Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Coalition Rallies Outside Industry Chemicals Conference in Baltimore

A coalition called Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families rallied outside a hotel in Baltimore's Inner Harbor where chemical industry officials were holding a conference this week. A full report in the Baltimore Sun can be read here.

The organization, which is a coalition of environmental, health, children's, worker, and public advocacy groups, has been pressing hard for TSCA chemical reform. The conference, called GlobalChem, heard speakers from industry, NGOs, and even the Executive Director of the new European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) on topics ranging from REACH to international regulations. But mostly it focused on TSCA reform and what industry might expect as Senator Lautenberg moves towards reintroduction of his Kid Safe Chemicals Act.

While Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families was outside, one of the major founders of the coalition, Richard Denison of Environmental Defense Fund, was inside as an invited speaker. Denison, well known to the industry for his very active work on the HPV Challenge program, provided a somewhat different perspective than the industry representatives present. He noted that even 5 years after the voluntary HPV program was "complete," only 60% of the chemicals had actually had full data dossiers provided.

As I mentioned yesterday, there seems to be quite a bit of distance in the details between what the NGOs want to see in a new law and what industry sees. More on this in upcoming days.

TSCA Bill to be Introduced, But Will it Pass?

There seems to be a growing resignation among stakeholders that the long awaited reintroduction of the Kid Safe Chemical Act to update the old Toxic Substances Control Act, while likely to happen soon, may not get through the legislative process in time to be passed in this Congress.

Word from Senator Lautenberg's office is that he still plans to reintroduce the bill within the next few weeks. With Earth Day coming up on April 22nd, that seems like a likely date, especially since then Vice-President Al Gore introduced the High Production Volume (HPV) Chemical Challenge on that date in 1998. It is likely that the Lautenberg bill, and the mirror bill to be introduced by Congressman Rush in the House, will lean toward substantial testing requirements reminiscent of Europe's REACH program. Or not. There seems to be no one who really knows for sure.

And that in itself may be the reason it can't be passed this year. While there has been a great deal of agreement at the 30,000 foot level, there is a great deal of differences once one gets down into the details. NGOs would like industry to have to provide some base set of data on every single chemical on the TSCA Inventory (approximately 85,000). That is what REACH is doing now in Europe. Industry believes that EPA should somehow prioritize chemicals and then ask for specific data for that subset of specific chemicals that have the highest priority. And that is a fundamental difference that could take some substantial time to resolve, especially given the widely partisan nature of Congress at the moment.

So, it seems more and more likely that the bill will be a starting point for intense discussions between Congress, industry, NGOs, and other stakeholders, which will occur throughout the rest of this year. Then the potentially highly revised bill would have to be reintroduced (for the 4th time) in the next session of Congress. And given the likelihood that the November elections will significantly alter the balance of power in Congress, the delay could mean a lot.

Or not. :)

More to come.

Is TSCA Chemical Control Reform Ever Going to Happen?

Last year at this time Senator Lautenberg intimated that a new Kid Safe bill that reforms the 34 year old Toxic Substances Control Act was "imminent." The same word has been used many times since then, and still no bill has been introduced, though several House and Senate hearings have been held in recent months.

The latest is that the bill will be introduced by Senator Lautenberg sometime after the Congressional recess that starts today and runs through April 9th. Congressman Rush will introduce a mirror bill in the House. Given the current timing, it seems possible that the bill might be held a couple of more weeks for an April 22nd (Earth Day) introduction.

But introduction of the bill doesn't mean it will pass this year. Already much of Congress has shifted into campaign mode for the November elections, and with the likelihood of significant Republican seat gains in both houses, there seems to be little incentive for the minority party to speed things up on TSCA reform. Likewise, many Democrats are wary of any effort that might be negatively impact their reelection campaigns. In recent remarks to the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), the head of the EPA toxics office, Steve Owens, suggested that it was "unlikely" that much would happen on any bill now introduced, even though both industry and advocacy groups are pushing for "modernization" of TSCA.

More info tomorrow!

New "Natural Products" Certification

The Natural Products Association, a Washington-based group representing manufacturers and retailers including Clorox Co. and Whole Foods Market, released new standards last month for natural home care products. It seems that there is concern that products like household cleaners and detergents can say on they are natural on their labels when in fact they are made mostly of synthetic ingredients. So NPA issued guidelines, and products that meet those standards will be able to display the association's seal (see above).

Most people think that natural means that the product's ingredients are derived from renewable resources like plants and minerals. But believe it or not, NPA is the first to issue a uniform standard among manufacturers for use of the word in home-care products.

To display the seal, products will have to meet criteria that include:

- 95% of the ingredients in the product, excluding water, must be derived from natural sources.

- non-natural ingredients should be used only when alternative natural ingredients are unavailable.

- the product should contain no ingredients with suspected human health risks.

NPA says it is reviewing full ingredient lists from manufacturers who have applied for certification to determine whether their products qualify. The seal will be seen on products in the next several months.

More information can be found at the NPA site.

EPA Set to Post More Chemical Action Plans - Bisphenol A and Benzidine Dyes

EPA appears to be taking seriously its commitment to produce "action plans" for chemicals it feels need to be more closely regulated. In December 2009 it issued action plans for four chemicals, and now they are preparing action plans for Bisphenol A (BPA) and Benzidine dyes. Both of these were listed in the September 29, 2009 outline of Administrator Jackson's "comprehensive approach to chemicals management," along with the four noted in the December action plans (phthalates, long-chain chlorinated paraffins, PBDEs, and perfluorinated chemicals).

The action plans for BPA and benzidine dyes will be posted on EPA's website shortly. Like the earlier ones, the new action plans may include listing of chemicals that pose a concern using Section 5(b)(4) of TSCA authority, Section 6 limitations, Section 4 test rules, and incorporating Design for the Environment activities.

In addition, EPA is announcing four more chemicals that will be the subject of upcoming action plan development, which EPA anticipates releasing in late spring. Those four are:

NP/NPE (nonylphenol/nonylphenol ethoxylate)
HBCD (hexabromocyclododecane)
Siloxanes
Diisocyanates

Finally, EPA is also in the process of developing a list of potential chemicals for future action plan development and anticipates making that information available this summer.

So while a TSCA reform bill may be imminent, it will likely take some time before a bill reaches the House and Senate floors for a vote, and then there will be a transition period before the new requirements come into force. In the meantime, EPA is using all the authority it believes it already has under TSCA, something that perhaps it wasn't doing so robustly in the past.

GAO Report on Protecting Children from Environmental Threats - Senate Hearing

As reported yesterday, the Senate held a hearing entitled "Hearing on the Government Accountability Office’s Investigation of EPA’s Efforts to Protect Children’s Health." EPW Committee Chair Senator Boxer never quite made it to the meeting, but it was ably chaired by Senator Amy Klobuchar who chairs the new subcommittee on children's health. The focus of the hearing was on a new GAO report requested by Congress, and testimony was heard from representatives from EPA and GAO as well as NIOSH, the Children's Environmental Health Network, and the Science and Environmental Health Network. Full testimony can be found at the hearing site link above.

The full GAO report was also released yesterday and can be found at the hearing site. A PDF can also be found here.

The GAO report concludes that "EPA has developed policies and guidance to consider children, but it has not maintained attention to children through agency strategies and priorities." It notes that while "[i]n 1996, EPA created a national agenda on children’s health, and its 1997 and 2000 strategic plans highlighted children’s health as a key cross-agency program," that early momentum was lost during the previous decade. GAO notes that "EPA has not updated the agenda since 1996, and the focus on children is absent from the 2003, 2006, and September 2009 draft strategic plans."

Furthermore, GAO concludes that "EPA has not fully used the Office of Children’s Health Protection and other child-focused resources. The active involvement of managers from the office and experts from the Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee has been lacking, as has the involvement of key staff throughout EPA." GAO noted that there seems to be a renewed emphasis under the new administration, but that "[a]lthough EPA now has a new Director of Children’s Health, the office had not had consistent leadership since 2002, hampering its ability to support and facilitate agencywide efforts and elevate matters of importance with senior officials. For example, a previous director established workgroups to bring together officials from the program offices and the children’s health office, but a subsequent acting director eliminated these groups, effectively halting work on a key set of children’s health recommendations. In addition, the regional children’s health coordinators—who provide outreach and coordination for EPA—have no national strategy or dedicated resources. Finally, the advisory committee has provided hundreds of recommendations, but EPA has requested advice on draft regulations only three times in the last decade."

GAO further concludes that despite the critical need for EPA leadership in "protecting children from environmental threats, EPA’s efforts have been hampered by the expiration in 2005 of certain provisions in the executive order. For example, the Task Force on Children’s Environmental Health provided EPA with a forum for interagency leadership on important federal efforts, such as the National Children’s Study. It also provided biennial reports that helped establish federal research priorities."

In short, emphasis on children's health was severely lacking during the last 10 years and while the current administration has taken many steps to reemphasize this issue, more needs to be done.

Based on the questioning yesterday, and Senator Klobuchar's personal interest in children's health (similar comments were also made by Senators Lautenberg and Bill Nelson), it seems clear that the new TSCA reform bill will emphasize the "Kid Safe" component of chemical regulation.

Senator Barbara Boxer Hearing on Protecting Children's Health and TSCA

Senator Barbara Boxer is holding a hearing today, March 17, 2010 entitled, "Hearing on the Government Accountability Office’s Investigation of EPA’s Efforts to Protect Children’s Health." While not billed as part of the TSCA reform effort specifically, clearly this hearing is related as the key focus on the new chemical contol bill is likely to be on the protection of children from chemical exposure. Hence the "Kid Safe" moniker of the bills introduced in previous Congresses by Senator Frank Lautenberg.

The Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) is often called on by Congress to look at various issues, and John Stephenson (see below) is a frequent witness relaying the results of GAO investigations. Today's hearing will look at the GAO's evaluation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) children’s health program. The committee will also examine what can be done to strengthen protections for children. In addition, Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) is also expected to give testimony on the federal government’s role in investigating children’s health issues and how that can be improved.

Witnesses scheduled to testify include:

Panel 1

Peter Grevatt Ph.D. - Director, Office of Children’s Health Protection and Environmental Education, United States Environmental Protection Agency

John Stephenson - Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office

Panel 2

Gina Solomon M.D., M.P.H. - Associate Director of the UCSF Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit, Center for Occupational & Environmental Health, University of California at Berkeley

Cynthia F. Bearer M.D., Ph.D. - Board Chair, Children’s Environmental Health Network

Ted Schettler M.D. - Science Director, Science and Environmental Health Network

The hearing is being held in the Environment and Public Works Hearing Room, 406 Dirksen Senate Building, Washington DC. It also is expected to be webcast live.

In a Move Towards Transparency, EPA Makes the TSCA Inventory Freely Accessible to the Public

I have mentioned the TSCA Inventory here many times. Well, now the EPA has announced that it is making the Inventory available to the public, free of charge, on the internet. Previously it was accessible only by purchasing it from the NTIS library or other databases. By making it free on its website, EPA is taking "another step to increase the transparency of chemical information while continuing to push for legislative reform of the 30 year old TSCA law."

The TSCA Inventory can be accessed here.

The currently Invenotry lists more than 84,000 chemicals manufactured, used, or imported in the United States. About 17,000 of these are protected by confidential business information claims and cannot be included in the free database at this point. However, EPA has already begun taking a series of aggressive steps to provide greater transparency on chemical risk information. I mentioned one such step several weeks ago that noted EPA’s intent to reduce at least one type of CBI claim.

Next steps at increasing transparency include adding TSCA facility information and the list of chemicals manufactured to the Facility Registry System to the freely available information. The FRS is a database that with these additions will provide the public with information on the facilities in their communities using industrial chemicals.

So while the march towards TSCA reform continues in Congress, EPA also continues to work within its current TSCA authority to improve the transparency and safety of chemicals.

European NGOs Press the European Commission for Action on PBTs, Candidate List and Authorization for REACH

A group of NGOs have written to the European Commission in an attempt to prod them for progress on three key issues under the REACH regulation that they believe are not moving quickly enough. According to one of the NGOs, ChemSec:

The main issues of concern include the Commission proposal on the criteria for the inclusion of persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic ((PBT) chemicals, the lack of progress on the REACH Candidate List and the delay in starting the Authorisation process.

The letter was addressed to Antonio Tajani and Janez Potocnik, respectively new EU Commissioner for Industry and Entrepreneurship and new EU Commissioner for the Environment. On March 25, 2010 the two Commissioners will visit the European Chemicals Agency in Helsinki, and the goal of the letter was to "express concern regarding the delayed progress of REACH implementation."

Related to the concerns about the decision on the PBT criteria (REACH Annex XIII), the groups "refer to our detailed letter to the Commission on this issue from 5 December 2008" and conclude that "the Commission has so far ignored expert advice from Member States, scientists and NGOs to ensure that all relevant information is considered in the PBT/vPvB identification." The NGOs believe that "the Commission’s proposal from 2008 does nothing to change the criteria," and thus "fail to address the problem of increasing contamination of people and wildlife with persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals."

The NGOs also "deplore the lack of progress on the REACH candidate list," which "more than two years after entry into force," "only contains 29 officially recognised substances of very high concern compared to 478 substances identified by a group of Member States as meeting the official REACH criteria and the 356 substances on the NGO SIN List 1.1 (“Substitute it Now!)”. The NGOs urge the Commission and ECHA to "dedicate more resources to speed up the substitution of substances of very high concern, including hormone disrupting substances."

Finally, they believe that there has been undue delay in starting the authorisation procedure. They remind the Commission that it "has not taken action on the seven prioritised substances of very high concern recommended by ECHA" back in June 2009. The NGO's say that this is "simply unacceptable."

Whether the letter will influence speedier action will remain to be seen. ECHA and the Commission have been quite busy dealing with the registration process (the "R" in REACH) while continuing to try to build up the staff in Helsinki. Clearly there is a lot on the Commission's, and certainly on ECHA's, respective plates. Which perhaps gives all the more importance to NGOs and other organizations pressing for forward movement.

The signators of the letter were from WWF European Policy Office, Centre for International Environmental Law, ChemSec, CHEMTrust, European Environmental Bureau, Greenpeace, Health & Environment Alliance and Women in Europe for a Common Future. The full letter can be read here.

European Chemicals Agency Proposes 8 New Chemicals as REACH Substances of Very High Concern (SVHCs)

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), located in Helsinki, Finland, has published new proposals to classify eight chemicals as substances of very high concern (SVHC). These substances now are listed on the candidate list, which is the first step toward possible inclusion on Annex XIV of REACH, which is the Authorization list. Substances making it to the Authorization Annex will be banned unless the manufacturer or importer applies for authorization, which if accepted would allow them to keep certain essential uses on the market for a short period of time while alternatives are being developed.

Commenting on the proposals for the eight substances is open until April 22, 2010.

All eight of the substances are listed because they meet the criteria for being CMRs, that is, substances that are carcinogenic (C), mutagenic (M), and/or reproductive toxins (R). The eight chemicals are:

Ammonium dichromate (Category II for C, M and R)

Anyhdrous disodium tetraborate (Category II for R)

Boric acid (Category II for R)

Potassium chromate (Category II for C and M)

Potassium dichromate (Category II for C, M and R)

Sodium chromate (Category II for C, M and R)

Tetraboron disodium heptaoxide hydrate (Category II for R)

Trichloroethylene (Category II for C)

Proposals are introduced to ECHA by member states, and the above were offered by Denmark, France and Germany. The candidate list for Authorization already has 29 substances, to which these 8 could be added pending the results of the commenting period. The last list had 15 substances on it, but one was removed after being the subject of a lawsuit that successfully challenged the applicability of the Authorization process for intermediates.

With TSCA Chemical Reform Almost Here - Will It Look Like the 2008 Kid Safe Chemical Act?

In anticipation of Senator Lautenberg's reintroduction of the Kid Safe Chemical Act, it is perhaps instructive to go back and look at what the last version of the Act required. The caveat, of course, is that the new version will be considerably different (one can hope), but it is likely that at least some of the basic principles from the bill introduced by Senator Lautenberg in 2008 will be included.

The Kid-Safe Chemicals Act of 2008, which would have required chemical manufacturers to demonstrate the safety of their chemicals and would have outlawed the sale in the US of any compound that lacks a minimum set of data, was introduced May 20, 2008 in the Senate by Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and concurrently by Reps. Hilda Solis (D-Ca) and Henry Waxman (D-CA) in the House. The legislation proposed that the minimum data required to have access to the US market would include information about whether a chemical has the potential to persist or bioaccumulate in human bodies or nonhuman organisms, whether it would irritate the skin; whether it would persist in the environment; whether it would harm reproduction or development; and whether it would degrade into other chemicals that cause harm. The legislation would expand the biomonitoring program currently run by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, which would fund the extended program through user fees paid by chemical manufacturers.

The following from Senator Lautenberg’s office at the time gave some of the “highlights.”

Require Basic Data on Industrial Chemicals: Chemical companies must demonstrate the safety of their products, backed up with credible evidence. Chemicals that lack minimum data could not be legally manufactured in or imported into the United States.

Place the Burden on Industry to Demonstrate Safety: EPA must systematically review whether industry has met this burden of proof for all industrial chemicals within 15 years of adoption.

Restrict the Use of Dangerous Chemicals Found in Newborn Babies: Hazardous chemicals detected in human cord blood would be immediately targeted for restrictions on their use.

Use New Scientific Evidence to Protect Health: EPA must consider and is authorized to require additional testing as new science and new testing methods emerge, including for health effects at low doses or during fetal or infant development and for nanomaterials.

Establish National Program to Assess Human Exposure: The federal government’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is to expand existing analysis of pollutants in people to help identify chemicals that threaten the health of children, workers, or other vulnerable populations.

Expand the Public Right to Know on Toxic Chemicals: New, Internet-accessible public database on chemical hazards and uses will inform companies, communities, and consumers. EPA is to rein in excessive industry claims of confidentiality.

Invest in Long-Term Solutions: New funding and incentives are provided for development of safer alternatives and technical assistance in “green chemistry.”

Will the new Kid Safe bill include these provisions? That remains to be seen. I think it likely that the principles above will be conformed to the current EPA principles for reform presentated in the fall of 2009 by Administrator Jackson. And of course, we will have to wait until Senator Lautenberg introduces the actual bill.

Environmental Ministers Meet in Parma to Declare Their Intent to Protect Children's Health

Representatives of the 53 World Health Organization (WHO) Member States are meeting in Parma, Italy, this week to review the impact of national and cross-border environmental policies on the health status of the population of the WHO European Region. This is the fifth Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health in a process that started back in 1989.

Over 800 participants from countries across the European Region, including ministers of health and of the environment, representatives of the European Commission, intergovernmental and nongovernmental stakeholders, scientists and youth delegates, are taking part in the three-day event that ends today.

One expectation is that they will adopt "a declaration reinforcing their commitment to reducing major environmental risk factors (including unsafe water and sanitation, contaminated air and dangerous chemicals) and emerging global threats (such as climate change)." The declaration will commit governments to achieve clear goals in the next 10 years.

A priority goal for the meeting will be “the prevention of diseases arising from chemical, biological and physical environments.” To achieve this participants have identified a number of potential actions. These include:

* Using approaches and provisions set out in relevant international agreements, such as the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm UN Conventions, as well as protocols on heavy metals and on persistent organic pollutants such as Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution.

* Contributing to the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) and to the development of the global legal instrument on mercury.

* Aiming to protect children by identifying risks posed by exposure to harmful substances and preparations – focusing on pregnant and breast-feeding women and places where children live, learn and play – and eliminating the risks as far as possible.

* Acting on the identified risks of exposure to carcinogens, mutagens and reproductive toxicants, including endocrine disruptors, and urging other stakeholders to do the same. A ban on asbestos in construction materials and other products by 2015 is being considered.

* Calling for more research into the potentially adverse effects of persistent, endocrine-disrupting and bio-accumulating chemicals and their combinations, and nanoproducts, as well as for the identification of safer alternatives. Developing and using improved health risk and benefit assessment methods.

Thoughts on the Final Senate Hearing on TSCA Chemical Control Reform

Yes, I said the final hearing. This most certainly will be the end of the hearings, marking number 5 or 6 (I lost count) over the last year in the House and Senate. Yesterday's hearing was rather brief, only a little over an hour, with Democratic Senators Lautenberg (NJ) and Whitehouse (RI) present for the duration and Republican Senator Vitter (LA) reading his very brief opening statement and then leaving. No other Senators participated, which is why the questioning was so brief.

So what was new? In short, not much (see full testimony on the EPW web site and also linked individually below). My sense was this was a perfunctory hearing as a courtesy to industry but that the bill is pretty much ready to be introduced. I would expect it within days and certainly no later than the end of the month.

The witnesses, all from industry, offered much similarity in their comments, though I think you could see a difference between the manufacturers and the downstream users of chemicals. The manufacturers, represented by Dow Chemical, Dupont, Boron Specialties (for SOCMA) and NPRA (petrochemical companies) generally focused on having EPA prioritize chemicals for further review, and then only for those chemicals require additional hazard testing and exposure information to be provided. There was a concern that the new law not impose restrictions and bans that would disrupt markets and uses. They felt that EPA should be given more power to require new information as needed, but that there should not be a REACH-like general data call-in for all chemicals based solely on tonnage and not relative hazard or risk.

The two downstream users, represented by Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and Construction Specialties, emphasized that they are ready and willing to move toward sustainable chemistry in their products but often lack the information they need to make decisions. They advocated a "know and disclose" policy in which chemical companies would be required to pass along sufficient information on the chemicals in products being purchased by downstream users so that downstream users can assess their best options. If needed, they felt a third party could be used to protect the confidential business information of the manufacturers.

In the end it seems there are basic questions that may result in some disagreement on the details of the new law, despite there being significant agreement by all stakeholders that TSCA must be modernized. In their public statements, industry clearly has indicated they believe EPA should do the up-front work of assessing the TSCA Inventory, prioritizing a subset of chemicals that need closer attention, and focusing their data call-in efforts only on that subset. They do not support a general data call-in along the lines of REACH, especially if there is no attempt to "reset" the TSCA Inventory beforehand (i.e., eliminate those chemicals on the Inventory that just are not produced any more).

Senators Lautenberg and Whitehouse, on the other hand, seem very much focused on the "protection of human health and the environment" side of the discussion. They clearly believe that we need health and safety data on all chemicals in the market place. Their public pronouncements indicate that they believe the onus should be on industry to provide sufficient data for assessment, but that they don't necessarily trust industry to make that safety determination themselves. Senator Whitehouse, in fact, in his final questioning yesterday, asked (rhetorically) whether it made sense to trust the chemical companies to avow safety of their products like we trusted the tobacco companies to avow safety of cigarettes. Perhaps not a particularly valid criticism, but it does seem to reflect the Democratic Senators' belief that industry should be required to provide data and EPA should be responsible for making a final safety determination.

Previous commentary on TSCA reform can be found by going here and scrolling down.

The LRTAP Convention Revealed...Plus Don't Forget Today's Senate Hearing on TSCA Chemical Control

In continuing my series highlighting the three international agreements mentioned at last Thursday's House Subcommittee hearing on TSCA Reform, today I examine the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution. See my previous pieces on the Stockholm and Rotterdam Conventions.

The Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution, or simply, LRTAP, includes eight separate Protocols, of which the Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants is the most relevant to the present discussion. The POPs Protocol was adopted in 1998 and focuses on "a list of 16 substances that have been singled out according to agreed risk criteria. The substances comprise eleven pesticides, two industrial chemicals and three by-products/contaminants." The goal is to "eliminate any discharges, emissions and losses of POPs." Some of the chemicals are banned outright (aldrin, chlordane, chlordecone, dieldrin, endrin, hexabromobiphenyl, mirex and toxaphene), while others are scheduled for elimination at a later stage (DDT, heptachlor, hexaclorobenzene, PCBs). There are also some whose uses are severely restricted (DDT, HCH [including lindane] and PCBs).

As with the other Conventions, the LRTAP POPs Protocol allows member countries to add chemicals to the list to be banned or restricted. Here again the United States was involved in negotiating the original Protocol but never ratified it in Congress. Which means the US can send representatives to POPs meetings to argue their case, but has no vote when it comes down to deciding whether the chemicals should be listed. And listing essentially means the chemical will be banned, either directly or through the blacklisting effect of identifying the chemical as a bad actor. Thus, the US cannot fully exert its influence to protect US interests.

And don't forget today's Senate hearing!

Senator Lautenberg will chair a subcommittee hearing on "Business Perspectives on Reforming U.S. Chemical Safety Laws" in which "leaders of businesses that manufacture or use chemicals to examine their business perspectives on reforming U.S. chemical safety laws." This starts at 10:00 AM EST in the EPW Hearing Room (406 Dirksen).

Witnesses include:

Kathy Gerwig - Vice President, Workplace Safety and Environmental Stewardship Officer, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.

Charlie Drevna - President, National Petrochemical and Refiners Association

Dr. Neil C. Hawkins Sc.D. - Vice President, EH&S and Sustainability for The Dow Chemical Company

Beth Bosley - Managing Director, Boron Specialties, On behalf of Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates

Howard Williams - Vice President, Construction Specialties, Inc.

Linda Fisher - Vice President, Safety Health and the Environment, DuPont