EPA Announces New Acting Director of Chemicals Office

 Jim Jones, a long-time EPA official, has been tapped by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to replace outgoing Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) head Steve Owens.  Owens is leaving his position to return to his home in Arizona where his family had remained during his time in Washington.

Jim Jones' appointment is as an "Acting" Assistant Administrator for OCSPP, and will remain in that position while President Obama determines who he will nominate to run the office permanently.  The permanent nominee would have to receive Senate confirmation and, given that Republicans in the Senate are already blocking even a vote on the President's nominee to head the Office of Water (i.e., Ken Kopocis), there is quite a bit of uncertainty as to when a nominee for permanent AA will be announced.  With Congressional Republicans voting repeatedly to inhibit EPA's authority and the major cuts in EPA budget expected due to the failure of the Congressional Super Committee to agree on spending reductions, Jim Jones could be Acting AA for a long time.

Jones has been with EPA for roughly 20 years and has served in many capacities, the most recent being as head of the Office of Air.  No word yet on who will be tapped to replace Jones in the air office while he is Acting AA at OCSPP.

Senate to Hold TSCA Safe Chemicals Act Hearing This Week

Maybe the idea of TSCA reform isn't quite dead for this Congress.  A hearing will be held on Thursday, November 17, 2011 in the US Senate to examine the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011, a bill introduced early in the year by Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg.  The hearing, to be chaired by Lautenberg and supported by ranking Republican member James Inhofe, includes both the full and subcommittees of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee (EPW).

The hearing follows on a series of five stakeholder meetings held between EPW staff and both industry and environmental advocacy groups.  It is the first sign in quite a while of potential movement in the seemingly futile attempt to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  The lack of movement is despite support for TSCA reform by both industry and advocacy groups.

Scheduled to provide testimony at the hearing are:

Mr. Ted Sturdevant
Director, Department of Ecology
State of Washington

Ms. Charlotte Brody Director of Chemicals, Public Health and Green Chemistry BlueGreen Alliance

Mr. Cal Dooley President and CEO American Chemistry Council

Mr. Robert Matthews McKenna Long & Aldridge

Dr. Richard Denison, Ph.D. Senior Scientist Environmental Defense Fund

More information on the hearing can be found on the EPW web site.

Book Review – What’s The Worst That Can Happen? by Greg Craven (Climate Change/Global Warming)

Subtitled “A Rational Response to The Climate Change Debate,” this book should be read by everyone interested in global warming and man-made climate change.  Craven is a high school physics and chemistry teacher, and he has developed a simple and effective way to help people sift through the heated debates and decide if we need to take action on climate change.  And we don’t even have to decide which side is “right” to do it.

The two sides, of course, are what Craven labels “the warmists” and “the skeptics.”   Warmists are defined as those that believe that the science is strong enough for us to need to take action, while skeptics are those that feel we do not need to take action.  With these two sides defined, Craven introduces a decision grid to aid the process.  In the end he shows us how he filled his decision grid, but also encourages readers to fill in their own grid and make their own decisions.

In between is the crux of the book.  He does a great job of explaining the nature of science and how “we never quite know for sure” (including for things like gravity), but that sometimes the evidence is so overwhelming that it is accepted by virtually everyone (e.g., gravity). He also clues us in to some quirks about our own brains and things like “confirmation bias.”  These set up a chapter on how to assess the credibility of various sources.  After all, unless you spend your life studying the science it’s likely you won’t be able to understand it all, so instead we need to know which sources of information are reliable and which are not so much. Craven then gives us some information on what each side is telling us and who is doing the telling, all fit nicely into his credibility spectrum.

He then demystifies the doomsday claims.

I’ll leave it to all to read the book and draw their own conclusions about the science.  But I definitely recommend that all of us use the tools Craven offers in this book.  And I recommend that all scientists learn how to communicate as easily as does Craven.

Steve Owens, Head of EPA's Toxic Chemical Program, To Resign

The head of EPA's Office that handles toxic chemicals is resigning.  Steve Owens announced his resignation to staff yesterday and will leave as of November 30, 2011.  According to his email, Owens has "made the difficult decision to leave EPA" mainly to rejoin his family in Arizona, where they remained during his entire two plus years working in Washington DC at EPA headquarters.  Owens had previously been the head of Arizona's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).

In his departure announcement, Owens thanked EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson for "her wonderful friendship and the remarkable vision and leadership she provides" to the Agency.  Similarly, in a statement from Jackson, the EPA Administrator thanked Owens for his contributions.  She noted that "his leadership has been vital to our efforts to assure chemical safety for our citizens and revamp our nation's outdated toxic substances standards."

Those standards remain in limbo at this point as the much anticipated TSCA reform legislation - an effort to modernize the 35-year old toxic chemicals law - has stalled in Congress.  Given the current actions of House Republicans to defund EPA and limit the Agency's authority even under the current TSCA law, plus the stalemate caused by the still year-away elections that could give control of the Senate to Republicans, it seems highly unlikely that any reform of TSCA is going to occur for many years.  While he doesn't mention it in his email, perhaps that is one of the reasons Owens has decided to relocate back to Arizona.

No information on possible replacements for Owens has been forthcoming, and any potential nominee would have to be confirmed by Congress, a prospect that is likely to be politically charged given the current climate.

EPA Finalizes Third TSCA Test Rule for HPV Chemicals

The USEPA is finally promulgating a final rule under Section 4 of TSCA "to require manufacturers, importers, and processors to conduct testing to obtain screening level data for health and environmental effects and chemical fate for 15 high production volume (HPV) chemical substances listed in this final rule."  The 15 chemicals represent only half of the 29 HPV chemicals that were listed in the the draft rule, which was originally proposed nearly two years ago on February 25, 2010.  According to EPA, based on comments received on the proposed rule, the remaining chemicals were dropped because they did not" meet the criteria for testing at this time."

For the 15 chemicals listed in this final rule, manufacturers will need to conduct the specified tests and provide the data to EPA prior to the deadline, which is set for the end of 2012.  EPA notes that "this test data is needed in order to help EPA to determine whether these 15 HPV chemical substances pose a risk to human health and/or environmental safety."  Required tests vary by chemical but can include physical-chemical properties, environmental fate and degradation, aquatic toxicity, mammalian acute and reproductive/developmental toxicity, and genotoxicity.

Companies that are effected by the rule must submit test plans for each chemical within 90 days of the effective date (i.e., 90 days from November 21, 2011).

The list of chemicals can be accessed here.

A full hyperlinked version of the Federal Register notice can be accessed here.

ECHA Sets Up Exposure Scenario Network to support REACH Chemical Evaluation

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has teamed up with several European chemical trade associations to establish a "cross-sector collaborative network to share knowledge, techniques and approaches to building and applying (REACH) exposure scenarios."  The new network "aims at identifying good industry practices on drafting exposure scenarios" and sets up a mechanism for "building a dialogue between supply chain actors" in an effort to "improve the protection of human health and the environment."

The new network is called ENES, the Exchange Network on Exposure Scenarios.  The trade associations with whom ECHA worked to set up ENES include the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), Eurometaux (the metals association), CONCAWE (the oil companies’ European association), the European Association of Chemical Distributors (FECC) and the International Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Products (AISE) on behalf of the Downstream Users of  Chemicals Coordination Group (DUCC).

According to the ECHA press release, the first meeting will be held in Brussels, on November 24 and 25, 2011. Besides the trade associations listed above, various "sectors of industry, NGOs, Member State authorities and other stakeholders will be invited to participate."


See the ECHA page here for more information.

Canada Moves Into Next Phase of Chemical Management Plan

Canada has issued a news release indicating that it will move into the next phase of its ongoing Chemical Management Plan.  This is an extension of the plan first launched in 2006.   The CMP was designed to apply the rigorous assessment used for new chemicals to 'legacy chemicals' that were introduced in Canada between January 1, 1984, and December 31, 1986.  The new phase is seen "as a continuation of Canada's world-leading initiatives in this area and it will ensure the protection of Canadians' health and safety, and their environment," according to Shannon Coombs, President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association, who promised to "continue to work proactively with the government as the plan is implemented."

According to the announcement, new funding is being provided for this next phase of the Plan, "which will focus on:"

• Further improving product safety in Canada;
• Completing assessments of 500 substances across nine categories including phthalates, primarily used in plastics; and,
• Investing in additional research for substances like Bisphenol A, flame retardants, substances that affect hormone function and substances that affect the environment.

Canada anticipates that "approximately 1,000 additional substances will also be addressed in the next five years through other initiatives, including rapid screening of substances which pose little or no risk." Canada recently banned four chemicals as harmful to the environment.

More information on Canada's Chemical Management Plan can be found here.

Canada's Chemical Substance main page is here.

ECHA Issues 2012 Work Program - Sees Challenges Ahead

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) approved its 2012 work program last week and highlighted both its activities and its challenges ahead of the next REACH deadline.  Besides the mid 2013 REACH registration deadline, ECHA will take on an expanding role in the new Biocidal Products Regulation (which will replace the current Directive in 2013). In addition, ECHA will have ramped up activities related to other parts of the expansive REACH regulation, including the Evaluation (the "E") and Authorization (the "A") components, as well as Restrictions (the "missing R").  And of course there is still the continuing evaluation of substance dossiers for high productive volume chemicals submitted in the first registration period that ended on November 30, 2010.

All of this leaves ECHA worried that there may not be enough resources to meet obligations efficiently, both within ECHA and in the Member States.  The current economic situation in most of Europe, which has caused such severe spending cuts (austerity), has led ECHA Executive Director Geert Dancet to openly state his concerns that Member States may not have enough resources to fully conduct their role in chemical evaluation.

The developing Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR) also offers challenges to ECHA as the agency is expected to take on responsibility for authorizing biocides.  Under the current biocides directive this responsibility lies with each Member State.  ECHA would also take on new responsibilities related to the Prior Informed Consent Regulation, which involves identifying hazardous chemicals that could not be exported from Europe unless the country of destination is given sufficient information to assess risk.

During the September 29-30, 2011 meeting of the management board, the mandate of the Executive Director was extended.  According to the chairman, Dr. Thomas Jakl:

"After the first REACH registration deadline was impressively managed by ECHA in 2010, there is no time to rest on our laurels. Challenging further steps of the REACH and CLP implementation lie ahead and the legislator is in the process of entrusting important new regulatory tasks to the Agency. The continuation decision with regard to a selection process for the Executive Director reflects the high satisfaction of the Board with his achievements since 2007."

More information and a link to the work program can be found on the ECHA web site.

Summary of GHS Chemical Classification in Various Regions Now Available

The UN Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (usually referred to as simply GHS) was a way for governments to voluntarily attempt to bring into harmony what had been a wide range of classification schemes for chemicals.  Now the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has created a summary table that brings together in one place the current status of individual government's and region's adoption of GHS.

The table can be seen here and shows which OECD member countries and other organisations have publicly posted their GHS classifications no the internet.  The table is based on a survey performed in 2011.  Where available, OECD has provided links to the appropriate documents and web access points (e.g., to the 1300+ page CLP in Europe).  Other links take you to web sites, for example, Korea's New Chemical Notification and Assessment.

The Fourth Revised Edition of the UN Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (the "Purple Book") can be downloaded on the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) site.

Is TSCA Reform Happening this Fall?

The short answer is, probably not.  But it does appear that Senator Frank Lautenberg's office will be pushing for a markup this fall of the draft bill introduced this past spring.  Lautenberg's "Safe Chemicals Act of 2011" included many industry-friendly changes from the original "Kid Safe Chemical Act" (including no longer mentioning kids in the name).  The bill introduced in April would have required companies to submit "basic hazard and exposure data to quickly determine the risk and assess the need for further testing or restrictions."

Over the summer the staffs of Senators Lautenberg and Inhofe held a series of stakeholder meetings in an effort to find common ground and a path forward.  These meetings included - separately - representatives from NGOs (e.g., Environmental Defense Fund) and industry (e.g., ACC and SOCMA).  Topics for the meetings included defining a "safety standard" and coming up with prioritization schemes that would focus efforts on those chemicals deemed most risky.  In August, EPA proposed such a prioritization scheme, which was countered by an alternative scheme by the American Chemistry Council.

Whether the markup happens or not will depend on the legislative calendar, but historically anything that doesn't get done by this fall will likely not get done during the 2012 election year.  With the initial changes Lautenberg already made and the Democrats' willingness to compromise the grand reform of TSCA for a more industry-friendly reform, the feedback from the stakeholder meetings suggest that any markup will further limit the extent of "modernization" of the 35-year old chemicals law.  Whether you believe that is a good thing or a bad thing may depend on from what perspective you bring to the table.

EPA Will Identify Priority Chemicals by Thanksgiving (or so)

EPA will identify chemicals to be prioritized sometime this fall as it tries to move forward under the old TSCA as Congress makes no progress on developing a new TSCA.  To do so EPA will take into consideration feedback they received from a variety of stakeholders in two recent outreach attempts related to their proposed prioritization process. 

EPA introduced its proposed prioritization scheme and "discussion guide" back in August.  They then had a webinar on September 7th to give an overview of the proposed scheme and to invite feedback.  Finally, EPA also invited the public to share their thoughts in an online discussion forum.  That discussion forum closed on September 14th.


All comments received from stakeholders are now being assimilated and reviewed by EPA staff, who are working to identify chemicals to be prioritized for review.  In general the feedback was very constructive and included both concerns for the data sources being proposed as well as suggestions for other data sources to include in the evaluation. Other stakeholders cautioned that the use of production volume as a surrogate for exposure could lead to chemicals with very low risk being prioritized while chemicals of low production volume by high exposure potential, and thus risk, might be left out.  Some stakeholders suggested the addition of additional health effects such as endocrine disruption, neurotoxicity and skin or respiratory sensitization be used early in the prioritization process, while others cautioned that the process could get bogged down in the minutia if too many factors were included in the first step.

More information on the EPA chemical prioritization can be found on the discussion forum web site and EPA's existing chemicals "Identifying priority chemicals for review" page.

ECHA Goes to Commission on REACH Testing Proposal

How many Member State Competent Authorities does it take to make a decision on REACH testing proposals?  Apparently more than they have.  The Member State Committee (MSC) at the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) "could not find unanimous agreement based on scientific and technical arguments on a draft decision for a testing proposal."

Let's go to the Commission!  For the first time ECHA will employ Article 51(7) of the REACH Regulation and refer a case to the European Commission for decision making.

This non-decision by the MSC took place last week.  Not that they were stymied on all decisions.  They did agree on the draft decisions "for all five compliance checks" they were charged with reviewing.  And they did come to unanimous agreement on two of the four draft decisions on "testing proposal examinations." But two testing proposals were particularly tricky.  For one, the MSC refined the proposal during the meeting and expect to agree in writing shortly. 

The final testing proposal reached stalemate, hence the referral to the Commission.  The proposal:

"concerns a testing proposal examination where the registrant has proposed to perform a two-generation reproductive toxicity test in accordance with the EU test method B.35. This information would be necessary to fill the data gap regarding reproductive toxicity for the substance that is produced in quantities of over 1000 tonnes per annum.  Some MSC members preferred to ask the registrant to use the recently adopted OECD test guideline 443, the extended one-generation reproductive toxicity study (EOGRTS). Others wanted to maintain the present requirement of performing a two-generation study."

No information on when (or if) the Commission will make its decision.

More on what the Member States Committee does can be found on their web page here.

REACH Chemical Regulation Group Offers Advice and Recommendations

The Director's Contact Group (DCG) has issued a report on the "Achievements, Lessons Learned and Recommendations" garnered from its supporting role for last year's first REACH registration deadline.  The DCB was formed to deal with a wide range of issues related to REACH chemical regulation - 28 different issues in all.  And now the DCG has been renewed until the end of September 2013 so that it can address any issues that might arise with the next registration deadline, which is May 30, 2013.

The DCG report gives a summary of its achievements, and presents many of the lessons learned from the experience.  All of this sets the stage for recommendations that hopefully will ease the burden for companies preparing for the 2013 (and 2018) registration deadlines.  An annex of the report gives short summaries of the 28 issues addressed by the group to date.

Issues that are expected to be priority for the next deadline include:

• Organizational issues within SIEFs, the Substance Information Exchange Forums, that had mixed reviews during the first round of registrations,
• Guidance on how to deal with situations in which the companies have merged or spun off units during the registration period (which is especially important for the many small and medium size entities that are expected to be part of the second round),
• Guidance on communication within the supply chain, again a difficult issue for small and medium sized companies with less resources
• Updating of information technology tools like IUCLID, REACH-IT, and guidance documents

One thing that the DCG and ECHA agree on is that companies planning to register chemicals by May 2013 should "Act Now!"  Members say that industry cannot prepare early enough, and many (but not all) companies are heeding that advise. 

The DCG report can be downloaded as a PDF here.

More information on REACH can be found on the ECHA web site.

NSF Announces Steps to Improve Participation of Women in STEM Science Careers

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing steps that will "make it easier for women to pursue careers in engineering and the sciences," according to an Op-Ed by Valerie Jarrett and Tina Tchen in yesterday's Washington Post.  They note that "women working in science, technology, engineering and math [STEM] careers earn 33 percent more than those in other occupations, and these 'STEM' skills will become even more important in high-growth, high-tech fields such as health-care technology and advanced manufacturing."

Jarrett and Tchen note that circumstances often work against women:

As with women throughout the workforce, however, women in STEM jobs are often expected to establish themselves professionally at the same time they are starting families. This forces women to choose between their careers and their responsibilities at home. Understandably, many of our most promising young scientists and engineers drop out of the pipeline. 

Ways that NSF is looking to make it easier for women in STEM careers include:

• Working with women researchers who need to delay the start of a funded project for a family-related reason,
• Options to add the lost time if female researchers interrupt research to have a baby,
• Support for research into the effectiveness of flexible workplace policies.

 For a more in-depth discussion, see the Washington Post article by Jarrett and Tchen. 

More information is on the National Science Foundation web site.