EDF Health

Selected tag(s): Prioritization

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

By Richard Denison / Published: April 5, 2011

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?  Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Regulation / Also tagged , , , , | Comments are closed

Memo to ACC et al.: What’s said in Maryland doesn’t stay in Maryland

By Richard Denison / Published: March 10, 2011

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

It’s only a little more than 30 miles from Washington, DC to Annapolis, the Capitol of the State of Maryland.  But to judge from testimony given there on February 24 and March 1 by representatives of the chemical, formulated products and food industries, you’d think Annapolis existed in a parallel universe, with only a passing resemblance to the one in DC.

The occasions were hearings on companion bills introduced into the Maryland State Senate, SB 637, and the State House of Delegates, HB 759, titled the “Healthy Kids, Healthy Maryland – Toxic Chemical Identification and Reduction.”

Actually, the industry associations’ testimonies suggest either of two alternative universes.  In one of them, Maryland should do nothing to address dangerous chemical exposures because the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and other related laws are working quite well, thank you very much.  Residing in this parallel universe are the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the American Cleaning Institute (ACI, until recently the more accurately named Soap and Detergent Association), the Maryland Industrial Technology Alliance and the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA).

In the other parallel universe, Maryland should do nothing to address dangerous chemical exposures because it will only get in the way of TSCA reform, which is just around the corner.  Inhabiting this alternative universe are the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), the Can Manufacturers Institute, and yes – as another indication that it just can’t quite make up its mind about TSCA reform – once again, the American Chemistry Council.  Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Regulation, TSCA reform / Also tagged , , , | Read 1 Response

Why is OMB blocking EPA from using even its limited authority under TSCA?

By Richard Denison / Published: December 20, 2010

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

On May 12 of this year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent a proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for its review, which is supposed to be completed within 90 days.  The proposed rule is not considered a major rule, is classified as “not economically significant,” imposes no unfunded mandates and is unequivocally allowed under EPA’s statutory authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The proposed rule would establish a so-called “chemicals of concern” list and populate it with one chemical and two chemical categories.  All of these chemicals are well-studied, already widely identified to be chemicals of significant concern and subject to numerous regulations by governmental bodies both in the U.S. and abroad.

Yet, as of today – more than seven months after receiving the draft of the proposed rule from EPA – OMB has not allowed EPA to release it for public notice and comment.

In 1976, when passing TSCA, Congress gave EPA the express authority to establish and populate a “chemicals of concern” list.  There’s simply no excuse for OMB’s delay.  Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Regulation / Also tagged , , , , , , , , , | Read 1 Response

Adding a hammer to TSCA’s tool belt: Clear deadlines and, yes, hammers to ensure they’re met, are essential to TSCA reform

By Richard Denison / Published: November 15, 2010

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

For decades, the American chemical industry has produced and used chemicals virtually without condition, due to the laissez-faire approach embodied in TSCA.  The consequence?  Tens of thousands of chemicals are in everyday use with little health and environmental data, let alone evidence of their safety.  This has led to a crisis in confidence among commercial buyers, users and sellers of chemicals and products made using chemicals – not to mention consumers, state and local government and the general public.

Meaningful TSCA reform must address these problems, by not only systematically subjecting chemicals on the market to data requirements and safety determinations – but also ensuring all this is done in an efficient and timely manner.

That’s where hammers come in.  Read More »

Posted in Health policy, TSCA reform / Also tagged , , , | Comments are closed

Affirming a thing of beauty: Comments filed today support new EPA CBI policy

By Richard Denison / Published: August 25, 2010

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

Today EDF joined with Earthjustice and 24 other health, labor and environmental organizations in filing comments with EPA that support its recently announced policy change restoring the public’s right to know the identities of all chemicals for which health and safety data have been submitted to the agency.

I have already done a post on the details of EPA’s new policy, which I termed “a thing of beauty.”  The comments we filed today – in response to EPA’s request when it issued its new policy back in May – make clear that the policy reflects both the clear meaning of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the clear intent of its drafters.   Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Regulation / Also tagged , , | Comments are closed

EPA seeks to improve TSCA data reporting; a real litmus test looms for the chemical industry

By Richard Denison / Published: August 20, 2010

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

While I was on vacation last week, EPA’s proposed rule to improve chemical information reporting under its so-called Inventory Update Rule (IUR) was finally published in the Federal Register.  (I say “finally” because the proposal languished for almost 6 months over at OMB, nearly double the 90 days such mandatory reviews are supposed to take.  That unfortunate delay is curious given the relatively modest changes that appear to have been made by OMB – mostly limited to compelling EPA to shift a few elements from proposals to options open to comment, and requiring EPA to expand the range of issues on which it now seeks comment.)

I won’t summarize the EPA proposals here; EPA’s factsheet does a good job of that, and Daniel Rosenberg at NRDC has also nicely recapped the proposal on his blog.  Suffice it to say that the proposed changes would go far to address the many failings of the current IUR, which amply manifested themselves in the last reporting cycle and severely hampered EPA’s ability to assess high production volume (HPV) chemicals under its ill-fated ChAMP Initiative.

So how will the chemical industry react?  Here’s why I’ll be watching intently.  Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Regulation / Also tagged , , , , , , , , , | Read 1 Response