Republicans Attacking Health and Environmental Protection, Endangering All Americans

As should come as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade or two, the Republican Party and Republican House and Republican Senate and Republican White House are moving rapidly to remove all public human health and environmental protections.

Even the ones that Republicans once supported.

The new U.S. Secretary of State is Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil and with close, perhaps illegal, ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin. He has already begun working to remove requirements for oil companies to report dealings with foreign countries, making it even easier for multinationals like ExxonMobil to engage in backroom deals and corruption. Rather than deal with the usual array of important foreign issues that have bedeviled previous State Department heads, Tillerson has shown an inclination to focus solely on issues that provide benefits to the oil and related industries. He plans to block American innovation to deal with climate change, allow the Russians to exploit oil reserves in the melting Arctic, and allow China to become the world leader in renewable energy innovation.

The new U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services is Tom Price, a Republican operative and congressman from Georgia who openly opposes women's health rights, Planned Parenthood, the Affordable Care Act (aka, Obamacare), and has anti-vaccine tendencies. He also opposed FDA authority to evaluate the health risks of smoking. Essentially, he is against all the protections he is now in charge of implementing.

The nominee for the new U.S. Secretary of Energy is Texas Governor Rick Perry, whose famous "Oops" moment was when he forgot the third cabinet department he wanted to eliminate. That department was the Department of Energy, the department he has been chosen now to run. A department that Perry falsely believed was all about promoting the oil industry in his home state (the department, in fact, is focused on our nuclear energy program).

The nominee to become the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is Scott Pruitt, Attorney General for the fossil fuel-dependent state of Oklahoma. Like fellow Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, Pruitt has dishonestly claimed climate change is a "hoax," and has spent the last several years suing the EPA to block health and safety rules. He still has open law suits against the very Agency he has been chosen to lead.

Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress have introduced bills to eliminate existing air pollution controls, allow polluters to block public release of pollution records, and repeal many environmental laws, including most recently a bill to repeal the Endangered Species Act. They also have set public land and environmental values to $0 (zero), thus making ANY proposed industrial destruction of public lands a "cost-benefit" simply by being proposed. Other bills to remove public health and environmental protections are in the works.

Republicans in Congress have proposed a bill to eliminate the EPA entirely.

All this is in just a few weeks. Remember, this is the same Republican party who barely worked in the last Congress, refused to debate anything of substance for two entire years while taking the most vacation days in history. Now they are taking advantage of having control of every branch of government to attempt to destroy decades of environmental and human health progress. This includes programs that Republicans once fought hard to put into place.

The fact that the White House is now populated with the most corrupt, inept, and puerile cast of incompetents who fabricate new lies in every breath gives Republicans in Congress the distractions they need to eliminate public safety. While the media are focused on how treasonous the administration has been in its secret dealings with puppetmaster Putin, Congress is quietly chopping apart public protections and selling off the United States to private corporations (who just happen to be Republican campaign contributors).

Republicans hope the public won't notice. Which is why the public must notice. And notice bigly.

EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE) Issues Final Alternatives Assessment Criteria

The USEPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics has released its final alternatives assessment criteria for evaluating human and environmental effects in accordance with its Design for the Environment (DfE) program.  DfE helps companies, states and other organizations to "identify safer alternatives to chemicals that may pose a concern to human health and the environment."  More information on the DfE program can be found on EPAs web site.

DfE Alternatives Assessments are "multi-stakeholder partnerships convened to evaluate priority chemicals and functional alternatives."  The goal is to "inform substitution to safer alternatives and reduce the likelihood of unintended consequences that might result if poorly understood alternatives are chosen."  In other words, they don't want to replace one bad chemical with another bad chemical just because they don't know enough about it.  According to DfE, its "expertise and focus is on chemical hazard," and encourages stakeholders to "assist with the selection of the scope of the alternatives assessment, help EPA consider economic realities, and identify likely functional alternatives for evaluation."

So whereas REACH in the EU specifies substances of very high concern and requires authorization for continued use (along with a substitution plan), the DfE program works directly with companies and other stakeholders to fix the problem together.

EPA is currently preparing DfE alternatives assessments for Bisphenol A (BPA), Decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE), and Nonylphenol ethoxylate (NPE) surfactants.  The draft reports for public comment are expected to be released by EPA later this year.  In addition, EPA has underway an alternatives assessment for Hexabromocyclodecane (HBCD) in polystyrene insulating foam.  And EPA also plans to conduct an alternatives assessment for phthalates with a kickoff meeting scheduled for August 24, 2011.

Version 2.0 of the Alternatives Assessment Criteria document can be downloaded as a PDF here.

More information and links to the phthalates kickoff meeting signup materials can be found in the right sidebar of the DfE page.

EPA Administrator Jackson Makes Trip to Africa (Kenya and Ethiopia)

The following is the text of an EPA press release dated February 18, 2011.

********************************************

On Friday, February 18, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P. Jackson will travel to Kenya and Ethiopia to engage in bilateral and multilateral meetings aimed at building relationships with key African counterparts and other environmental leaders. The trip will include attending the 26th United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) Governing Council Meeting and Ministerial Environment Forum, where Jackson and other U.S. representatives will outline the global scope of shared environmental, health and economic challenges and opportunities.
  
Jackson’s meetings in Kenya and Ethiopia will highlight important issues in children’s environmental health, good environmental governance and emerging green technology and innovations.
  
Jackson’s stops in Ethiopia and Kenya will include meetings and events focused on electronic waste, enforcement and compliance, indoor air quality, and clean fuels. While in Kenya, she will be hosted by U.S. Ambassador Michael E. Ranneberger and will lead the U.S. delegation to the UNEP meetings, where the group will continue the precedent set by the U.S. during UNEP’s 2009 meeting by actively engaging international partners in bringing awareness to shared environmental, health and economic challenges. In 2009, the U.S. signaled its commitment to take on a leadership role in working with 140 other countries on a binding international agreement on mercury. At the UNEP meeting, Jackson and UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner will sign the first ever Memorandum of Understanding between the two organizations, furthering the U.S. commitment to more effective collaboration to promote global environmental sustainability. She also will join with the director general of the country’s National Environmental Management Authority to speak on environmental initiatives and will participate in a roundtable with the East Africa Enforcement Network.
 
In Ethiopia, Jackson will be hosted by U.S. Ambassador Donald Booth and will meet with U.S. Ambassador to the African Union Michael Battle. She will represent U.S. interests in bilateral meetings with Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and leaders from Ethiopia’s Environmental Protection Agency. Jackson will also speak with students from Addis Ababa University about opportunities for women to take leadership roles in addressing environmental issues facing Ethiopia. In addition, she will receive a site-briefing and tour an e-waste de-manufacturing facility to highlight improved e-waste management and affirm EPA’s commitment to supporting innovation in the management of electronic waste.
 
These meetings will focus on EPA’s recently launched international priorities and aims to strengthen U.S. relationships with environmental counterparts in the Kenya, Ethiopia and other African nations.

More information on EPA’s international priorities and efforts:
http://www.epa.gov/international/

Controversial Wind Farm Off Coast of Nantucket Receives Lease

The much contentious Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound is moving forward.  The Department of Interior approved a lease for a commercial wind farm on the Outer Continental Shelf to Cape Wind Associates for its controversial 130-turbine project off of Nantucket Sound.  This marks the first commercial lease for a major wind energy project granted by the department, but Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said officials plan to “work with a consortium of states” to expedite the permitting process for more projects.

More information on the lease and the project can be found at the Cape Wind web site.

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.

Bill Greggs Testimony at Congressional Hearing on TSCA Chemical Control

This is a continuation of my series taking a closer look at the November 17, 2009 Congressional hearings on "Prioritizing Chemicals for Safety Determination." Earlier I gave an overall summary. Today I look at the testimony of William (Bill) Greggs, who is now a private Chemical and Environmental Policy Consultant but for 37 years was a chemical engineer and global chemical policy expert with the Procter & Gamble Company. Greggs was testifying on behalf of three processor and user organizations, namely the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA), the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), and the Soap and Detergent Association (SDA).

Greggs noted that "CSPA, GMA and SDA are committed to manufacturing and marketing safe and innovative products." He emphasized that the organizations agree that TSCA needs to be modernized and that it is critical that there be "development of a mechanism by which EPA will prioritize existing chemicals for review and assessment." He believes that "a priority setting process developed by Congress must be risk-based, taking into account both a chemical's hazards and potential exposures. Chemicals identified as the high priorities should be those substances with both the highest hazards and the highest potential exposures." (emphasis in original)

He noted that the three organizations have "collaborated with various industry representatives on the development of a risk-based and efficient tool that EPA can use to prioritize chemical substances." They recommend a framework that accounts for increasing levels of hazard on one axis and increasing levels of exposure on the other axis. On the hazard axis the criteria could include whether the substance was a carcinogen, mutagen or reproductive toxicant (CMR) or persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT), as well as others. For exposure axis the indicators could include the use pattern of the chemical, its biomonitoring findings (e.g., the CDC data), industrial releases as reported through the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), and whether the chemical is found in water or the air.

The belief is that this process would identify the chemicals with greatest potential risk for prioritized review. Greggs asserted that stakeholders must be allowed to review and comment on the draft assessments, and that they must be given the opportunity to "provide additional information enabling a more informed decision or to remedy erroneous results of the priority setting process." He noted that "this is a critical component Congress must include that will significantly improve the results of this very important exercise."

Greggs felt that "done properly, this priority setting process would rank all chemicals from highest to lowest in a relatively short period of time." He noted that "the complete priority setting process will take EPA some time to accomplish," and therefore he encouraged Congress "to develop an additional mechanism that will enable EPA to identify the chemicals of highest priority for immediate assessment." To accomplish this, he recommended a process "that would require EPA to screen the data from the most recent Inventory Update Rule (IUR) submissions to identify chemicals that have the highest hazards and highest potential exposures. (emphasis in original) Through this process he believes "EPA could identify 50 to 100 chemicals that could quickly move into EPA's safety assessment process while the Agency works on prioritizing the remaining chemicals in commerce" using the tool described above.

Tomorrow I will take a look at the testimony of Beth Bosley, a consultant for the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA).

Daryl Ditz Testimony at Congressional Hearing on TSCA Chemical Control

This is a continuation of my series taking a closer look at the November 17, 2009 Congressional hearings on "Prioritizing Chemicals for Safety Determination." Earlier I gave an overall summary. Today I look at the testimony of Daryl Ditz, a Senior Policy Advisor for the Center for International Environmental Law.

Ditz started by saying that "despite its aspirational title, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has failed to assess, let alone guarantee, the safety of the great majority of chemicals in use today." He further suggested that "TSCA stymies action by EPA and other agencies, perpetuates a reliance on dangerous substances, leaves businesses in the dark, and undermines U.S. competitiveness." Needless to say, Mr. Ditz believes the time is right to modernize TSCA.

He offered three recommendations for fixing TSCA.

1) To expedite action, Ditz said that "Congress should authorize EPA to promptly identify and phase out non-essential uses of a set of high-priority chemicals." He believes that "a slow, cumbersome safety determination process for these high-priority chemicals is neither necessary nor appropriate." He identifies these as the "worst-of-the-worst," defined primarily as those chemicals that exhibit PBT properties, i.e., Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic. Many PBT chemicals have already been identified and are characterized by remaining largely unchanged in the environment or people's bodies for long periods of time, biomagnify up the food chain (e.g., concentrations get higher as you move from plant to animal to higher order animal), and show high toxicity. Ditz believes that the old "unreasonable risk" standard in TSCA has actually prevented EPA from taking action on chemicals it knows need to be regulated.

2) Congress should "authorize EPA to prioritize the order in which all chemicals, new as well as existing, are assessed against a health-based standard." Ditz said that industry should be required to prove the safety of their chemicals (rather than the current system in which EPA must demonstrate lack of safety). He mentioned that the 2008 Kid Safe Chemical Act (which was never passed) would have prioritized chemicals for further review, but that prioritization shouldn't be used to exclude them from review, just determine the order they are reviewed. He noted that the previous administration's ChAMP initiative was "misguided" in that in trying to sort through nearly 7000 chemicals it "wrongly labeled 'low risk'" many chemicals on the basis of inadequate and unreliable data. Ditz felt the process advocated by the American Chemistry Council in its recently released "principles for TSCA modernization" would "repeat this mistake by subjecting only a fraction of existing chemicals," often based on limited data, to a safety determination and "letting the majority of chemicals sidestep credible evaluation."

3) Congress should ensure that "up-to-date, comprehensive information is available on all chemicals, to protect the health and safety of Americans and foster confidence in the market." Ditz noted repeatedly that the quantity and quality of data available in which to do these prioritizations was severely limited for most chemicals. He said that "U.S. policy should require chemical manufacturers to develop, submit and periodically update data on the potential hazards, exposures, and uses of chemicals they manufacture or import." He insisted that minimum data requirements are needed because major data gaps limit the ability to make informed assessments.

Finally, Mr. Ditz seconded the need for CDC and other organizations to conduct biomonitoring as "an important check on human exposures in the real world." He also believes that the ongoing efforts in Europe (REACH) and Canada (Chemical Categorization Program) can be used to help inform the evaluation of chemicals in the United States.

Tomorrow I will take a look at the testimony of William J. Greggs, a consultant for the Consumer Specialty Products Association, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and the Soap and Detergent Association (and formerly with Procter & Gamble).

Should all sushi be banned to save the bluefin tuna? The EU thinks so!

Okay, technically the European Union isn't saying that sushi should be banned. But the EU has recommended listing bluefin tuna as an endangered species. And that could eventually mean that trade of the tuna most used in sushi does get banned. Which means we might all have to live with eating eel.

Most marine scientists agree that many fish species are severely over-fished. This had led to stocks so low that populations are no longer sustainable. Scientific advisors to the EU this week warned EU ministers of collapsing stocks of bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean Sea and the larger Atlantic Ocean. And with the EU behind banning trade of the delectable fish, it is highly likely that the same will happen next March at the next CITES meeting. For those who aren't familiar with it, CITES stands for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and is an international agreement between governments. According to its web site, its "aim is to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival."

Not everyone agrees, of course. It should come as no surprise that Japan is actively lobbying to keep the current restrictions in place. These restrictions are much less onerous, something obviously more to the liking of a country that imports about 80% of the bluefin tuna retrieved in waters of the EU (not to mention elsewhere). Spain, Italy and Malta, all with large bluefin fisheries, are also not happy with the idea of any restrictions. On the flip side, several EU members, including France, the UK and the Netherlands, have publicly supported ending or suspending the fishing of bluefin tuna. In the end, the EU, however, votes as a block at CITES - fully 25% of the votes - so it is difficult for any one country to overturn a ban.

The EU’s position isn't final though, and may be revised pending additional information related to ongoing conservation efforts due later this year. And while the environmental unit of the Commission is strongly in favor of a complete ban, the Commission's fisheries unit is not keen on introducing additional regulation that could hurt the EU's fishing industry. Some argue that if the conservation efforts solve the over-fishing problem, a complete trade ban might not be necessary. In any case, the decision will be made in March 2010.

According to the European Commission's position paper, “[f]rom a scientific and technical point of view, the criteria for the listing of Atlantic bluefin tuna [as an endangered species] appear to be met...There is no doubt about the link between international trade and overexploitation of the species.”

Given my own marine fisheries experience, sometimes you have to just say no to fishing.

Our Floating Plastics Legacy

At a recent meeting of the American Chemical Society, the worlds largest professional scientific society, a researcher from Japan presented a paper demonstrating that plastics floating in the ocean break down faster than expected. Previously it was thought that plastics broke down very slowly (hundreds of years) and at very high temperatures.

Normally we like chemicals that break down, that is, degrade into smaller chemicals and eventually (hopefully) into carbon dioxide and water. But the study by Dr. Katsuhiko Saido of Nihon University suggests that when the plastics break down they release contaminants - some of them potentially very toxic.

The problem is more urgent because the oceans are now filled with plastic, which the New York Times called in a recent editorial, "...an amorphous, floating mass of waste plastic trapped in a gyre of currents..." Dr. Saido reports that these floating masses of plastic are releasing similar contaminants in seawater samples collected near Malaysia and the Pacific Northwest in addition to the northern Pacific between Hawaii and Japan. The northern Pacific patch is estimated to be on the order of twice the size of the state of Texas and may contain as much as 100 million tons of plastic debris.

Since plastic waste has long been known to trap up to a million seabirds every year and some 100,000 marine mammals, the discovery that degradation of the plastic releases contaminants is an added concern.

A video of the north Pacific gyre and plastic can be seen here.

[Note: Photograph by René Ehrhardt: attribution license]

Book Review – Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum

I’ll start by highly recommending this book. Especially to scientists or those interested in science. As suggested by the title – Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future - the book acknowledges the limits of the public’s understanding of science and how science works. But I felt the book was most powerful because it focuses on the role of scientists in disseminating scientific information. More on that later.

The first two chapters give a very nice background on the role science has played, from its high funding and close relationships with policy-makers soon after World War II, to its period of low funding and disconnect from policy-makers, to the more recent “war on science” (the topic of Mooney’s previous book).

Much of the main part of the book looks at the intersection of science and other institutions. Individual chapters look at science as it relates to politics, to religion, to its portrayal in Hollywood, and to journalism, all within the subcontext of C.P. Snow’s “two cultures” theme. In short, different ways of thinking, and different needs, affect the interaction of the two institutions in the dyad. For example, whereas the needs of the media are episodic, science is more incremental. So every incremental finding coming from scientific studies can be picked up by the media and presented as if it is a revelation. Except it might suggest the opposite of yesterday’s revelation. No matter that the two studies merely looked at different parts of the picture and support the full knowledge base, the media assume each piece stands on its own. This can be, and usually is, highly confusing to the public. Similar conflicts in the messaging occur between science and religion, scientist depiction in film (usually as a stereotypical caricature), and politics.

One chapter discusses the role of blogs. As newspapers and broadcast media have been eliminating science coverage, at least 1000 science blogs have sprung up. While blogs can help disseminate information broadly, the authors say “[t]he problem with the internet is obvious to anyone who has ever used it; There’s tons of information available, but much of it is crap.” Misinformation thrives, and those who want to manipulate the debate can publish whatever they want, and unfortunately, usually do. Much of it is biased, inaccurate, or outright fabrication. Which is why blogs may be useful for rapidly getting the word out, they cannot be relied upon for an accurate assessment of the science itself.

The authors refer repeatedly in the book to Carl Sagan, an astronomer who was also a stellar communicator, but whose popularity was often seen by other scientists as an indignity (i.e., to traditional scientists who preferred to do their science and leave the communication to others). But in the end the authors of Unscientific America, one a journalist and the other a scientist (who together write a blog called The Intersection), assert that disseminating the science to the lay public, to the media, and to policy-makers is an “integral part of the job description of scientists themselves.” Essentially, they say that it should be part of every scientist’s responsibility to communicate the science accurately, and to make sure that the science is not misrepresented by those who would misuse it.

The book is eminently readable (I read it in it’s entirety on a cross-Atlantic flight) and surprisingly insightful. I highly recommend the book; it is definitely worth the read.

Other book reviews

NGO Reaction to the Decision to Suspend ChAMP Chemical Program

As previously noted, the Obama EPA suddenly suspended its ChAMP program last week. ChAMP was the Agency's mechanism for evaluating the data received during the voluntary HPV Challenge, in which industry agreed to provide available health and safety data on about 2200 high production volume chemicals (i.e., those produced or imported in excess of 1 million pounds per year in the US).

Yesterday I gave some of the reaction from industry. Most felt that ChAMP was a good program and didn't understand its sudden suspension. Some feel it was so the Obama administration could institute more "command-and-control" regulation over chemicals, rather than the more voluntary (and EPA-onused) ChAMP.

The non-governmental organization (NGO) reaction, on the other hand, has been generally in favor of the move. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), whose 1997 report "Toxic Ignorance" was the catalyst that led to the HPV Challenge in the first place, has been very critical of the ChAMP program. According to EDF's Richard Dennison,"[i]t probably goes without saying that EDF welcomes EPA's decision to suspend the development and posting of risk-based prioritizations under its Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP)." Dennison has been writing a series of blog posts in recent months in which he notes some of the failings of ChAMP, arguing "that ChAMP's "rush to risk" has taken EPA badly off-track." He claims, however, that "we have also identified many useful things that EPA's existing chemicals program can and should be doing with the data it obtained through the HPV Challenge (whether called ChAMP or not)," and that EDF looked "forward to working with EPA to craft a new approach, grounded in a return to developing scientifically defensible hazard, not risk, characterizations and transparently identifying and addressing data gaps and data quality problems."

Another environmental advocacy group that has been following ChAMP, and in particular has been very supportive of the proposed Kid Safe Chemical Act, is the Environmental Working Group (EWG). EWG recently launched an interactive online site "featuring news and commentary, as well as a forum for a thought-provoking exchange of ideas on reforming the nation’s federal toxic chemicals policies." According to EWG, the site "will feature analysis and opinion by scientists, lawmakers, industry officials, community activists, policy specialists, journalists and others interested in environmental health issues." A major focus of the site "will be the emerging debate over reform of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)."

Another group interested in the ChAMP and TSCA reform is the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Commenting on the EDF blog, Gina Solomon of NRDC notes that "[t]his is a very important step toward meaningful chemical reform. It was clear that EPA needed to sweep the house clean before bringing in the new furniture, and the elimination of ChAMP does exactly that. Now we can get on with the job of really reforming U.S. chemical policy." She also congratulated EDF for its series of blog stories, saying "I really think this blog brought down ChAMP!"

Many in the NGO community feel that the administration's decision to suspend ChAMP is a clear signal that "ChAMP is grossly, indefensibly ineffective." EDF's Dennison says the decision is "implicit acknowledgement" that the ChAMP prioritization process needed an overhaul. According to the ChAMP web site, as of March 2009, EPA had "developed and posted risk-based prioritizations for 220 HPV chemicals and has posted hazard-based prioritizations for 83 chemicals." The goal of the program was to develop "screening-level hazard, exposure, and risk characterizations for an estimated 6,750 chemicals produced or imported in quantities of 25,000 pounds or greater a year" by 2012.

Clearly the administration felt that the program could not accomplish those goals and that a better way was needed. According to EPA, they expect to offer a new direction some time this summer.

Industry Reaction to Obama Decision to Suspend ChAMP Chemical Program

As noted a few days ago, the Obama EPA has decided to suspend its voluntary Chemical Assessment & Management Program (ChAMP). The news came as a bit of a shock to most policy watchers, both on the industry and NGO side (and apparently also within the Agency).

Industry reaction has been mixed, some attacking the decision as "less about science and more about the new administration's desire for a command-and-control approach to chemicals management policy." For example, the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA) attacked the move in a statement issued June 18th by accusing the EPA of remaining “silent about its full intentions, contradicting President Obama's commitment to transparency and support for scientific integrity.” NPRA's President, Charles Drevna further noted that “[i]t is extremely disheartening that the administration would abandon its priority-setting chemicals management process before it is even given the opportunity to work.” Drevna further "urge[d] the administration to reconsider its abandonment of both the scientifically sound ChAMP initiative and the United States’ commitments to Canada and Mexico under the Security & Prosperity Partnership of North America."

Similarly, the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA) issued a statement in which indicated that the suspension of ChAMP “is creating confusion over how or whether to continue activities already begun by industry in this effort.” In the SOCMA statement, Bill Allmond, vice president of government relations, urged "EPA to not delay the forward progress it has been making under ChAMP. We applaud the agency for wishing to strengthen its chemicals management program, but we’re concerned that, in order to do so, they’re stopping it altogether. We hope that EPA’s evaluation of ChAMP will be brief and maintain the program’s original intent.”

Meanwhile, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) also issued a statement, though perhaps with a less strident tone. ACC says “[W]e are confident that any changes to ChAMP do not signal a reversal of the U.S. government’s commitment, but rather to further strengthen the program.” ACC seems to believe that the initial reports are overreactive and that EPA will find a way to get chemical reviews moving again. ACC was the original industry lead in developing the voluntary High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge program, from which ChAMP evolved as a means to evaluate the collected data.

Consistent with ACC's view is the fact that EPA has requested an additional $3 million for the program in its fiscal year 2010 budget proposal. The budget request includes monies to hire additional employee resources in order to accelerate the development of the ChAMP prioritization documents. Now, according to an EPA spokesman, the EPA is looking at options “to determine how best to ramp up efforts to assess, prioritize and take risk management action on chemicals of concern. EPA plans to announce the specifics of this effort this summer and will seek public input into the discussion.”

So it seems that EPA already has some idea in mind about how it prefers to proceed. Expect more updates and potential options for moving forward as information continues to become available.

TSCA Reform Seems Inevitable - But Which TSCA Reform?

It's a done deal. Okay, not actually a "done deal." But it seems clear that some sort of TSCA reform is on its way. TSCA, of course, is the Toxic Substances Control Act, which has been the authority for chemical control in the US for over 30 years. Not much has changed since it was passed, and not many of the 63,000 chemicals grandfathered onto the TSCA Inventory have had comprehensive data reviews. New chemicals, on the other hand, all have gone through some review by the EPA, but even here there is no requirement to provide health and safety data so most of the analysis is done by computer modeling and comparison to similar chemicals.

As reported here previously, Senator Lautenberg and Representatives Waxman and Solis introduced the Kid Safe Chemical Act back in 2005 and again in 2008. On both occasions it never got out of committee. Senator Lautenberg is adamant that he will reintroduce it this year. But then what?

In a recent hearing both industry and advocacy groups provided their input in to what TSCA reform should look like. Industry, in particular Cal Dooley of the American Chemistry Council, acknowledged that some sort of TSCA reform is necessary. Environmental groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund agreed that a change is needed. But the agreement stops there.

There are two main options on the table, with lots of options in between. One option is to reintroduce the Kid Safe Act, which would be a radical departure from the current TSCA law, and a bit too close to the European REACH program for industry's tastes. Some environmental groups, e.g., the Environmental Working Group, are in favor of the Kid Safe Act approach. Industry favors something that tweaks the current authority incumbent in TSCA but perhaps not assertively used enough in the past by EPA. EPA itself seems to be leaning in favor of TSCA reform that looks much like its current ChAMP program. Industry generally agrees with that idea.

The difference of opinion is largely one of who has the onus. With the current TSCA and ChAMP, the EPA has the onus of determining that a chemical is not safe, something that has been hard to do given the lack of data available for most chemicals. With the Kid Safe Act and other REACH-like options, the burden shifts almost entirely to industry to prove their chemicals are safe enough to remain (if already existing) or be put (if new) on the market. There are advantages and disadvantages of each approach, which I will examine in coming posts.

USEPA Seeking Scientific Information on CO2-caused Ocean Acidification

Think global warming affects only the air temperature? Think again. The oceans matter also when it comes to climate change. Carbon dioxide (CO2) could lead to big changes in the ocean, and most of it would not be good. According to the Center For Biological Diversity (CBD) in a petition filed last year, new science shows that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are acidifying ocean waters. The result is impairment in the ability of coral and other marine invertebrates to build and maintain exoskeletons (the hard parts on the outside that keep them together).

To evaluate the petition, EPA is seeking scientific and policy information on ocean acidification caused by CO2. They need this information to help them decide whether to revise their current pH water criterion, a move which could lay the groundwork for regulating greenhouse gases through the Clean Water Act. EPA published a notice of data availability in an April 15 Federal Register notice, and asked for commenters to provide existing information about ocean acidification as well as new scientific data and policy suggestions for addressing acidification. The goal is to use the information to decide whether to grant the CBD petition, which asked the agency to revise its national marine criterion for pH to protect marine life.

Because of the interconnectedness of the issue, EPA is soliciting information on technological advances in rapid, continuous, or remote monitoring of pH; long term data that demonstrate acidification; and methods to evaluate pH variability. They are also seeking estimates for survival rates for coral and non-coral organisms, as well as any methods for weighing the impact of acidification in comparison to other stressors, such as storm damage and overfishing. Finally, the EPA would like individual states to offer their experience on implementing the current pH standard and for experts to suggest scientifically defensible approaches to set and monitor pH criteria.

The ramifications of this decision are potentially expansive. EPA's decision on the pH criteria could set an ecological goal for future CO2 limits. The resultant criteria are non-binding, but they inform state water standards, and that could in turn require the setting of emission limits at the state level to achieve the standards. This action is a part of a myriad of actions the EPA is contemplating in an effort to address climate change through regulations. Other actions include the reconsideration of the previous administration's denial of California's request to regulate CO2 from vehicles, reevaluation of a Bush EPA memo barring regulation of CO2 in power plant permits, and the preparation of a climate change endangerment finding that could set the stage for regulations across many programs and agencies. As I have mentioned in the past, the Obama administration is taking climate change issues very seriously and has filled many of his key environmental and energy positions with personnel experienced and active in those areas.

Chemical Control Reform - Kids Safe Out...ChAMP In?

As discussed here previously, the US is taking a hard look at its 30+ year old chemical control law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Many argue that the law is outdated, both because it doesn't require health and safety data for new chemical notifications and because the bar for regulating existing chemicals seems too high a hurdle. Around 63,000 existing chemicals were grandfathered onto the TSCA Inventory with no health and safety review, and only a handful have seen such reviews since.

Options abound. Should the US pursue a system more like the new chemical control law in Europe, called REACH, which requires that manufacturers and importers of all chemicals - existing and new - provide a dossier summarizing health and safety for all intended uses? Or something more like the Canadian prioritization review and management program in which the government does the hard work of the initial screen for all existing chemicals? Or something like the Kid Safe Chemical Act that has twice been introduced by the US Congress before?

This week at the annual GlobalChem chemical industry conference being held in Baltimore, MD, Jim Jones, EPA's acting toxics and pesticides chief, told attendees at the GlobalChem chemical industry conference in Baltimore, that at the office's first meeting with new EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, she told staff that “‘ChAMP is fine, but I want to see more, more quickly.’”

ChAMP is the current semi-authorized by TSCA mechanism that EPA has been using to maximize the value of the reams of data received under the voluntary HPV Challenge program between 1998 and 2008. But ChAMP goes further, with proposed enhancements that would "reset" the TSCA Inventory, look at moderate volume chemicals, and inorganic high production volume chemicals that were excluded from the original HPA Challenge.

Jones' comments signal that EPA may be leaning toward TSCA Reform that mirrors more the ChAMP program than the Kid Safe Act. Environmental and health advocacy groups have favored the Kid Safe Act because it puts the onus on producing data on the manufacturers of chemicals, similar to REACH in the EU. Industry favors something more like ChAMP, which initially would require more Agency effort during the screening process, but may provide for a quicker review and prioritization. Once chemicals are prioritized for more in-depth review, industry would provide specific data focused on addressing any real or perceived concerns.

Jackson has hinted on more than one occasion since taking office that she favors the current chemical management system as a basis for reforming the program. The ChAMP program was initiated following former President Bush's commitment to complete the characterizations of Inventory chemicals by 2012 as part of the 2007 Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement with Mexican and Canadian officials.

Officially though, the administration has not yet taken a position on TSCA reform, but Jones suggests that "the administrator is “very interested” in the issue and has discussed the issue “with her small political team several times.” Meanwhile, EPA will continue to use its existing TSCA authorities to regulate substances that are of concern. While Congress is mulling the future of TSCA, EPA has been more assertive in using such TSCA authorized tools as test rules and enforcement actions. It also has been very busy reviewing the data received from the HPV Challenge and issuing hazard and risk prioritizations.

New NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco Says Science is Her Top Priority

Dr. Jane Lubchenco took over the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on March 22, 2009. A day later she did a joint interview with writers from two of the most prestigious science news journals - Science and Nature. When asked what her top priorities were as she took over the agency, she responded "Clearly, science is a priority for me."

Expanding on that idea, Dr. Lubchenco said:

It's my belief that a resilient society and economy depend on informed decisions regarding environmental challenges and resource-management issues. The role of science is to provide the knowledge to do that informing. Those decisions might be made by individuals or governments or by companies; I believe those decisions will be better if they are informed by science. I use "informed" judiciously because I don't think the science should dictate any particular outcome. Decisions are going to take into account a number of different things — values, politics, economics — but science should be at the table in a way that is understandable and relevant and credible and salient. NOAA, as an applied-science agency, has the responsibility to develop and communicate and use science to make policy and management decisions, but also to inform policy and management decisions that are made by others.

When asked whether there was "a big problem in terms of scientists being muzzled in the last administration," she said that it's probably hard to know for sure, but that "as we move forward science will be respected; it will not be muzzled. It will not be distorted. And scientists will be free to share their scientific findings whether they fit any preconceived policy or not." She also indicated that she and John Holdren, the new presidential science adviser and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, would be reviewing all policies and practices to ensure scientific integrity.

Lubchenco also said that one thing she would like to do is "establish a National Climate Service in partnership with other agencies."

The full interview can be read in Nature magazine.

Scientists as political activists?

I mentioned previously the climate change conference held in Copenhagen, which was designed to stimulate some activism on the part of scientists in preparation for December's much anticipated international climate change conference. Despite this goal, however, one point made repeatedly was that "formulating an action plan to curb climate change is not the job of scientists."

Herein lies a dilemma (wrapped inside a conundrum, or is it the other way around).

Scientists traditionally prefer to do the science and leave the policy development to others. For one thing, public policy must consider many more things than just the science. There are sociological, economic, political, and pragmatic considerations. But at the same time politicians are asking scientists, for example climate change scientists, what action they should take to address the problem. Unfortunately, while they can predict what may happen, it's even more difficult to provide guidance on what to do about it. This is true for a couple of reasons.

First, models can never provide a perfect prediction of how and where the climate will change. One participant in Copenhagen noted: "Tell me what the stock market will do in 100 years and I will tell you what the climate will do." Second, most climate scientists will tell you that their role does not include policy formulation. They can provide scenarios of what will happen if emissions hit certain thresholds, but when politicians ask what is the absolute maximum amount of CO2 we should allow, there is no easy answer. In the end, it depends on how much risk we are willing to take. That, and how good we are at predicting tipping points.

So the organizers of the Copenhagen conference hoped that they can encourage scientists to take a more active role and speak not as scientists but as concerned citizens. Some may feel uncomfortable with "blurring the line between science and activism," but they also know that no one understands the risks better than they do and no one is better placed to give informed opinions.

One positive note from the current Obama administration is that he has placed scientists in key appointee positions, jobs that too often in the past have gone to political friends whether they know anything about science or not. These scientists as risk managers are "people who are willing and able to weigh up the risks, costs and benefits of various degrees of action."

Holdren and Lubchenco Are Confirmed - And So is Obama's Commitment to Climate Change

On Thursday the Senate unanimously confirmed Jane Lubchenco to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and John Holdren to head the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Lubchenco is a marine scientist whose experience and credibility goes back decades. Holdren is a Harvard University physicist and professor of environmental policy. These confirmations round out Obama’s science team.

And what a team. By selecting such a group of well-renowned scientists and administrators for his key positions - including Steven Chu as Energy Secretary, Lisa Jackson as EPA Administrator, Nancy Sutley as head of the Council of Environmental Quality, and former EPA Administrator Carol Browner in the newly created position of Climate and Energy Policy Advisor in the White House - Obama has signaled that he puts a high value on science. It also signals that he will pursue active policies to address climate change.

Lubchenco and Holdren, along with the others, could play significant roles in shaping the Obama administration’s approach to climate science and policy. Lubchenco has "built an international reputation for her scientific work on marine conservation and climate change and for her ongoing efforts to help scientists participate in public policy debates and communicate their work to the general public."

Holdren has a long history of working on climate and energy policy, clean technology and nuclear proliferation. Over a year ago he gave the prestigious John H. Chafee Memorial Lecture on Science and the Environment at the National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE). Called "Meeting the Climate-Change Challenge," Holdren stated:

"We are experiencing dangerous anthropogenic interference by any reasonable definition today. The question now is whether we can avoid catastrophic human interference in the climate system."

He listed three possible policy options..."They are mitigation, adaptation, and suffering. Basically, if we do less mitigation and adaptation, we’re going to do a lot more suffering."

Holdren's full lecture at NCSE can be read here. It's worth the read.

Meanwhile, it's clear that the current administration will place more emphasis on science than his predecessor, with a specific interest in addressing climate change.

Climate Scientists in Copenhagen Issue Key Messages

As I noted two days ago, the University of Copenhagen this past week hosted an international scientific congress on climate change under the heading "Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions," and was attended by more than 2,500 delegates from nearly 80 countries.

The main aim of the congress was to provide a synthesis of existing and emerging scientific knowledge necessary in order to make intelligent societal decisions concerning application of mitigation and adaptation strategies in response to climate change. Following the congress they issued a press release with the key messages; the conclusions will be published into a full synthesis report June 2009.

The six preliminary key messages are noted below:

Key Message 1: Climatic Trends

Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised. For many key parameters, the climate system is already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which our society and economy have developed and thrived. These parameters include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, ocean and ice sheet dynamics, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events. There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts.

Key Message 2: Social disruption

The research community is providing much more information to support discussions on "dangerous climate change." Recent observations show that societies are highly vulnerable to even modest levels of climate change, with poor nations and communities particularly at risk. Temperature rises above 2oC will be very difficult for contemporary societies to cope with, and will increase the level of climate disruption through the rest of the century.

Key Message 3: Long-Term Strategy

Rapid, sustained, and effective mitigation based on coordinated global and regional action is required to avoid 'dangerous climate change' regardless of how it is defined. Weaker targets for 2020 increase the risk of crossing tipping points and make the task of meeting 2050 targets more difficult. Delay in initiating effective mitigation actions increases significantly the long-term social and economic costs of both adaptation and mitigation.

Key Message 4 - Equity Dimensions

Climate change is having, and will have, strongly differential effects on people within and between countries and regions, on this generation and future generations, and on human societies and the natural world. An effective, well-funded adaptation safety net is required for those people least capable of coping with climate change impacts, and a common but differentiated mitigation strategy is needed to protect the poor and most vulnerable.

Key Message 5: Inaction is Inexcusable

There is no excuse for inaction. We already have many tools and approaches 'economic, technological, behavioural, management' to deal effectively with the climate change challenge. But they must be vigorously and widely implemented to achieve the societal transformation required to decarbonise economies. A wide range of benefits will flow from a concerted effort to alter our energy economy now, including sustainable energy job growth, reductions in the health and economic costs of climate change, and the restoration of ecosystems and revitalisation of ecosystem services.

Key Message 6: Meeting the Challenge

To achieve the societal transformation required to meet the climate change challenge, we must overcome a number of significant constraints and seize critical opportunities. These include reducing inertia in social and economic systems; building on a growing public desire for governments to act on climate change; removing implicit and explicit subsidies; reducing the influence of vested interests that increase emissions and reduce resilience; enabling the shifts from ineffective governance and weak institutions to innovative leadership in government, the private sector and civil society; and engaging society in the transition to norms and practices that foster sustainability.

The full text of the press release can be found here.

Climate Scientists in Emergency Meeting to Stimulate Action

"This is not a regular scientific conference," says University of Copenhagen marine biologist Katherine Richardson, "This is a deliberate attempt to influence policy."

Pretty direct for a scientist, to say that they intend to stimulate action by politicians. That's how serious climate researchers feel the situation is right now...they are making direct calls for policy-makers to do something, and do it now.

The event is the International Scientific Congress on Climate Change , which features keynotes by leading advocates for dramatic global warming policies, as well as most of the world's climate scientists. These scientists are in Copenahagen to collate the latest scientific findings so they can exert pressure on the negotiating teams that will meet in Copenhagen next December. The concern is that the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 is already severely out-of-date. In fact, recent studies suggest that the pace of climate disruption has quickened, so that we may already be too late to stop changes that scientists warned of just five years ago. In fact, the most recent IPCC report failed to adequately account for several climatic tipping points ― like methane released from a thawing tundra, and decreased albedo from a melting arctic ― which are happening earlier than predicted. The concern now is that climate change could accelerate so quickly that humanity will be unable to slow the outcome.

The conference will synthesize the latest climate change science and publish a master document for negotiators heading to the larger meeting to be held in December, also in Copenhagen.