Author Archives: Richard Denison

TSCA reform legislation: Confidential business information

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

Part 1              Part 2              Part 3              Part 4

This is the fourth in a series of blog posts looking at less talked-about, but critically important, elements of bipartisan legislative proposals to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  This post deals with how EPA would address industry claims for protection of confidential business information (CBI) pertaining to chemicals, and disclosure of CBI to various parties.  The discussion is divided into three parts, addressing:  (1) CBI claims for chemical identity, (2) access to health and safety information and (3) duration of CBI claims.

Read More »

Posted in Health Policy, TSCA Reform| Tagged , | Leave a comment

TSCA reform legislation: How chemicals are selected for safety evaluations

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

Part 1              Part 2              Part 3              Part 4

This is the third in a series of blog posts looking at less talked-about, but critically important, elements of bipartisan legislative proposals to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  This post deals with how EPA would select which chemicals would undergo safety evaluations.

Under current TSCA, EPA has no mandate to review the safety of existing chemicals. There are no pacing requirements, such as specifying minimum numbers of chemicals to be examined.  The law provides no criteria for EPA to use in identifying chemicals that may pose risks.  There are no requirements for EPA to establish goals for reviews or schedules for any reviews it does undertake.

Safety reviews are rarely undertaken, and often consume many years (or even decades) – in large part because there are no mandates or deadlines.  As a result of these aspects of the current law, only about 2% of the chemicals that were on the market at the time TSCA was enacted have undergone any sort of safety review.

In 2012, EPA on its own initiative undertook a prioritization process that has led to identification of about 90 so-called “work plan” chemicals, for which EPA is conducting or intends to conduct risk assessments; five have been completed to date.

How would TSCA reform legislation identify chemicals to be subjected to safety reviews?   Read More »

Posted in Health Policy, TSCA Reform| Tagged , | Leave a comment

TSCA reform legislation: EPA review of new chemicals

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

Part 1              Part 2              Part 3              Part 4

This is the second in a series of blog posts looking at less talked-about, but critically important, elements of bipartisan legislative proposals to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  This post deals with EPA authority to review new chemicals prior to their entry into commerce.

TSCA divided the universe of chemicals into two groups:  “Existing chemicals” are those on the market at the time the first TSCA Inventory was established (1979), numbering some 62,000 chemicals.  These chemicals were grandfathered in by the original law, with no mandate for them to be tested or reviewed for safety.  “New chemicals” are those that entered commerce at some point since 1979, numbering some 23,000 chemicals.  Between 500 and 1,000 new chemicals enter commerce in a typical year.  (Given these large numbers, it’s surprising how relatively little focus there has been on the way bipartisan reform proposals would address new chemicals.  I’ll amplify on this point at the end of this post.)   Read More »

Posted in Health Policy, TSCA Reform| Tagged , | 1 Response

TSCA reform legislation: Enhancing EPA testing authority

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

Part 1              Part 2              Part 3              Part 4

While most of the attention around legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has focused on the issue of preemption, it’s important not to lose sight of how new legislation would address fundamental problems in the current law.  This post will be the first in a series examining flaws in TSCA and how recent bipartisan reform proposals would address them.

The Lautenberg Act, S. 697, is the bipartisan TSCA reform legislation introduced in the Senate in March.  A bipartisan process has also begun in the House, leading to last week’s release of a discussion draft of “The TSCA Modernization Act of 2015.”  In this series of posts, I’ll describe how each of these legislative vehicles would address the specific problematic area of the current law I’m discussing.

First up, EPA testing authority.   Read More »

Posted in Health Policy, TSCA Reform| Tagged , | Leave a comment

What’s our best chance of ensuring chemical safety?

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

The 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) created the serious problem we face today when it grandfathered in all chemicals in use at the time without requiring any safety testing or reviews.  Nearly 40 years on, we have a daunting task ahead of us to establish a new system that is accountable for the safety of chemicals.  It is essential that we get started as soon as possible.

The Lautenberg Act, which would require safety reviews of all chemicals in commerce, represents a fundamental change in our country’s chemicals policy:  it turns us away from the passive system under current law that simply assumes chemicals are safe and toward an active system that requires evidence of safety for chemicals to get or stay on the market.  It’s a huge paradigm shift, which won’t happen overnight, but is likely to have far-reaching consequences.   Read More »

Posted in Health Policy, States, TSCA Reform| Tagged | Read 1 Response

Understanding Preemption in the Lautenberg Act

FRL21 Preemption sidebarRichard Denison, Ph.D.is a Lead Senior Scientist.

By far the most difficult and contentious aspect of the debate over reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is the extent of federal preemption of state authority.  The range of positions on this is truly gigantic, from zero preemption (Senator’s Boxer’s consistent position) at one end of the spectrum to full-field preemption effective upon enactment (the position espoused by some in industry).

The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697) has landed somewhere in the middle of this spectrum, with some stakeholders saying it still goes too far and others saying not far enough.  And wherever you land on that question, it should be acknowledged that preemption in the bill is more extensive than under current TSCA, but much less extensive than it was in the predecessor to the Lautenberg Act, 2013’s Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA).

There has been a lot of confusion surrounding preemption in the Lautenberg Act.  So in this post, I describe how preemption works under the bill, and what is and is not preempted.

In the sidebar is a summary of the key preemption provisions of the Lautenberg Act.  The rest of this post is a deeper dive for those who want one.

Preemption under the Lautenberg Act

The first thing to recognize is that any preemption that applies is always chemical-specific and directly matches the nature and scope of the triggering federal action.  That is, preemption attaches only when EPA acts on the same chemical that has been or would be subject to a state action, and only when EPA considers the need for or takes the same type of action as has been or would be taken by a state.  And preemption is limited to the scope of the EPA action (for example, the specific uses of a chemical considered by EPA).

Outside of these boundaries, states are free to act on chemicals.  The new system would be basically the same as the current system except when EPA decides a chemical is a high priority and may require federal action.

Below I discuss the major components to the preemption provisions of the Lautenberg Act.   Read More »

Posted in Health Policy, States, TSCA Reform| Tagged | Read 2 Responses
  • 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 (21)
    • 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 (2)
    • Chemicals in Commerce Act (3)
    • Chicago Tribune (6)
    • children's safety (23)
    • China (10)
    • computational toxicology (11)
    • Confidential Business Information (CBI) (54)
    • conflict of interest (7)
    • consumer products (49)
    • Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) (4)
    • contamination (4)
    • cumulative exposure (4)
    • data requirements (46)
    • dermal exposure (1)
    • Design for Environment (1)
    • diabetes (4)
    • DNA methylation (4)
    • DuPont (11)
    • endocrine disruption (30)
    • epigenetics (4)
    • exposure and hazard (49)
    • FDA (9)
    • 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) (23)
    • in vitro (14)
    • in vivo (11)
    • industry tactics (44)
    • informed substitution (1)
    • inhalation (18)
    • IUR/CDR (27)
    • Japan (3)
    • Lautenberg Act (7)
    • 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)
    • New chemicals (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 (70)
    • Safe Chemicals Act (24)
    • Safer Chemicals Healthy Families (33)
    • Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) (20)
    • Small business (1)
    • snur (1)
    • South Korea (4)
    • styrene (6)
    • Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) (15)
    • systematic review (1)
    • test rule (18)
    • tributyltin (3)
    • trichloroethylene (TCE) (4)
    • Turkey (3)
    • U.S. states (14)
    • vulnerable populations (1)
    • Walmart (2)
    • worker safety (23)
    • WV chemical spill (11)