House leadership asks White House to scrap IUR enhancements: Where are ACC’s principles now?

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

[Update:  Here are links to the Chairmen's news release and letter to OMB.]

E&E News is reporting (subscription required) that House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton has called on the White House to scrap the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) soon-to-be-issued enhancements to the only routine reporting system for chemicals across the entire federal government.

The final EPA rule would expand EPA’s Inventory Update Reporting (IUR), which requires periodic reporting of chemicals subject to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  The rule was sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on January 20 and is awaiting approval.

Chairman Upton’s move, in the form of a letter to OMB Director Jacob Lew cosigned by Environment and Economy Subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus, follows closely on the chemical industry’s loud complaints about the rule late last month at the GlobalChem conference, cosponsored by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA).  What gives? 

Industry’s main complaint about the IUR enhancements is that they would apply to reporting that is to happen later this year (the first reporting since 2006), and that it’s unfair because the rule has yet to be finalized.  That gripe conveniently ignores the fact that a key reason for the delay in issuing the rule has been industry opposition.  One example:  Industry groups have met no fewer than five times with OMB staff on the draft final rule just since it was sent over in late January.  The rule would have been even later had EPA granted industry’s demand for an extension of the comment period – the length of which was already sufficient for a group of 33 health and environmental advocates, with no access to hired law firms, to manage to prepare 40 pages of comments, the most extensive EPA received from anyone on the proposed rule.

The timing of the Chairmen’s letter begs some other questions:

What if any role did the industry play in the Chairmen’s decision to send the letter?

And how does ACC reconcile its increasingly strident opposition to an enhanced chemical use reporting system – which at least indirectly precipitated today’s letter – with its rhetoric that EPA can and should be doing more using its existing TSCA authority, let alone with its vaunted Principles for TSCA Modernization that:

  • call for all decisions on chemicals to be based on risk, which in turn demands good information on chemical uses and exposures?
  • state that industry should have the responsibility for providing sufficient information for EPA to make timely decisions about safety?
  • would subject all chemicals to prioritization based, among other things, on the volume of a chemical in commerce and its uses – both of which are types of information for which huge gaps exist due to deficiencies in the current IUR that would be addressed under the enhanced IUR rule?
  • acknowledge EPA needs greater authorities to collect and share chemical safety information, which are precisely what the enhanced IUR would provide?

Can anyone give me one good reason why we should any longer take ACC’s principles for TSCA reform as anything other than empty words?

This entry was posted in Health Policy, Regulation and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • About this blog


    Science, health, and business experts at Environmental Defense Fund comment on chemical and nanotechnology issues of the day.
    Our work: Chemicals
  • Categories

  • Get blog posts by email

    Subscribe via RSS

  • Filter posts by tags

    • aggregate exposure (10)
    • Alternatives assessment (3)
    • American Chemistry Council (ACC) (57)
    • arsenic (3)
    • asthma (3)
    • Australia (1)
    • biomonitoring (9)
    • bipartisan (6)
    • bisphenol A (19)
    • BP Oil Disaster (18)
    • California (1)
    • Canada (7)
    • carbon nanotubes (24)
    • carcinogen (22)
    • Carcinogenic Mutagenic or Toxic for Reproduction (CMR) (12)
    • CDC (6)
    • Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP) (13)
    • chemical identity (30)
    • chemical testing (1)
    • Chemicals in Commerce Act (3)
    • Chicago Tribune (6)
    • children's safety (23)
    • China (10)
    • computational toxicology (11)
    • Confidential Business Information (CBI) (53)
    • conflict of interest (7)
    • consumer products (48)
    • Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) (4)
    • contamination (4)
    • cumulative exposure (4)
    • data requirements (46)
    • dermal exposure (1)
    • diabetes (4)
    • DNA methylation (4)
    • DuPont (11)
    • endocrine disruption (28)
    • epigenetics (4)
    • exposure and hazard (49)
    • FDA (8)
    • flame retardants (20)
    • formaldehyde (15)
    • front group (13)
    • general interest (22)
    • Globally Harmonized System (GHS) (5)
    • Government Accountability Office (5)
    • hazard (6)
    • High Production Volume (HPV) (22)
    • in vitro (14)
    • in vivo (11)
    • industry tactics (44)
    • informed substitution (1)
    • inhalation (18)
    • IUR/CDR (27)
    • Japan (3)
    • lead (6)
    • markets (1)
    • mercury (4)
    • methylmercury (2)
    • microbiome (3)
    • nanosilver (6)
    • National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (20)
    • National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (7)
    • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) (5)
    • National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) (7)
    • National Toxicology Program (1)
    • obesity (6)
    • Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (3)
    • Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) (4)
    • Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (16)
    • Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) (3)
    • oil dispersant (18)
    • PBDEs (16)
    • Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT) (22)
    • pesticides (7)
    • phthalates (17)
    • polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) (5)
    • prenatal (6)
    • prioritization (35)
    • report on carcinogens (1)
    • revised CSIA (4)
    • risk assessment (69)
    • Safe Chemicals Act (24)
    • Safer Chemicals Healthy Families (33)
    • Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) (20)
    • Small business (1)
    • South Korea (4)
    • styrene (6)
    • Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) (15)
    • systematic review (1)
    • test rule (17)
    • tributyltin (3)
    • trichloroethylene (TCE) (3)
    • Turkey (3)
    • U.S. states (14)
    • vulnerable populations (1)
    • Walmart (2)
    • worker safety (23)
    • WV chemical spill (11)