EPA Releases Chemical Work Plan - Names Chemicals for Risk Assessment

EPA has "developed a work plan that identifies existing chemicals for risk assessment over the next several years."  Today they "posted the methodology for developing this work plan, the work plan chemicals identified using the methodology, and seven chemicals for risk assessment development in 2012." EPA also posted an "existing chemicals program strategy," that "includes risk assessment and risk reduction, data collection and screening, and public access to chemical data and information."

We'll examine the strategy and work plans in more detail over the coming days, but here's a quick synopsis. Last September EPA announced that it would seek to identify existing chemicals for risk assessment under TSCA since the TSCA reform legislation was likely not to be seriously discussed in Congress for some time.  In a two-step process, EPA identified criteria for prioritizing chemicals based on their hazards, likelihood for exposure, and persistence/bioaccumulation. Scores for each segment are compiled from a variety of sources (to be discussed in future posts), categorized into high, moderate or low ranks, and given an overall score ranging from 1 (low) to 3 (high).  Chemicals receiving high scores in all or most of the segments get higher priority for assessment.

Since EPA resources are limited, and likely to get even more limited due to pending budget cuts, they have designated only seven chemicals for the 2012 work plan.  Another 76 chemicals have been designated for future year work plans.  

More details will come in future posts.  The seven chemicals listed for 2012 will be subject to EPA risk assessments.  They are:

• Antimony & Antimony Compounds
• 1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexahydro-3,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethylcyclopentag]-2-benzopyran (HHCB)
• Long-chain chlorinated paraffins (C18-20)
• Medium-chain chlorinated paraffins (C14-17)
• Methylene chloride
• N-Methylpyrrolidone
• Trichloroethylene (TCE) 

ECHA Proposes to List 13 Chemicals as Substances of Very High Concern Under REACH

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has proposed to add 13 additional chemicals to their candidate list of Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC).  Each of the chemicals "is classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction."  Stakeholders and other interested parties are urged to comment on the proposed listings.  Besides toxicity, "information on the uses of the substances is invited."

The public consultation "will be open for 45 days and will end on 12 April 2012."  After the consultation period, ECHA will consider all comments and then make final decisions on including the substances on the candidate list.  Eventually these substances could be included on the REACH Annex XIV Authorisation List. If that happens then companies will have to apply for authorisation, that is, apply to have their substance remain on the market, usually only for specific controllable uses, limited volumes, and for a limited period of time while substitutes are developed.


More information and the list of chemicals can be found on the ECHA web site.

Book Review – A Contract with the Earth by Newt Gingrich and Terry L. Maple

This is a rather odd book to review. On the one hand former Speaker Newt Gingrich teams up with the CEO of the Palm Beach Zoo to argue for a “Contract with the Earth” in which all of us, without partisanship, become stewards of the environment. Published in 2007, they note that “as a nation” we must remove our addiction to oil: “By weaning industrial societies from their dependence on fossil fuels, the world would be a far better place.” They implore both parties to take the environment seriously, pleading that “surely our energy problems rise to the level of a presidential crusade.”
Later they quote a coalition of corporate CEOs that together represent an Energy Security Leadership Council:

“America’s oil dependence threatens the prosperity and safety of the nation. Continued policy paralysis is unacceptable precisely because we can take action to improve our energy security. Many challenges lie ahead, but we have no doubt that efforts of the American people will meet with success.”

That was during the Bush administration.

Which gets us to the other hand. While the book argues forcefully for bipartisan (or more accurately, non-partisan) action to deal with climate change, pollution, protection of endangered species, biodiversity, and other environmental values, it is also rife with political innuendo and denialism. Given Gingrich’s recent statements that contradict the profoundly persuasive arguments in this book, it’s unclear whether the self-contradictions are a result of the differing views of the two authors or of the lead author’s political pandering induced by a run for the White House.

Ignoring that aspect for the moment, the book does offer some compelling ideas for how to rid ourselves of our oil addiction and invest in the development of renewable energy. They quote Espy and Winston’s book Green to Gold, in that “smart companies seize competitive advantage through strategic management of environmental challenges.” In other words, smart innovative companies can make a buck and save the planet too! Gingrich and Maple advocate an entrepreneurial approach to dealing with climate change, quoting the Republicans for Environmental Protection:

“America is ready to meet the challenges posed by global warming. America has the best scientists. America’s businesses lead the world in developing and marketing innovative technologies that transform lives. All that remains is leadership that will channel the unrivaled power and creativity of markets toward developing the solutions we need soon to protect our atmosphere, strengthen American economy, and bring clean prosperity to the world’s developing nations.”

As I read those final words it struck me – perhaps Newt Gingrich should go back and read his own book.

Photo credit: Amazon.com

Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt

According to the National Science Foundation (NSF), "the deadliest mass extinction of all took a long time to kill 90 percent of Earth's marine life--and it killed in stages."  What does this mean? According to the authors of a new report, "it shows that mass extinctions need not be sudden events."

In a period called "The Great Dying" that occurred about 250 million years ago, around 90% of all living species disappeared, that is, they went extinct.  The authors of a new study published in the Geological Society of America Bulletin show a strong likelihood that this huge mass extinction was at least in part due to massive volcanic eruptions in Siberia.  Still, the authors note that this process "phased in over hundreds of thousands of years."

"The world revealed by their research is a devastated landscape, barren of vegetation and scarred by erosion from showers of acid rain, huge "dead zones" in the oceans, and runaway greenhouse warming leading to sizzling temperatures."

So what caused the changes that led to the extinction of most of life on Earth?  According to the researchers, volcanic lava flowing "through a large coal deposit...released lots of methane when it burned through the coal. Methane is 30 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide."  And that set the stage for a massive greenhouse effect that overwhelmed the natural balance.  According to researcher Thomas Algeo:

"We're not sure how long the greenhouse effect lasted, but it seems to have been tens or hundreds of thousands of years."


For more information, see the NSF press release.

The Scientist: Obama Seeks Science Stimulus

Quick pick from The Scientist:  "On Monday (February 13), President Obama released his budget request for the 2013 fiscal year, totaling $3.8 trillion. In the science sector, he requested a 1 percent increase in research spending across the board."

President Obama in his annual budget proposal is attempting to increase funding for the sciences.  Unfortunately, the Republican party in the House is attempting to eliminate much of the funding for the sciences.

See all the details in The Scientist.

EPA Names Lek Kadeli Acting Head of Office of Research and Development (ORD)

In an internal memo, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced that Lek Kadeli will take over as Acting Assistant Administrator of EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD).  Kadeli replaces Paul Anastas, who tendered his resignation last month to return to Yale.  Kadeli had been principal deputy assistant administrator for management at ORD and has held several other senior executive positions within EPA and ORD since he came to the Agency in 1990.

Jackson also announced that Ramona Trovato would serve as Kadeli's prinicipal deputy.  There had been speculation that Trovato might get the acting AA position. Trovato also has a long history at EPA "as a scientist in a regional lab" and as "a leader on important science and policy issues ranging from radioactive waste management to children's health to groundwater protection."

In her message Jackson noted that:

I am confident that both Lek and Ramona will contribute significantly to the EPA’s commitment to setting the standard for environmental science at home and around the world. Indeed, as I have made clear since day one, science will remain at the forefront of all of the EPA’s efforts as we continue to work toward a cleaner, healthier environment for every American.

ECHA Identifies 2300 Chemical Substances for REACH Registration by 2013

A survey of potential registrants by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has resulted in a list of 2,300 chemical substances that are intended to be registered by the 2013 deadline under REACH.  Substances that are manufactured or imported into Europe at levels above 100 tonnes per year must be registered by May 31, 2013.  This is in addition to the previous deadline of November 30, 2010 for registration of chemicals at volumes greater than 1000 tonnes per year or were substances of very high concern (SVHC).

ECHA will update the list monthly and invites those potential registrants who have not informed ECHA of their intent to do so as soon as possible.

Registrants must prepare an IUCLID dossier containing data requirements as specified in the REACH regulation.  The dossier is filed electronically through ECHA's REACH-IT system and must be done prior to the deadline in order to continue to manufacture or import those substances.  New substances not on the preregistered phase-in list must submit completed dossiers prior to manufacture or import.

More information can be found in the ECHA press release.

EPA Will Not Change Chemical Data Reporting Deadline Despite House Request

EPA has decided that it will would not change the reporting deadline for the new Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule despite a letter from Republican Representative Fred Upton, chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  The CDR requires chemical manufacturers to provide data during the period from February 1 to June 30, 2012.  The letter from Upton, along with fellow Republican John Shimkus, argued that the reporting rule - which had been delayed by nearly a year already - was overly burdensome to industry.  In their January 30, 2012 response, acting EPA toxics chief Jim Jones noted that “the EPA provided a five month reporting period for this first round of reporting to provide additional time for companies to review and understand changes in the reporting requirements, gather the necessary information, and file through the agency's electronic reporting system.”

Jones also noted that, “we believe that the current five month window for companies to report, along with their ability to engage the agency directly on any questions or issues they may have, provides an adequate opportunity for reporting by June 30, 2012.”

The final CDR was published on August 15, 2011, thus giving substantial time for industry to understand their obligations and prepare for the submission.  EPA also recently provided guidance for submitting byproduct data, a key concern expressed in the Upton/Shimkus letter.  Overall, EPA believes that it has provided substantial lead time and guidance for industry to comply and that the additional delays requested by the Republican members of the House are both unwarranted and would reduce the availability of vital, and Congressionally-mandated, health and safety information from the public.

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

Japan Allows 1-week to Register New Chemicals - Don't Miss It

Japan has announced that it will accept applications for manufacture or import of new chemicals meeting their small quantity criteria, but these applications must be filed during a single one-week period from February 28th to March 7th, 2012.  This is in accordance with Japan's Chemical Substance Examination and Manufacturing Control law.  For readers of Japanese, more information is available on the Environmental agency website.

 

The announcement was made by the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry; the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare; and the Ministry of the Environment. The application requirement applies to annual quantities of 1 to 10 metric tonnes and for only chemicals that are new to Japan (existing chemicals in Japan are not included in the requirement).  

 

This annual event has been occurring for the last 8 years, with the number of applications growing from only about 100 in 2004 up to over 1000 by 2010.

ECHA Says "Only Representatives" Can Apply for Chemical Authorization

According to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA):

"In December 2011, the European Commission services informed ECHA that, in their view, an Only Representative (OR) of a non-EU manufacturer can also apply for authorisation. Following this, ECHA updated the webforms to allow ORs to send their applications while developing long term functionalities in REACH-IT. The relevant Data Submission Manual Part 22 - How to Prepare and Submit an Application for Authorisation using IUCLID 5 is also being updated and will be published once the new version of IUCLID is released, which is currently expected to be during summer 2012."

Previously it was assumed that only a European registrant could apply for authorization under REACH.  Authorization is the process by which companies can apply to keep certain uses of their Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) that have been targeted for banning on the market for a limited period of time while alternatives are developed.

More information on applying for authorization can be found on the ECHA site.

With No TSCA Chemical Reform on the Horizon, States Take the Lead

With TSCA reform at the federal level highly unlikely to occur in this election year, the individual states are expected to step up their ongoing battle to protect human health and the environment from chemicals. According to Safer States, "at least 28 state legislatures will consider proposals to address continued concerns about toxic chemicals in consumer products."  This builds on "over 80 chemical safety laws [that] have been passed with an overwhelming margin of bi-partisan support in statehouses across the country" during the last nine years.

Safer States is "a network of diverse environmental health coalitions and organizations in states around the country" and is a part of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a "coalition of groups united by their common concern about chemicals in our homes, places of work, and products we use every day."

The organization has posted what they see as highlights of the 2012 state legislative efforts, as follows:

• Identification and Disclosure of Chemicals Harmful to Children. At least 13 states, including Alaska, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington will consider policies to identify and ultimately reduce exposures to chemicals of concern, including prioritizing chemicals for state action and requiring manufacturers of consumer products to disclose the chemicals in their products.
• BPA Phase Outs. At least 20 states will consider policy to restrict the use of the hormone-disrupting chemical BPA in infant formula cans, other food packaging, children's products, and receipt paper. Alaska, Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, New Jersey, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin are all states considering such legislation.
• Tris Flame Retardant Phase Outs. At least four state legislatures will introduce policies to phase out the use of the flame retardant chlorinated Tris in children's products. Chlorinated Tris is a flame retardant that was removed from children's pajamas in the 1970s because of concerns over adverse health effects, including cancer, but has reappeared in other children's products. Connecticut, Maryland, New York, and Washington are legislatures considering such a ban. In addition, Alaska, Michigan, New Jersey and New York legislatures will consider policies to reduce exposure to the flame retardant decaBDE.
• Green Cleaning in Schools. Earlier this month, Vermont passed policy requiring manufacturers to only sell environmentally preferable cleaning products to schools. Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and North Carolina are considering similar policy.
• Cadmium Bans in Children's Products. At least 5 states will be introducing or have introduced policies to ban the use of cadmium in children's products, including Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, New York, and Tennessee. Cadmium is linked to cancer and other health effects.
• Other policies. Oregon has introduced policy to require the state to reduce toxics through its procurement process. New York is considering policy to restrict formaldehyde in beauty products. Massachusetts and Georgia are also considering policy to improve the safety of cosmetics. Other states have introduced individual chemical restrictions, such as lindane in Michigan and perchloroethelyene in Vermont.

Ironically, while the chemical industry has indicated that it prefers the reform of TSCA on the federal level rather than a patchwork of state and local laws, the lack of action on TSCA is serving as a catalyst for states and municipalities to create that patchwork in earnest.

The full Safer States press release can be viewed and downloaded as a PDF here.

Obama Nominates Jim Jones to Officially Head EPA Toxics Office

The White House has announced that President Obama will nominate long-time EPA leader Jim Jones to be the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP).  Jones has been acting chief of the office since the departure of Steve Owens last October.  Jones' nomination must be confirmed by the Senate, a prospect that led some to believe Obama would not officially nominate anyone during this contentious election year.  Another nominee, Ken Kopocis to be Assistant Administrator of the Office of Water, has been held up by Republicans critical of ongoing rulemaking from that office.

Jones has previously served as Deputy Assistant Administrator in the Office of Air and Radiation as well as Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. He previously also was Director of the Office of Pesticide Programs and "held a series of management positions in the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs" in a career that goes back to 1991 at EPA.

The Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention is charged with overseeing EPA's regulation of industrial chemicals and pesticides. EPA and many of the Office's programs have been mired in a seemingly constant battle to maintain funding for "protection of human health and the environment" as Congress tries to limit EPA's ability to do so.  Several initiatives and rulemakings have also been hung up under review at the Office of Management and Budget.

The White House announcement of this and other key administration posts can be read here.

EPA Provides Guidance for Reporting Byproduct Data Under the Chemical Data Reporting Rule

The USEPA will be providing additional information related to the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Rule, which was formerly the Inventory Update Rule (IUR).  Many companies have been confused about what they actually have to report.  And a recent workshop dealt with one specific type of chemical - byproducts. 

More information will be coming sometime in January.  Until then, those companies who are still trying to figure out their obligations can check EPA's Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page on the 2012 CDR, which can be found here.


Additional useful information is available from a workshop held January 19, 2012 at the Washington University Law School.  The workshop, sponsored by law firm Bergeson & Campbell and the USEPA, looked specifically on how to report byproducts and recycled substances under the CDR.  An overview and slide presentations, as well as case studies and an audio playback, can be downloaded here.

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

California and EPA to Work Together on Green Chemistry Promotion

The USEPA and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) have signed a formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to cooperate on the development of green chemistry.  The MOU is designed to use the combined resources of these two agencies to promote green chemistry and reduce the amounts of chemicals considered "toxic" in consumer products.  According to the DTSC press release:

This formal agreement outlines principles by which DTSC and U.S. EPA will cooperate to reduce toxic chemicals in consumer products, create new business opportunities in the emerging safer consumer products economy, and reduce the burden on consumers and businesses struggling to identify what’s in the products they buy for their families and customers.

More information about the cooperative MOU can be found in the DTSC press release.

The MOU itself can be read here.