Senator Lautenberg Introduces the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 - Similar Song, Same Ending?

Senator Frank Lautenberg has introduced the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011.  He had introduced a similar bill last year, and bills also versions in 2008 and 2005, all in the hopes of reforming/modernizing the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.  The new bill builds on the 2010 bill by incorporating feedback received in a series of hearings with "industry leaders, public officials, scientists, doctors, academics, and non-profit organizations."

Changes made to improve the bill include inclusion of risk-based prioritization categories, for which industry lobbied and the EPA likes because it allows them to "focus...resources on the highest-risk chemicals." As with the earlier bill it requires chemical companies to "submit basic hazard and exposure data to quickly determine the risk and assess the need for further testing or restrictions."

Of course, the real question is less what is in the bill as whether it will ever be taken up by the Senate.  Previous bills never made it out of committee, and given the unlikelihood of the Republican-held House introducing a similar bill, we may just see the Senate bill languish in committee once again.  Then again, the Senate is still controlled by the Democrats (at least until the next election) and Lautenberg has shown amazing persistence and passion for protecting human health and the environment, so we may see the Environment and Public Works Committee hold hearings in an attempt to set the stage for action in future Congresses.

A summary of Lautenberg's bill as presented in his press release is below. Click on the links for The Text or A Summary of the bill.

Highlights of the “Safe Chemicals Act of 2011”

 Provides EPA with sufficient information to judge a chemical’s safety.  Requires manufacturers to develop and submit a minimum data set for each chemical they produce, while also preventing duplicative or unnecessary testing and encouraging the use of rapid, low-cost, non-animal tests that provide high quality data.  EPA will have full authority to request additional information needed to determine the safety of a chemical.

Prioritizes chemicals based on risk.  Calls on the EPA to categorize chemicals based on risk, and focus resources on evaluating those most likely to cause harm.

Takes fast action to address highest risk chemicals.  Requires EPA to take fast action to reduce risk from chemicals that have already been proven dangerous.  In addition, the EPA Administrator is given authority to act quickly if any chemical poses an imminent hazard.

Ensures safety threshold is met for all chemicals on the market.  Places the burden of proof on chemical manufacturers to prove the safety of their chemicals.  All uses must be identified and determined safe for the chemical to enter the market or continue to be used.

Creates open access to reliable chemical information.  Establishes a public database to catalog the chemical information submitted to the EPA by manufacturers, as well as the safety determinations made by the EPA.  The EPA will impose requirements to ensure the information collected is reliable.

Promotes innovation and development of green chemistry.  Establishes grant programs and research centers to foster the development of safe chemical alternatives, and brings some new chemicals onto the market using an expedited review process.

EPA Announces Two More Chemical Action Plans

The USEPA has finally released two more chemical action plans.  These new plans "address the potential health risks of methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI), toluene diisocyanate (TDI), and related compounds."  According to EPA, diisocyanates are used to make polyurethane polymers, but they were clear to point out that "most polyurethane products, such as foam mattresses or bowling balls, are fully reacted or "cured," and are not of concern."  They are concerned, however, about other products "such as adhesives, coatings, and spray foam," that would be expected to "continue to react while in use, and may contain "uncured" diisocyanates to which people may be exposed."


According to EPA, diisocyanates "are known to cause severe skin and breathing responses in workers who have been repeatedly exposed to them. The chemicals have been documented as a leading cause of work-related asthma, and in severe cases, fatal reactions have occurred."

“There has been an increase in recent years in promoting the use of foams and sealants by do-it-yourself energy-conscious homeowners, and many people may now be unknowingly exposed to risks from these chemicals,” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “EPA is working to protect the health of the American people and the environment.”

Proposed actions include data call-in rules, exposure monitoring studies for consumer products, and possibly bans or restrictions on consumer products containing uncured MDI or TDI.


More information about spray polyurethane foam can be found on EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE) web site.  The action plans are found on the specific pages for MDI and TDI as linked on their initials above.

The action plans are how EPA is dealing with the lack of TSCA reform legislation; essentially better utilizing the authority it believes it has under the current TSCA law.

Republicans Schedule Three Hearings This Week to Limit EPA Authority on Clean Air Act

The Republican majority in the US House of Representatives, in particularly those chairing subcommittees of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has scheduled three hearings this week in their continuing attempts to limit EPA authority.  The ranking Democrat on the Committee, Henry Waxman, yesterday sent a letter to Republican Representatives Fred Upton, Ed Whitfield, and John Shimkus complaining that the Committee is not giving adequate notice to EPA officials of the hearings.

The result of this "insufficient notice" has been that EPA is unable to provide a witness for two of the three hearings.

The three hearings as noted in Waxman's letter and in the online Congressional newspaper The Hill are:

·        On Wednesday, April 13, the Energy and Power Subcommittee will hold a legislative hearing on draft legislation to amend the Clean Air Act as it relates to drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf.

·        On Thursday, April 14, the Environment and Economy Subcommittee will hold a legislative hearing on H.R. 1391, legislation to amend the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act to block an EPA proposal designed to ensure the safe disposal of coal ash.

·        On Friday, April 15, the Energy and Power Subcommittee will hold a hearing on five rulemakings under the Clean Air Act and one under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.  The Clean Air Act rulemakings address toxic air pollutants, including mercury, from a variety of different types and sizes of sources.  The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act rule addresses the definition of solid waste.  Draft legislation relating to these rulemakings is expected to be circulated during the week.

According to Waxman, EPA was not contacted about the hearing until after it was publicly announced, a trend that goes against historical practice in which the chair (including Waxman when the Democrats were in the majority) would reach out to relevant organizations weeks in advance of a hearing in order to allow time for them to prepare a response to any concerns.

Waxman also called for "a second legislative hearing on the Clean Air Amendment that will be examined by the Committee" in order to give EPA a chance to provide a witness to testify. 

The Hill article, including the full letter by Waxman to the Republican Chairs, can be read here.

EPA Announces Plan of Action to Address Four IRIS Assessments

The USEPA  will be taking a closer look at "four draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessments that were placed on hold in June 2010, pending a review of some of the underlying studies relied on in the assessments." The four assessments are methanol, methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE), ethyl tertiary-butyl ether (ETBE), and acrylonitrile. 



These assessments have been on hold now for nearly a year because a National Toxicology Program (NTP) report questioned research completed by "the Ramazzini Institute, a lab in Italy that conducts animal testing to evaluate the potential cancer-causing effects of chemicals."   According to a previous press release:

NTP researchers reportedly raised questions about findings at the Ramazzini Institute, a controversial Italian animal testing lab that studies chemical carcinogenicity. The Institute has long been criticized by the chemical industry, particularly over its findings that aspartame sweetener can cause cancer.

EPA and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) "decided to jointly sponsor an independent Pathology Working Group (PWG) review, in cooperation with the Ramazzini Institute, of selected studies, including the methanol cancer assessment study. The review has begun and will continue over the next several months. The results will be made public and the cancer assessment for methanol will remain on hold until its completion."
The USEPA announcement can be read here.

ECHA Publishes New Guidance on Labelling and Packaging of Chemicals

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) last Friday issued yet another new guidance document related to the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and Classification, Labeling and Packaging (CLP) regulations.  The newest guidance document "gives more details on labelling and packaging than the earlier Guidance on the Application of the CLP Criteria."

In particular, the guidance clarifies:

• what aspects to consider when estimating the label size needed;
• what types of supplemental information are possible, and where to place this information on the label;
• the conditions for small packaging exemptions;
• the interaction between CLP and the transport labelling rules;
• how to select the most appropriate set of precautionary statements for the label;
• the transitional provisions for substances and mixtures already on the market.

According to ECHA, "the new stand-alone guidance document replaces the sections dealing with labelling and selection of precautionary statements of the existing Guidance on the Application of the CLP Criteria."

The Guidance on Labelling and Packaging can be downloaded as a PDF document here.

Cefic and Egypt Sign Cooperative Agreement on Chemical Safety

This past week the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) signed a cooperative agreement with the Chamber of Chemical Industries (CCI) of Egypt such that the two trade associations could collaborate "on areas that impact the chemicals industry in Egypt and the European Union."  According to the Cefic press release:

The signed six-point agreement includes cooperation on topics such as legislation, application of regulations, as well as trade and investment flows between the two regions. The memorandum delegates the Egyptian group to coordinate the Responsible Care initiative through its FEI Environmental Compliance office. It also details how both groups will consider how consultations and information exchange can take place on regulatory matters such as customs and REACH legislation.  

Responsible Care® is "a global initiative of the chemical industry to drive continuous improvement in its health, safety and environmental performance and to make a strong contribution to sustainable development. Responsible Care was first launched in 1985 in Canada and is now run by the national/regional chemical associations in more than 50 countries around the world."


More information is available on the Cefic web site.

Industry Association and Environmental NGO Reactions to Senate Greenhouse Gas Vote - Did They See the Same Vote?

As noted yesterday there were four votes in the Senate on amendments related to climate science.  Senate Democrats narrowly "defeated a Republican effort to ban the Environmental Protection Agency from controlling the gases blamed for global warming." Despite the unlikelihood of it ever becoming law, according to the Washington Post, "the Republican-led House moved Thursday to take away the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases in a vote largely negated by Senate action a day earlier to reject such a repeal." 


Industry and the environmental NGOs had predictably different reactions to the votes.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC), a trade association representing most of the large chemical manufacturers, many of who are impacted by the Clean Air Act mandate for EPA to regulate pollutants, "welcomed signs of growing support in Congress for stopping the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations for stationary sources."  According to their press release:

“We are encouraged by these votes, which signal growing momentum toward stopping EPA’s GHG regulations,” said Cal Dooley, President and CEO of the American Chemistry Council. “Lawmakers from both parties agree this is a critical issue for the country, economic recovery and protecting American jobs. Congress must stop EPA so that business growth and hiring can continue.”

The NGO Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) had a different take on the votes. In EDF's press release, Tony Kreindler accused Congressional Republicans of attempting "to unravel public health protections under the Clean Air Act," and noted that "the amendments are a prelude to further attempts to weaken public health protections as the budget debate continues."  Further:

"Today's votes were an unprecedented assault on public health protections under the Clean Air Act. In 40 years we've never faced such a brazen attempt to rollback air quality standards," said Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund. "It remains to be seen which Senators will continue to side with clean air and who will vote to go backward."

Clearly industry and NGOs see this differently.

Senate Narrowly Misses Their Chance to Deny Climate Science

Yesterday there were four votes in the Senate related to climate science.  The amendments were designed to either further limit EPA's ability to do what the Clean Air Act and a Supreme Court decision compelled them to do...complete an endangerment finding and then regulate accordingly greenhouse gases.  In March the Republican-led House voted to deny amendments acknowledging the state of the science.  And yesterday the Senate did essentially the same thing.

Brad Johnson, writing on a left-leaning blog called The Wonk Room describes it this way:

McConnell Amendment: Four pollution-fueled Democrats embraced the “Energy Tax Prevention Act” — the extremist legislation introduced by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) to literally deny the science of global warming. The Democrats who voted for the McConnell amendment, which failed by a 50-50 vote, were Sen. Mary Landrieu (LA), Joe Manchin (WV), Ben Nelson (NE), and Mark Pryor (AR). In the 2010 cycle, Koch Industries contributed $39,500 to Landrieu, $36,500 to Nelson, and $30,000 to Pryor. Manchin’s 2010 election was fueled by over $500,000 from coal and oil interests.

Rockefeller Amendment: Nine Democrats voted for Sen. Jay Rockefeller’s (D-WV) amendment for a two-year moratorium on climate rules, which failed by a 12-88 vote: Sen. Kent Conrad (ND), Tim Johnson (SD), Landrieu, Manchin, Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Nelson, Pryor, Rockefeller, and Jim Webb (VA).

Stabenow-Brown Amendment: Seven Democrats voted for Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Sen. Sherrod Brown’s (D-OH) amendment to suspend, for 2 years, any Environmental Protection Agency enforcement of greenhouse gas regulations, to exempt American agriculture from greenhouse gas regulations, and to increase the number of companies eligible to participate in the Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit Program, which failed 7-93: Brown, Robert Casey (PA), Conrad, Amy Klobuchar (MN), Johnson, Pryor, and Stabenow.

Baucus Amendment: Seven Democrats voted for Sen. Max Baucus’s (D-MT) amendment to prohibit the regulation of greenhouse gases from certain sources, which also failed 7-93: Baucus, Mark Begich (AK), Kay Hagan (NC), Carl Levin (MI), Klobuchar, Conrad, and Johnson.

As I've noted here before, it's perfectly acceptable to debate the policy options for dealing with climate change.  But the votes on these amendments, and those earlier in the House, are not on policy options but rather politicians exerting their political veto of science itself.   Regarding climate change, the US National Academies of Sciences last year noted that:

A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems….

This state of climate science is concurred by very nearly all active climate researchers, the most recent IPCC report, the National Academies of all of the major countries of the world, and pretty much all of the major scientific organizations on the planet.  Every single one of whom concur that the climate is changing and that human activity is the major cause.  The US National Academies even recently called it "settled fact."

And yet, here are both houses of Congress voting to deny the science because they don't want to have to do the hard work of honestly debating policy options to deal with the science.  The political debate should be focused on finding solutions, not denying the science and hog-tying the agency compelled by the science.

ECHA Provides Tools to Help Chemical Companies Prepare Authorization Applications for REACH

Now that the first deadline for REACH registration has passed, and responsible parties at registering companies have had a chance to take a vacation and catch up on other work, it's time for some companies to turn their attention to the "A" in REACH - Authorization.  And the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has now provided some tools to help companies do just that.

Authorization, of course, is the part of REACH where ECHA has determined that a particular "substance of very high concern" presents too great a risk and therefore intends to remove it from commerce.  Manufacturers of those chemicals put onto Annex XIV of REACH, the authorization list, must apply to receive authorization to continue using the chemical.  If no authorization is granted the chemical will be banned from commerce in the EU at the end of the specified sunset perios, which for the handful of chemicals added so far is 2014 or 2015.  If authorized, the chemical would be limited to uses that are critical and can be controlled, and where there are no available substitutes, and for only a limited period of time allotted to find or develop a substitute.

The new tools include "templates to document an analysis of alternatives, a socio-economic analysis and a substitution plan."   There is also a "Fee Calculator" to estimate how much it will cost to submit their application (but not how much to prepare the application). There are also a new Data Submission Manual that "explains in detail how to prepare an Application for Authorisation using IUCLID 5.3, and how to use the web forms for dossier submission."

More information is available on the ECHA web site.

Guidance on how to prepare the authorization application can be downloaded as a PDF here.

Guidance on how to prepare the socio-economic analysis can be downloaded as a PDF here.

Chemical Review Committee Recommends Six Additions to Rotterdam Convention PIC List of Hazardous Substances

Six new chemicals were recommended to be added to the Rotterdam Convention list of hazardous substances subject to prior informed consent (PIC) proceedings before shipment.  These recommendations were made by the Chemical Review Committee during meetings held in Rome on March 28-April 1.  The PIC procedure provides all Parties with an opportunity to make informed decisions as to whether they will consent to future imports of the chemicals listed in Annex III of the Convention.

The six chemicals recommended for listing include three pesticides (endosulfan, azinphos methyl, and Gramoxone Super) and three industrial chemicals (perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), its salts, and precursors; pentabromodiphenyl ether (penta-BDE) commercial mixtures; and octabromodiphenyl ether (octa-BDE) commercial mixtures).  If approved by the conference of parties, the chemicals would be added to the Annex III list of controlled substances.  The next conference of the parties to the Rotterdam Convention will be held in Geneva, Switzerland on June 20-24, 2011.

More information about the Rotterdam Convention can be found here. 

As with other international agreements, the United States signed on to the agreement but has never ratified it.  Thus the US is relegated to offering opinions as an observer but has no voting rights.  Ironically, Jim Willis, the Chemical Control Division Director at EPA, is about to move to Geneva to take over as Executive Secretary for the Rotterdam, Stockholm and Basel Conventions.  

The article here talks about how the Rotterdam Convention and Prior Informed Consent fits into recent discussions on TSCA chemical reform in the US.

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."

UK Intends to Stop Animal Testing on Household Products - Animal Rights Groups Rejoice

Recently the UK government signaled that it would end animal testing for household products.  And at least one animal welfare group has expressed its pleasure.  The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, more popularly known as BUAV, said that they welcomed "a statement made by Home Office Minister, Lynne Featherstone that the Government intends to ban the animal testing of both finished household products and their ingredients." 

BUAV notes that the "statement comes in response to a Parliamentary Question tabled by Adrian Sanders MP on March 28th 2011" and that the ban will include “all products that are primarily intended for use in the home, including detergents and other laundry products, household cleaners, air-fresheners, toilet blocks, polishes, paper products such as infant nappies [i.e., diapers], paints, glues (and removers), other furnishing and DIY products and household pesticides.”

Governments and animal welfare groups around the globe are working on ways to reduce or eliminate animal testing of chemicals.  I have discussed before how organizations are working to develop alternative testing methods.   Current protocols for testing chemicals and products involve doing in vivo, that is, in life, tests using various animals - mostly mice, rats and rabbits - as surrogates to assess toxicity.  So while some NGOs argue that more testing is necessary to characterize the hazards of chemicals, animal welfare groups argue that such animal testing is both cruel and unnecessary.

For more about BUAV you can check out their web sites: BUAV and Go Cruelty Free.

Maine Takes a Look at its Chemical Control Law - Is the Kid-Safe Products Act a Goner?

In 2008 lawmakers in the state of Maine passed a law that "enables Maine environmental regulators to recommend bans on potentially hazardous chemicals in consumer products used by children." Called the Kid-Safe Products Act, the law is now getting another look as critics argue that it "is another example of over-regulation stifling business growth in Maine."  Proponents argue that the law "protects children from harmful chemicals."

Now lawmakers are considering two new bills that would modify the original law, for better or worse depending on who you ask.  As the Bangor Daily News (BDN) reports, one of the bills would:

...either add some flexibility to an over-reaching law that discourages business growth or essentially render toothless a statute that protects Maine children from toxic chemicals.

The other bill would adjust the requirements of the law such Maine DEP "would identify 50 to 100 high-priority chemicals for additional scrutiny."  The current law stipulates a list of 1,751 'chemicals of high concern' that many are concerned hamper business investment.  Needless to say the discussion brings out the usual differences between environmental and health advocacy groups and the business community, in particular the Maine Chamber of Commerce.  As Kevin Miller notes in his BDN article:

The Maine State Chamber of Commerce has played a significant — and controversial — role in generating support for Hamper’s bill.

In an “action alert” to members and supporters, the Maine State Chamber of Commerce stated that the definition of a “children’s product” in the law encompasses “any item sold for residential or commercial use” in Maine, including packaging or components.

But critics accuse the Chamber of intentionally misleading members by leaving out the rest of the definition. Children’s products, according to the law, are consumer products “intended for use by children … and any consumer product containing a chemical of high concern that when used or disposed of will likely result in a child’s or a fetus’s being exposed to that chemical.”

Defenders of the Kid-Safe Products Act also accused the Chamber of causing undue concern by suggesting that the law gives the DEP broad powers to ban chemicals when, in actuality, the Legislature has final say on any proposed prohibitions.

Kevin Miller's Bangor Daily News article can be read in full here.

Chris Mooney -Are Scientists Ignorant About Ignorance...When It Comes to Understanding How Climate Denial Works?

Many have probably heard of Chris Mooney, the columnist, blogger and author of several books including "The Republican War on Science" and "Unscientific America" (co-authored with scientist Sheril Kirshenbaum).  He has in the past said that scientists need to get out and talk to the public more.  But today in his column in the blog called Desmogblog Mooney suggests that scientists have to have a better understanding of how climate denial, and science denial in general, works.  It isn't so much about ignorance.  He notes:

As anyone who reads DeSmogBlog knows very well, the top climate skeptics are, you know, scientists. They are not ignorant of the scientific method. They may cleverly twist and abuse its findings, perhaps, but they all learned it, and were awarded advanced degrees for doing so. These are not “poorly educated people” we're dealing with. Not remotely.

I think he may be giving too much credit to "skeptics" as opposed to "denialists," but he makes the case that there are actually skeptics who are scientists and they are most certainly not ignorant of how science works. Mooney goes on to say:

And as for the nonscientist citizens who encounter the climate debate, and don’t know what to think? They may be confused, but it doesn’t make them ignorant about the scientific method. They also may be deflated, uncertain about what’s true—because the media is not doing its job of adjudicating.

Mooney makes a good point, but may also be conflating separate issues here.  As he suggests, there are non-scientists out there who do have enough of an understanding of the scientific method to be able to intellectually understand the scientific principles.  That, however, doesn't mean there aren't also people who have no clue about science, method or otherwise.  Still, one must assume that those who are capable of understanding must intentionally have chosen not to understand the science.  Or perhaps more likely, to simply have chosen to deny the science.

Which presents scientists with the problem facing many scientists, i.e., "frustrated not only by the persistence, but by the powerful resurgence of climate denial, many scientists are outraged."  Outrage in itself rarely succeeds in winning over the public.  And yet scientists must ensure that the science isn't misrepresented by those in denial either, as this carries over to honest, hard working, yet non-scientific members of society who want to do what is right but truly can't separate the wheat from the chaff.

Hopefully Mooney in future columns will explore this issue further.  It will definitely be a topic of this blog in the future.

Read Chris Mooney's full Desmogblog article here.