and notes a scientist boycott of Elsevier, a publisher of many valuable scientific journals.  Is a boycott fair? Is Elsevier's right to have a profitable business trumped by the public's right to access to knowledge, at least knowledge derived from publicly funded research?  And given full open access, would the public even know what to do with the information presented in scientific journal papers?

What do you all think?

[Note: Tomorrow I will look at what Elsevier is doing to better use the power of the internet to enhance the communication of knowledge]

Lautenberg Joins "Stroller Brigade" to Push for TSCA Chemical Reform

Senator Frank Lautenberg joined a "stroller brigade" of mothers from 30 states yesterday in support of TSCA reform.  This follows on the heels of a call from Senator Dick Durbin to modernize the 36 year old law.  According to Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, the "National Stroller Brigade builds on 30 local events in support of the Safe Chemicals Act, in locations as diverse as Little Rock and Omaha.  Hundreds of moms – many with children in tow – flew or bused into Washington to deliver 130,000 petition signatures to their Senators."

Lautenberg introduced the Safe Chemicals Act in 2011 and some hearings were held in Congress, but no recent action has taken place and very few people think a bill can be passed during this election year.  Even if the bill did pass in the Senate it is unlikely to be taken up in the Republican-controlled House.  The stroller brigade was designed to try to encourage lawmakers to address the issue.

“If there is one overwhelming message from years of science, it’s that exposure to toxic chemicals early in our lives is responsible for some of the cancer, infertility, and other health problems that affect millions of Americans,” said Andy Igrejas of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. “However, Congress has been paralyzed. We’re here to break the gridlock and demand common sense limits on toxic chemicals.”

Lautenberg, Durbin and 14 other co-sponsors of the bill (all Democrats) are trying to get passage during this term.  All parties, including the chemical industry, agree that modernization of TSCA is necessary.  However, industry opposes the current bill. Democrats are frustrated that despite their altering the bill several times to make it more industry-friendly, industry has not sat down with Congressional staff to agree on what features would work for them.  This frustration was palpable during a Senate hearing last year. Industry, on the other hand, feels that the current bill is unworkable and that any TSCA reform bill must essentially start from scratch.

Given that all sides (Government, EPA, NGOs, and Industry) all agree that modernization is necessary, and that substantial reworking of the principles and proposed requirements has occurred as the various bills evolved, it seems that the lack of a successful TSCA reform is due to politics rather than science.

Lautenberg expressed his frustration in his press release:

“It’s shocking that toxic chemicals end up in everyday consumer products, and in our bodies, without anyone proving that they are safe. The stroller brigade is carrying an important message to Congress that we're not going to stand by and let our kids continue to be exposed to chemicals that make them sick.  Concerned moms are the best weapons we have in this fight.  With their help, I will keep advancing the Safe Chemicals Act to reform our broken toxic chemical laws and provide a healthier future for our families.”

Senator Durbin Calls for Passage of Safe Chemicals Act

Illinois Senator Dick Durbin has called upon his colleagues to pass the Safe Chemicals Act, "which would update and modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976." Durbin calls the 36 year old law “antiquated and ineffective” and desperately in need of reform. TSCA governs the regulation of chemicals in the United States with the goal of protecting human health and the environment.

On his web page Durbin notes that:

“The U.S. EPA, wittingly or unwittingly, has allowed the manufacturers of toxic chemicals to flood American households with substances that abundant scientific evidence finds harmful.  The Chicago Tribune series published this week reveals that flame retardant chemicals added to furniture and other household goods are not only useless, but also toxic for our families – especially young children.  The disturbing truth is that flame retardants are only one example of the many toxic substances that have made their way into American homes as a result of self-serving chemical companies and the weak, ineffective federal law that has regulated chemical safety standards since 1976.  We have to come together on a bipartisan basis to pass the Safe Chemicals Act and provide Illinois families with the basic level of safety they expect.”

The Chicago Tribune series he mentions refers to an investigative journalism series published this month that "uncovered flawed testing, products that don’t work, unscrupulous “experts,” shoddy science and stalled government reform." The reporting focused on

The Safe Chemicals Act bill was introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey in April 2011 and remains in limbo with no action.  The last hearing was held in November 2011 and expectations are low that it will be taken up for a vote in this election year.  Even if the bill was passed in the Democratically-held Senate there is virtually no chance the Republican House would consider further regulation.  With the potential for the Republican's to gain control of the Senate in addition to holding the House in the fall, it seems unlikely that TSCA reform has much chance of seeing the light of day for many years, if ever.

Senator Durbin's full press release is available here.

The Chicago Tribune series can be found here.

A statement from the NGO Safer Chemicals Healthy Families can be read here.

A related statement from the American Chemistry Council can be read here.

National Science Board Announces New Leadership Team

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced new leadership for its National Science Board.  Dan Arvizu will take over as the new chairman, Kelvin Droegemeier will be the new vice-chairman, and Carl Lineberger to joing the NSB's Executive Committee.  The changes were announced during the Board's May meeting.

As noted in their press release, "the NSB is made up of 25 Members appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate," however, "the NSB is apolitical." Board members "are drawn from industry and universities, and represent a variety of science and engineering disciplines and geographic areas."  Nominees to the "Board (1) shall be eminent in the fields of the basic, medical, or social sciences, engineering, agriculture, education, research management or public affairs; (2) shall be selected solely on the basis of established records of distinguished service; and (3) shall be so selected as to provide representation of the views of scientific and engineering leaders in all areas of the Nation."

More information can be read on the NSF web site.

EPA Promotes Safer Alternatives to Nonylphenol Ethoxylates

According to the USEPA:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has released the final report on alternatives to nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPE) through the Design for the Environment (DfE) Alternatives Assessment Program. NPEs are widely used surfactants with a range of industrial applications and are commonly found in consumer products, such as laundry detergents. When released into the environment, they can be persistent and highly toxic to aquatic organisms. The report identifies eight safer alternatives to NPE that meet EPA’s criteria for safer surfactants.

“I applaud the product manufacturers who have stopped using NPEs and switched to safer alternatives and the chemical manufacturers who have made the safer alternatives available,” said Jim Jones, acting assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP). “This report shows the important strides that have been made to identify safer alternatives and the progress being made to phase out NPEs in detergents and reduce its use in other applications. By developing rigorous technical assessments through public participation, EPA can help successfully encourage the transition to safer chemicals.”  

The report provides information on the availability of safer alternatives, DfE’s hazard evaluation method for surfactants, and the progress being made in adopting safer surfactants.  Using rigorous hazard-based criteria, EPA evaluated hundreds of chemicals for their biodegradability and their potential effects to aquatic organisms.

DfE’s Alternatives Assessment Program helps industries choose safer chemicals and offers a basis for informed decision-making by providing a detailed comparison of the potential human health and environmental effects of chemical alternatives. To date, the DfE program has labeled more than 2,700 safer products, including detergents that contain only safer surfactants and other chemicals. All companies participating in the DfE Safer Detergents Stewardship Initiative have eliminated NPE from their product lines to meet DfE criteria.

More information on the DfE Alternatives Assessment Program and the NPEs Report:
http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/npe/index.htm

EPA Issues Design for the Environment Report on Li-ion Batteries and Nanotechnology

According to EPA:

EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics and Office of Research and Development (ORD) are pleased to announce that the draft final report for the life-cycle assessment (LCA) conducted by the Design for the Environment (DfE)/ORD Li-ion Batteries and Nanotechnology Partnership has been posted on EPA’s DfE Program web site for a 60-day public comment period, at http://epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/lbnp/index.htm.   The LCA results for advanced batteries used in plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles are expected to help promote the responsible development of these emerging energy systems, including nanotechnology innovations, leading to reduced overall environmental impacts and the reduced use and release of more toxic materials.  The LCA study identified key materials and processes within the batteries’ life cycles that are likely to pose the greatest environmental impacts, including occupational and public toxicity impacts, which will help the Li-ion battery industry to identify environmentally sound process, material, and design choices.  The partnership included battery manufacturers, suppliers, and recyclers, as well as representatives from academia, trade and research institutions, and the Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory.

 

For further information, please contact Kathy Hart in OPPT's DfE Program, at (202)564-8787, or by E-mail at: hart.kathy@epa.gov.