EPA (Almost) Ready to Release New Chemical Action Plans

Well, in the broad definition of the word "almost."  EPA has been promising release of two new chemical action plans - siloxanes and diisocyanates - for quite some time now, but internal discussions and external input from manufacturers and users have kept EPA from finalizing them.  Still, key EPA directors have indicated they plan to put them online by the end of the year.

Beyond that EPA is still trying to decide how to proceed.  With TSCA reform not being passed this year and some uncertainty about the potential timing and/or outcome of reintroduction next year, EPA has indicated that it will continue to push the envelope on its authority under the existing TSCA law.  On the other hand, several members of the incoming majority in the House (and the closer minority in the Senate) have indicated that they think EPA has overstepped that authority in the issuance of these action plans.  So I suspect EPA is working through the options for moving forward, either with or without TSCA reform.

And as I reported yesterday, the individual states are not sitting around idly waiting for Congress to pass a new law.

With Uncertainty About the Future of TSCA Chemical Reform in Congress , States Increase Regulatory Action

I have spent a lot of time on this site talking about various aspects of the attempts to reform/update/modernize the 34-year old Toxic Substances Control Act.  One aspect I've mentioned several times is the work of various states to "fill in the gaps" of the federal level law.  A new report shows that states have stepped up their activity in light of the lack of substantive movement on TSCA reform legislation in the US Congress.

The report, by two health advocacy coalitions - SAFER States and Safer Chemicals Healthy Families - is called "Healthy States" and documents that "states aren’t waiting for Congress to take action on toxic chemicals—they are taking matters into their own hands."

According to the report, "state restrictions on toxic chemicals are on the rise, and will probably continue to increase until Congress overhauls failing federal legislation."  Among other activities, the report highlights:

• In the last eight years, eighteen states have passed 71 chemical safety laws.
• The pace of state policy making on chemicals has more than tripled in eight years.
• Sixty-six laws banned bisphenol A (BPA) in baby and toddler products (with 98% support), phased out toxic flame retardants (PBDEs) in home products (93%), reduced children’s exposure from common products containing lead (88%) and cadmium (86%), and promoted green cleaning.
• State legislators strongly supported recent state laws that create new programs for broad regulation of toxic chemicals. This includes comprehensive laws passed in California, Maine, Minnesota and Washington state.

According to SAFER States, "while Washington DC is stuck in chemical industry politics, the states are growing frustrated and taking matters into their own hands -- passing laws which will help to temper the public outcry until a day comes when we are comfortable with the chemicals that are infiltrating every part of our lives."

The chemical industry has in the past supported the concept (though not necessarily the details) of federal-level TSCA modernization, in large part because they don't want the kind of patchwork regulatory quilt in which state-level regulations would result.  With the 2010 Safe Chemicals Act bills left to die without action, new versions of the bills will need to be introduced in the next Congress.  The change of majority party in the House and the subsequent differences in viewpoint between many key incoming House members and the opposite majority party in the Senate have created some uncertainty about the path forward.  What this report shows is that the states will continue, and likely increase, their state-level action in an effort to 1) deal with the lack of federal-level action in Congress, and 2) stimulate federal-level action in Congress.

The report can be downloaded on either of the two advocacy sites linked above.  A PDF is available here.

A Rational Discussion of Climate Change - Live on C-SPAN3 [Upated with Replay]

As I mentioned yesterday there is a House hearing going on today called "A Rational Discussion of Climate Change."  You can watch it on C-SPAN3 as I write this.  I'll follow up on this after the hearing.

See yesterday for more information and links.

Here is an interesting replay of a live commenting feed from the hearing.  A lot of running commentary during the hearing (sponsored by the online version of Science magazine) by such people as Gavin Schmidt (RealClimate), Joe Romm (Climate Progress), and a variety of others who signed into the feed.  Very interesting commentary.

A Rational Discussion of Climate Change - House Hearing on November 17, 2010

Congress is back in session, and at least one Democratic committee chair is ready for a hearing called "A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response."  The hearing will be held in the Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2325, from 10:30 am to 12:30 pm, Wednesday, November 17, 2010. It will be interesting to see how rational it is given the lame duck status of Congress.  But the line up of witnesses bears promise as they are mostly prominent scientists and other authorities testifying, mostly on the status of the science and impacts of not taking action.

Witnesses include:

Dr. Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences

Dr. Heidi Cullen, CEO and Director of Communications at Climate Central

Dr. Gerald Meehl, Senior Scientist in the Climate and Global Dynamics Division at the National Center for Atmospheric Research

Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Benjamin Santer, Atmospheric Scientist in the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Dr. Richard Alley, Evan Pugh Professor in the Department of Geosciences and an Associate of the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute at Pennsylvania State University

Dr. Richard Feely, Senior Scientist at the Pacific Marine Environment Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Rear Admiral David Titley, Oceanographer and Navigator for the United States Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

Mr. James Lopez, Senior Advisor to the Deputy Secretary at the Department of Housing and Urban Development

Mr. William Geer, Director of the Center for Western Lands for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

Dr. Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology

Their written remarks should be posted on the committee web site above once they give testimony.  The committee has already released a PDF of the hearing charter, which summarizes the topics each witness will address.  It also provides some useful background on the state of climate science that I highly recommend everyone read.

Oil will run out 100 years before new fuels are developed

Wondering what to get your kids for Christmas?  How about a science kit so they can develop a new fuel to replace petroleum.  A new study suggests it could make them rich.

Okay, so your kids probably aren't going to discover some new fuel source (or will they?).  But a new study reported in that great science source (Yahoo! News) suggests that we better get started looking for a new source, because we're going to run out of oil long before we find something to replace it.

If the world's oil reserves were the 1.332 trillion barrels they were estimated to be in 2008 and oil consumption was some 85.22 million barrels a day and growing at 1.3 percent a year, oil would be depleted by 2041, says the study published online last week in Environmental Science and Technology.

Then researchers from the University of California at Davis analyzed share prices of 25 oil companies and determined (to no one's surprise) that much more money is put into the conventional energy markets than to renewable or alternative energy markets.  They then "used advanced pricing equations" and calculated that "there would not be a widely available replacement for oil-based fuels before 2140, which, even if the more optimistic date of 2054 for oil depletion is retained."  All of this means that "there could be a nearly 90-year gap when it might be difficult to run a motor vehicle."

The Yahoo! article can be read here.  The original study can be found in the journal, ES&T, is published by the American Chemical Society.

More Than 1/2 Million Chemical Classification Notifications Received by ECHA

Along with REACH registrations, companies in Europe must notify all their chemicals under the new "European Regulation on Classification, Labelling and Packaging of chemical substances and mixtures" (CLP). The CLP is how the United Nations’ Globally Harmonised System (UN GHS) for classifying and labelling chemicals is being implemented in Europe.  Companies must notify by January 3, 2011, and as of now more than 500,000 notifications have been received by ECHA.

Companies who must register their substances by the fast approaching November 30, 2010  REACH registration deadline will also include CLP classifications, and this meets the obligation to notify.  However, those companies who make substances at lower tonnages and have 2013 or 2018 REACH registration deadlines must still notify under the CLP by January 3, 2011.  In short, "if you are a manufacturer or importer, you must notify hazardous substances that you place on the market on their own or contained in hazardous mixtures above certain applicable concentration limits, regardless of the annual tonnage manufactured or imported, as well as substances subject to registration under REACH and that you place on the market, to the Classification & Labelling Inventory established at the Agency."

More information on the CLP and the upcoming deadlines can be found on the ECHA web site.

ChemCon Americas Conference Debates REACH, TSCA Reform, GHS

This past week has been the ChemCon Americas conference in Philadelphia, where mostly industry representatives, regulatory experts, and scientists get together to discuss important issues affecting the chemical industry.  And this week was no exception.  Hot topics included the scramble to make the November 30th REACH deadline, the confusion over how various countries are implementing (or not implementing) GHS, and the uncertainty over what may or may not happen with TSCA reform in the United States.

Representatives from EPA continued to make the case that the 34-year old Toxic Substances Control Act just does not give them the authority to efficiently review tens of thousands of existing chemicals grandfathered onto the TSCA Inventory (for later review). With the chairmanships of the House set to switch from the Democratic Waxman and Rush to "Republicans to be named later," there still seems to be the belief that some form of TSCA reform will happen in the next Congress.  Meanwhile, a lawyer representing industry interests reminded attendees that the individual states are pressing forward with their own versions of reform, perhaps presenting industry with an even more complicated patchwork of regulations to monitor.

REACH also received attention.  A representative from the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) encouraged companies to keep on pushing to meet the fast approaching deadline.  Tens of thousands of registrations have been received and many more are expected in the mad rush during the next two weeks.  Oh, and then there is the CLP - Europe's version of the Globally Harmonized System for classification and labeling, for which companies must notify all of their chemicals by January 3rd (even those not scheduled for REACH registration until 2013 or 2018).  And let's not forget Turkey. And China and Japan. And New Zealand and Australia.  And cosmetics?

No wonder everyone looks a little knackered.

Canada Lists 4 Chemicals to its Schedule 1 List of Toxic Substances

While the US struggles with what to do to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Europe has been busy with the first registration phase of it's Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) program and Canada is well into its Chemical Management Plan evaluating their Inventory of existing chemicals.  As part of that process Canada recently proposed to add four additional chemicals its Schedule 1 "list of toxic substances" under CEPA (the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999).   

The four substances are:

Vanadium pentoxide: A naturally occurring substance in the environment, "used primarily in Canada in the manufacture of ferrovanadium and as a catalyst in the production of sulphuric acid." According to Environment Canada, "vanadium pentoxide is released to air, to water and to land, mainly through combustion of fossil fuels and wood fuels from industrial activities."  It "was identified as a high priority for assessment because of its classification as a carcinogen by national and international agencies."

Potassium bromate: A man-made substance "used primarily in Canada in industrial and commercial applications," including "as an oxidizing reagent in laboratories, in the dying of textiles, and in permanent wave neutralizing solutions in the cosmetics industry."  While it appears there is limited current reporting of use in Canada, and no reported consumer uses, the substance was listed "based principally on the weight-of-evidence assessment or classification from international or other national agencies..., the critical effect of exposure...is carcinogenicity," as well as reports of genotoxicity and "a variety of non-cancer effects."

TGOPE: A thankfully brief acronym for a long chemical name, TGOPE "is a man-made component of epoxy resin used as an adhesive or binding agent" used primarily "in the manufacture of paints, coatings designed for industrial use and certain consumer epoxy-patch adhesives." Exposure is expected to be minimal because it is it seems to have limited current manufacture in Canada (but is imported) and has limited consumer uses (mostly epoxy adhesives).  Health effects assessments have not been identified, but "in vitro experiments and weight-of-evidence assessment or classification from several other analogues...show that TGOPE may cause cancer."

Methyl eugenol: Mainly "a naturally occurring organic substance in the essential oils of several plant species," used primarily "as flavour ingredients in food and beverages and as fragrance ingredients and emollients in personal care, cosmetics and other household products." According to the Canadian assessment, "the substance may also be produced synthetically."  Exposure is "mainly from its naturally occurring presence in food and beverages with smaller contributions from the use of personal care products and citronella-based personal insect repellents."  Canada has determined "that methyl eugenol may cause cancer," and may also "be genotoxic in a range of experimental studies...Therefore, it cannot be precluded that the substance may have interacted with the genetic material."

More information on these four substances can be found here.  In addition to these four listed, there were 13 substances from "Batch 9" that were not found to meet the criteria for listing.  These can be seen here.

White House Names Two Nanotechnology Scientists as 2009 Presidential Early Career Award Winners

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy has named two scientists from the Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory as 2009 Presidential Early Career Awards for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE) winners.  According to Argonne National Labs, the PECASE awards are "the nation’s highest honor for researchers in the beginning stages of their independent research careers."  The two are materials scientist Dillon Fong and nanoscientist Elena Shevchenko, who "were selected by the for their contributions to meeting America’s scientific and technological missions and the country’s economic, energy, health and security needs."

Shevchenko heads "the NanoBio Interfaces Group in Argonne’s Center for Nanoscale Materials." Nanoparticles (also called nanoscale materials or simply nanomaterials) "are small assemblies of particular materials that have special properties."  According to Argonne National Labs, "Shevchenko’s work specifically examined how nanoparticles self-organize to form more complicated materials."

Fong "works in Argonne’s Materials Science Division, where he investigates the formation and structure of complex oxide thin films." In his research, he asks "questions like how these thin film crystals grow, and how much of this growth can we control?" And "do these materials behave when they are only a few nanometers thick?"

Read more about their achievements at the links and in the Argonne press release.  Both scientists will receive their awards later this year at the White House.

American Cleaning Institute Finds Fault with California "Safer Products" Regulations

The American Cleaning Institute (ACI; formerly the Soap and Detergent Association) has filed comments to the California Department of Toxic Substances stating that the new regulations are "bureaucratic, punitive, and adversarial."  In their press release, ACI states:

California’s proposed regulations for “safer consumer product alternatives” are bureaucratic in the extreme, resource intensive for California government and the regulated community, punitive and adversarial, according to the American Cleaning Institute. 

ACI's detailed comments (93 pages, including attachments) urge the California DTSC to work with stakeholders to address proposals in need of "significant revision" as the current proposal would not accomplish "the goals
of the state’s Green Chemistry Initiative."  ACI complained about many parts of the proposed regulations, including their overly broad scope, a "flawed" chemical prioritization process, onerous reporting requirements, and what they see as "disincentives" to the development of safer consumer productes.

The full ACI comments can be read here.

ECHA Makes Available QSAR Toolbox 2.0 to Facilitate Chemical Assessments

ECHA and OECD are making available an assessment software that they call "The Toolbox."  It is intended to that the toolbox "tools" will be used by "governments, chemical industry and other stakeholders in filling gaps in (eco)toxicity data needed for assessing the hazards of chemicals."  The Toolbox incorporates information and tools from various sources into a logical workflow, including a crucial element -  grouping chemicals into chemical categories.

The fundamental features of the Toolbox are:

1. Identification of relevant structural characteristics and potential mechanism or mode of action of a target chemical.
2. Identification of other chemicals that have the same structural characteristics and/or mechanism or mode of action.
3. Use of existing experimental data to fill the data gap(s).

According to OECD, "the goal of Phase 2 development is to ensure that the category approach to filling data gaps works uniformly for all discrete organic chemicals and for all regulatory endpoints."  It is a two year work plan which began in the 4th Quarter of 2008.  "The work plan has five thematic areas namely Information Technology, Chassis Development and Additional Functionalities, Database Compilation, (Q)SAR Library and Expert System Compilation, and Training. The implementation of the features is divided between two versions."


This Version 2.0 was released in October 2010 and Version 3.0 is planned for release in October 2012.

More information and a place to download the toolbox can be found here.

Post-Election Questions - Will EPA Step Up Action, Step Down Action, or No Changes Ahead?

Now that their has been a change in the majority party in the House (or more accurately, there will be starting when the next Congress takes their seats in January 2011), how will this effect EPA's ongoing rule-making and actions?  While we don't really know the answer to that question yet, there are a few insights we can presume.

First, despite what many suggest, EPA doesn't just get to make up regulations when they feel like it.  They are bound by, and compelled by, laws passed by Congress to regulate the release of chemicals and other environmental issues.  They are required by law to move forward, and are often sued by either - and sometimes both - sides of the issue to act (or not to act).  The recent greenhouse gas (GHG) endangerment finding wasn't something they pulled out of a hat; the Court found that EPA MUST take an endangerment stand.

Second, many programs are simply ongoing activities.  While the top of the EPA hierarchy are political appointees, the vast majority of EPA staff are career professionals who simply go to work each day and do their jobs.  So work moves forward no matter what political tug-of-war may be keeping the press busy.

That said, Congressional action, or inaction, can significantly impact EPA effectiveness.  Many in the incoming majority in the House have indicated a desire to step up oversight of EPA.  So it is likely that the EPA Administrator and other senior officials will be spending more time in hearings looking at possible overstep of EPA authority rather than the many hearings held over the last two years geared towards finding a path forward to address key issues like chemical right-to-know, children's exposure, GHG emissions and climate change. 

As I mentioned in my last post, the future of the TSCA reform law is uncertain.  All stakeholders have expressed a desire, and acknowledged the need, to modernize the 34-year old law.  But doing so will require the new Congress to focus on moving forward instead of looking toward the past.  It's unclear whether that is the case.  In the end it will probably come down to industry pushing for a new law to 1) avoid a patchwork of ever-increasing state laws and 2) put in place a manageable, i.e., doable, law that protects public health and the environment.

Future of TSCA Chemical Reform Law Uncertain After Election Results

The mid-term elections in the United States have put the future of the TSCA reform into question, for a variety of reasons:

1) The current House bill was introduced by California Representative Henry Waxman and Illinois Representative Bobby Rush, who served as chairs of the relevant committee and subcommittee, respectively. Both won reelection, but with the Republicans gaining control of the House that means Waxman and Rush will be demoted to ranking members.  While the new chairs have yet to be determined, they will be Republicans and are likely to have a different vision of how to proceed.  If they proceed at all.

2) The current bills in the House and Senate probably lean slightly more toward the environmental and health advocacy position (though they might disagree with that characterization).  With Republicans now the majority in the House the new bills, which would have to be reintroduced in the next Congress anyway, will likely lean more toward the industry position (though like the advocacy side, there is quite a bit of differences of opinion between various industry stakeholders).

3) Several potential chairs of key environmental, health, and oversight committees have indicated a desire to undertake oversight hearings. So while there were many hearings on TSCA reform during the last year or two, those hearings were on finding a path forward for reform.  The will likely be some of those as well under the new chairs in the House, but the oversight committee is likely to be holding hearings on whether EPA is overstepping its current authority under TSCA as it exists now.  This could dilute the effort towards reforming the law.

There are other reasons that yesterday's election creates additional uncertainty in the continuing attempts to reform the 34-year old chemical control law, and I'll take a look at those as more information on the changed legislative dynamics in Washington becomes available.

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.