EU to Update Stockholm Convention POPs Chemical Plan

The European Commission (EC) has announced that it is reevaluating and updating the implementing plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. The Stockholm Convention is a "global treaty to protect human health and the environment from chemicals that remain intact in the environment for long periods, become widely distributed geographically and accumulate in the fatty tissue of humans and wildlife." A plan was originally drawn up in 2007 and "a significant number of the actions identified in the 2007 Plan have now been finalized or are about to be finalised." Hence the need for an update.

A consultation has been opened on the European Commission web site and interested parties have between August 2 to October 25, 2012 to provide comment.

The full consultation document is available as a PDF download here.

ECHA to Set Up Expert PBT Group

One of the main set of criteria for identifying and classifying substances of very high concern (SVHC) in Europe under the REACH regulation are whether the substance exhibits Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT) properties or Very Persistent/Very Bioaccummulative (vPvB) properties.  Now the European Chemicals Agency in Helsinki is putting together a PBT expert group.  The group would address scientific issues related to PBT, both those already identified and those yet to arise.

ECHA has already in place at least two guidance documents related to identification of PBTs - Part C and Chapter R.11.  Criteria are also discussed in Annex XIII of the REACH regulation.

The new group would be staffed by experts nominated by each EU Member State, as well as three representatives each from both industry and NGOs.

Endosulfan to be Banned Under the Stockholm Convention

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

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

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

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

More information is on the Stockholm Convention site.

Democratic Congressman Waxman Requests PBT Data from Chemical Companies

Democratic Representative Henry A. Waxman (CA), who is Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, is asking chemical manufacturers to provide information on "the production of chemicals that are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT’s)."  Waxman, along with Illionios Congressman Bobby Rush, introduced the House's version of the TSCA reform legislation in 2010.  Since those bills died at the end of the last Congress with no action, and little prospect of the Republican-led House introducing bill this year, Waxman seems intent on keeping the pressure on the chemical industry to reveal data.  According to the press release on the minority site for the House Committee on Energy & Commerce, Waxman states:

“These chemicals are of particular concern.  We need better information from manufacturers to understand what is already being done to protect the American people, and what more may need to be done through modernization of the Toxic Substances Control Act.”

PBTs are "highly resistant to degradation in the environment," "build up in the food chain and in the human body," and "cause adverse health effects in exposed individuals."  These persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic properties have been used by the EPA and other jurisdictions (including Canada and the EU) to prioritize chemicals of greatest concern for closer evaluation.

Waxman sent letters to the CEOs of 15 major chemical manufacturers, including 3M, DuPont, BASF, Huntsman, Chevron, PPG, and others requesting information on what they are doing to determine if a chemical they plan to start producing is a PBT, and if so, whether they would continue to develop the chemical for production.  He also asked what companies are doing to determine if existing chemicals they already produce are PBT, and if so, whether they plan to continue production.  In both cases, if the decision is to continue to place the PBT chemical on the market, what steps are they taking to adequately address "the risks posed by the chemical."

Rep. Waxman indicated that he "would appreciate a response to these questions no later than April 22, 2011."

Gains in Reducing Persistent Chemicals May be Lost to Climate Change

The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (thankfully called simply POPs) has been working to reduce the emissions of these chemicals for many years.  But a new report suggests that some of the gains made may be reversed by the effects of climate change.  The report, "Climate Change and POPs: Predicting the Impacts" was issued by the United Nations Environment Program last month.

The report notes that:

Significant climate-induced changes are foreseen in relation to future releases of POPs into the environment, their long-range transport and environmental fate, and human and environmental exposure, subsequently leading to higher health risks for both human populations and the environment. The report also addresses the synergies between the climate change and POPs policy agendas and identifies areas of uncertainty and existing gaps in data, information and knowledge.

The report suggests that persistent chemicals, i.e., those that stay in the environment for a long time without breaking down into components of lesser concern, may mobilize from wherever they are and be available for long-range transport.  Warmer temperatures overall could increase emissions of POPs from soil, water, and ice, which could have significant ramifications.

The full report can be downloaded here.

Even Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) are Affected by Climate Change

I have spoken about the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants in the past.  The Convention is an international effort to reduce emissions of persistent organic pollutants (POPs).  But now a new report of the UNEP/AMAP expert group,‘’Climate change and POPs: Predicting the Impacts,’’"provides a comprehensive view of the complex inter-linkages between climate and POPs."

The report suggests that rising temperatures could result in increased emissions from both primary and secondary sources of POPs.  This would have the effect of offsetting some of the efforts undertaken to reduce emissions under the convention.  In other words, take away all the gains made to eliminate POPs in the environment.  Because one of the major factors important in classifying POPs is their ability to transport long ranges, e.g., emissions in Italy end up in polar bears in the Arctic, changes to the overall climate could impact atmospheric and oceanic transport of these very persistent and often bioaccumulative environmental pollutants. Melting of both land and sea ice could further impact distribution.  And since many POPs build up in the fat reserves of Arctic animals like bears, whales and fish, disruptions in normal feeding patterns could result in re-mobilizing the chemicals into metabolic pathways, with toxic effects.

The report concludes that there is the potential for significant climate-induced changes in relation to future releases of POPs into the environment, their long-range transport and environmental fate, and human and environmental exposure, and "subsequently leading to higher health risks for both human populations and the environment."


The report can be downloaded by chapter or as a full report in PDF format: http://chm.pops.int/Programmes/GlobalMonitoringPlan/ClimateChangeandPOPsPredictingtheImpacts/tabid/1580/language/en-US/Default.aspx.

International Scientists Sign "San Antonio Statement" Calling for Regulation of Brominated Flame Retardants

Recently a group of scientists met to discuss the growing concern about "the persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic properties of brominated and chlorinated organic flame retardants (BFRs and CFRs, respectively) and the exposure to humans and wildlife as a result of intensive use."  The result is the “San Antonio Statement on Brominated and Chlorinated Flame Retardants.”

The signatories, nearly 150 scientists from 22 countries, are all "experts on the health effects and environmental fate of BFRs and CFRs and environmental contaminants in general. The International Panel on Chemical Pollution (IPCP), an international network of scientists working on various aspects of chemical pollution, also has approved the statement."

The San Antonio statement includes 20 points that acknowledge the scientific concern for these substances, and the fact that three brominated flame retardants have already been listed in the Stockholm Convention treaty for global elimination. They note that these materials are persistent and "can undergo long-range environmental transport."

The full San Antonio Statement in published in the online edition of Environmental Health Perspectives.  There is also an introduction to the Statement by NIEHS Director Linda Birnbaum and IPCP Board member and Professor Ake Bergman.

Stockholm Convention POPs Committee Reviews 3 Chemicals - Recommends to Get Rid of Endosulfan

"The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPRC), a subsidiary body to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, adopted a dozen decisions at its sixth meeting, concluded last Friday, including ones aimed at strengthening chemicals science on climate change and POPs."  So says the press release issued two days ago.  On the cutting block - Endosulfan - the widely used pesticide for which the committee recommended listing in Annex A of the Convention. Such a listing normally leads to a chemical's elimination from commerce.

According to the findings, "Endosulfan is used on many crops such as soy, cotton, rice, and tea.  It is highly toxic to humans and many other animals and has been found in the environment, including the Arctic."

The long range transport, persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity characteristics were deemed sufficient for action even though there remains some scientific uncertainty and contentious disagreements from some of the parties.

The POPs committee also adopted the risk profile on hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), which is "a flame retardant used mainly in expanded and extruded polystyrene."  Based on its "adverse effects, persistence, bioaccumulation and long-range transport," the committee determined that HBCD "should proceed to the risk management phase, the next step in the committee’s review process."

However, they postponed making a decision on short-chained chlorinated paraffins (SCCP), which they felt needed more data collection.  SCCPs are "used in metalworking, and the formulation and manufacturing of products such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastics and metalworking fluids."


The committee's recommendations are passed on to the fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the Stockholm Convention, which will be held in Geneva in April 2011.

While Congress Waffles on TSCA, the White House Pushes for Ratification of International Chemicals Treaties

I have talked before about the three international treaties of which the United States originally signed on for but for which Congress has yet to ratify.  And it's been a while, folks.  So while Congress busily punts on TSCA reform at least until next year, the Obama White House has decided to push for ratification.

And the White House's point person in the Senate is none other than Frank Lautenberg, the New Jersey Democrat who has spearheaded the effort to introduce (and reintroduce...and reintroduce) the ever evolving [Kid] Safe Chemical Act. 

The main reason to ratify the three treaties - Stockholm Convention on POPs, Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent, and Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution POPs Protocol - is because we don't have a seat at the table.  Okay, that's not quite right.  We have an "observer" seat at the table, and representatives can be quite vocal in pressing their point.  But when it comes time to vote the US has to sit back and let everyone else decide what happens to us.  We're not powerless, but we're also not as persuasive as we could be if they have to take our vote into consideration.

Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your point of view, ratification of these treaties will likely also go nowhere until after the election, and then the new Congress (perhaps, very new Congress) may have a different take on the political versus scientific advantages of active participation that ratification would provide.

The "New TSCA" and POPs, PBTs, and International Chemical Treaties

This summer the House introduced a formal TSCA reform bill, following up on the "discussion draft" issued in April when the Senate introduced their version of TSCA reform.  One measure that didn't get a whole lot of press (but about which I tweeted) was how the bills dealt with the big international chemical treaties to which the US had never ratified.  Those treaties are the Stockholm Convention, the Rotterdam Convention, and the LRTAP POPs protocols.  All deal with a small list of specific chemicals that exhibit persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic characteristics, i.e., PBT.  The variation, Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) have similar criteria, and then there are those chemicals that are Very Persistent and Very Bioaccumulative (vPvB), which may pose future concerns whether or not they currently meet the toxicity criterion.

The House discussion draft was pretty fuzzy as to how the new TSCA would help the US ratify the agreements, but the formal H.R. 5820 directs EPA to implement "provisions of international agreements" that are "related to chemical substances and mixtures" to which the United States becomes a party.  In fact, the House bill now looks much like that suggested back in May by CIEL, the Center for International Environmental Law.  The bill also mirrors the CIEL analysis by including a provision to regulate a newly listed chemical beyond what the treaties themselves allow.  And if the US fails to ratify the three treaties, the House bill would go ahead and ban the five chemicals listed as POPs anyway.  A bit of a nudge to get the treaties ratified.

Of course, whether these provisions survive next year's iteration of the bills is always a question.

EU Commission Gets Close to Issuing Final PBT Chemical Annex for REACH

After much internal (and external) disagreement, the European Commission is finally ready to move ahead with its criteria for identifying Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic chemicals (PBT), as well as those that are not toxic but are Very Persistent and Very Bioaccumulative (vPvB). This new version of what is called Annex XIII of REACH is being forwarded to the CARACAL group this week and could be published some time this fall.

CARACAL is an acronym for the Competent Authorities to REACH and Classification and Labelling (CARACAL). If the proposal is adopted a notification would be sent to the WTO for comment within 60 days, and if no hangups occur there it will enter the REACH comitology procedure. Assuming all goes well there then it will get published in the EU Official Journal and enter into force.

But this still isn't a done deal. The proposal, which relies on established PBT criteria and allows weight of evidence to be included, has been quite vigorously debated inside the Commission. Most of the disagreement has been over the use of weight of evidence (WoE). WoE was omitted from the original proposal in 2008 but now it seems it has been allowed in order to provide some flexibility in assessing the PBT or vPvB status of a chemical.

The PBT guidance is available on the ECHA web site.

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

The Rotterdam Convention, Prior Informed Consent, and TSCA Chemical Reform

At last Thursday's House Subcommittee hearing on TSCA Reform, both Jim Jones of EPA and John Thompson of the Department of State mentioned that they thought the US should ratify three international agreements. Previously I took a look at the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Today I'll examine the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent.

The text of the Rotterdam Convention was adopted in September 1998 in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and it entered into force in February 2004. It covers "pesticides and industrial chemicals that have been banned or severely restricted for health or environmental reasons." It stipulates that "severely hazardous pesticide formulations that present a hazard under conditions of use in developing countries or countries with economies in transition may also be nominated for inclusion in Annex III." Once listed a "decision guidance document" must be prepared that defines how the chemical will be banned or severely restricted.

One of the most critical parts of the Convention is Prior Informed Consent, or PIC. This means that any country that intends to import the listed chemicals must be informed of the status of the chemicals in other countries, including that they have been banned and why. The PIC provision is especially important for developing countries that may not have as robust a regulatory safety infrastructure to protect them from being a dumping ground for dangerous chemicals that are banned elsewhere.

Currently there are 40 chemicals listed in Annex III of the Convention and subject to the PIC procedure, including 25 pesticides, 4 severely hazardous pesticide formulations and 11 industrial chemicals. Many more chemicals are expected to be added in the future.

Like the other international agreements, the US helped negotiate it but Congress never ratified it. And so we can observe the preceedings but cannot vote when other countries want to add chemicals to the list. Ratifying the agreement will not only allow the US to better look out for our interests, it will also demonstrate that we are taking a place of leadership in our international obligations.

So What are the Stockholm/Rotterdam/LRTAP Conventions Mentioned in Thursday's TSCA Chemical Reform Hearing?

At Thursday's House Subcommittee hearing on TSCA Reform, one of the points made by both Jim Jones of EPA and John Thompson of the Department of State was that they thought the US should ratify three international agreements for which we had signed onto but never officially joined through passage of acts from Congress. So what are these agreements? Today I'll take a look at one of them - the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. I'll examine the others in ensuing days.

The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) is a "global treaty to protect human health and the environment from chemicals that remain intact in the environment for long periods, become widely distributed geographically and accumulate in the fatty tissue of humans and wildlife."

In other words, that are persistent (P), bioaccumulative (B), and can transport to remote locations. The assumption is that exposure to POPs can "lead to serious health effects including certain cancers, birth defects, dysfunctional immune and reproductive systems, greater susceptibility to disease and even diminished intelligence." Inherent in the agreement is the fact that since these chemicals can be transported in the air, water, or biota for long distances, "no one governing acting alone can protect is citizens or its environment from POPs," and thus an international effort was required. The result was the Stockholm Convention adopted in 2001 and entered into force 2004. It "requires Parties to take measures to eliminate or reduce the release of POPs into the environment. The Convention is administered by the United Nations Environment Programme and based in Geneva, Switzerland.

Initially, twelve POPs were recognized as "causing adverse effects on humans and the ecosystem," and these fit into 3 general categories:

Pesticides: aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, mirex, toxaphene;

Industrial chemicals: hexachlorobenzene, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); and

By-products: hexachlorobenzene; polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDD/PCDF), and PCBs.

These 12 chemicals are often referred to as "the dirty dozen." Depending on the Annex in which the chemicals are listed, the goal is for countries who have signed the agreement to take steps to eliminate (Annex A), restrict (Annex B), or protect from unintentional production (Annex C) these 12 chemicals.

However, in May 2009, the Conference of the Parties (COP) adopted amendments to these Annexes to list nine additional chemicals as persistent organic pollutants, again placed into one or more of the three general categories:

Pesticides: chlordecone, alpha hexachlorocyclohexane, beta hexachlorocyclohexane, lindane, pentachlorobenzene;

Industrial chemicals: hexabromobiphenyl, hexabromodiphenyl ether and heptabromodiphenyl ether, pentachlorobenzene, perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, its salts and perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride, tetrabromodiphenyl ether and pentabromodiphenyl ether; and

By-products: alpha hexachlorocyclohexane, beta hexachlorocyclohexane and pentachlorobenzene.

So why is ratifying this Convention important? Well, even though we signed onto the agreement it has never been ratified by Congress, which means that all we can do is act as an observer. We can present our case at meetings, but we cannot vote. So this places the US in the position of having no real power to stand up for our own interests. Thus, we are susceptible to having outside interests dictate what happens here in the US.