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methodology, they would also "welcome the submission of additional relevant information on these chemicals, such as unpublished studies not already available through the existing literature, or information on uses and potential exposures."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.

EPA Issues Huge Batch of SNURs - 119 Chemicals in All

In a direct final rule issued today, the USEPA has issued significant new use rules (SNURs) for 119 new chemical substances.  Four of the chemical substances are already "subject to TSCA consent orders issued by EPA."  According to the Federal Register notice, "this action requires persons who intend to manufacture, import, or process any of these 119 chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. The required notification will provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs."




While SNURs significantly restrict the ability for new companies to manufacture the substances - they are limited by the restrictions in the SNUR - they actually can provide a significant benefit to the original PMN submitter who already are being allowed to manufacture or import the substances listed. 


The four chemicals that are subject to consent orders are the only ones that are considered to be of significant risk, hence the consent order to control that risk. All four are perfluorinated substances.  The other 115 chemicals have more limited restrictions designed to ensure safe use.

The SNUR notice can be viewed in full here.

EPA's Lisa Jackson Names a New Science Advisor

On April 24th EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson officially appointed Glenn Paulson as Science Advisor in the Office of the Administrator.  Paulson fills the spot opened up with the resignation of Paul Anastas.  Lek Kadeli will continue to serve as acting assistant administrator in the Office of Research and Development.  According to Jackson:

Given the central place that science holds in the EPA’s decisions and actions, Dr. Paulson will play an important role in the work ahead. He brings with him years of experience in science and policy issues, extraordinary performance in multiple fields, and an unwavering dedication to the integrity that defines this agency's scientific work.

Paulson holds a PhD in environmental sciences and ecology from Rockefeller University.  Previously he has been an academic, was Director of the Center for Hazardous Waste Management at the Illinois Institute of Technology, served as Associate Dean for Research in the School of Public Health and as Director of the New Jersey Center for Public Health Preparedness at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey.  He has also founded his own environmental and energy consulting firm, and served as assistant commissioner for science at the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, was Director of the Scientific Support Program for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and was a Senior Vice President at the
National Audubon Society.

The NRDC praised the selection of Paulson:

“Glenn Paulson will bring to EPA a lifelong commitment to the integrity of science when it comes to making the best decisions to protect our air, water, lands, wildlife and our health. His dedication and collegiality will serve him and the country well.”

ECHA to publish total tonnage band for registered substances

ECHA has taken a decision on the method by which it will calculate the total tonnage bands for substances on ECHA's registered substances database. The total tonnage bands for registered substances will be published on the ECHA website during June 2012.

More information in the ECHA press release.

ECHA launches public consultations on two proposals for harmonised classification and labelling

ECHA, the European Chemicals Agency responsible for the evaluation of chemicals under the REACH program, has opened a public consultation on proposals to harmonize classification of two substances.  According to their news release:

ECHA  invites the parties concerned to comment on two new proposals for harmonised classification and labelling (CLH): Fenoxaprop-P-ethyl and 8:2 Fluorotelomer alcohol (8:2 FTOH). The public consultation will be open for 45 days and will end on 1 June 2012. The CLH reports and the dedicated webform to post the comments are available on the ECHA website.

ECHA's Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) will consider the comments received during the public consultation when developing its opinion on the CLH proposal. The Commission takes into account the RAC opinion when it decides whether the proposal for harmonised classification and labelling is accepted and if so, the substance is added to the list of hazardous substances for which harmonised classification and labelling has been established (Annex VI, part 3 of the CLP Regulation).

More information can be found on the ECHA site.

EPA Proposes Rule to Require Electronic Reporting for Chemical Information

From EPA:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced a proposed rule to require electronic reporting for certain information submitted to the agency under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).The action is an important milestone in the agency’s effort to increase transparency and public access to chemical information in order to help Americans protect their health and environment. Electronic reporting will increase the speed with which EPA can make information publicly available, increase accuracy, and provide the public with quick and easier access to chemical information. 

More in the press release.

Prepublication PDF here.