Tag Archives: prioritization

TSCA reform 2.0, aka, Safe Chemicals Act of 2011: Tastes great, less filling

By Richard Denison | Bio | Published: April 14, 2011

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

The Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 was introduced in the U.S. Senate today by Senator Frank Lautenberg and is co-sponsored by Senators Amy Klobuchar, Charles Schumer, and Barbara Boxer.

In the TSCA reform debate, some things haven’t changed from last year: TSCA is just as badly in need of an overhaul, and consumers and the chemical industry’s customers have no more confidence in the safety of chemicals in use today than they did a year ago. States, other countries and the marketplace all continue to act to advance modern chemical safety policies and practices. We in the advocacy community are still waiting for the chemical industry to offer some of its own proposals for reform – though some individual companies and product associations have been more forthcoming.

In contrast, the 2011 version of the Safe Chemicals Act has changed in some important ways – and for the better. It includes a number of improvements over last year’s version that would both boost health protections and ease implementation and workability.

[Updated 5-9-11: Here's a side-by-side comparing the 2011 version to the 2010 version of the Act.] Read More »

Posted in Health Policy, TSCA | Also tagged chemical identity, Confidential Business Information (CBI), data requirements, Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT), Safe Chemicals Act, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families | Comments closed

A sea of red herrings is behind opposition to EPA’s proposal to enhance chemical reporting

By Richard Denison | Bio | Published: April 7, 2011

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist. Allison Tracy is a Chemicals Policy Fellow.

With the chemical industry and now Congressional Republicans mounting a last-minute effort to derail the EPA’s long-time-in-coming enhancements to its Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule (see our last post), it’s worth examining their main objections. That examination reveals a sea of red herrings. Here are a few of the smelliest ones, discussed in detail in this post:

Red herring #1: EPA has failed to indicate how it will use the information it collects.

Red herring #2: Small businesses would be excessively burdened.

Red herring #3: More frequent reporting is a “needless” burden on the industry.

Red herring #4: EPA is expanding the IUR from data reporting to data-gathering.

Red herring #5: EPA’s requirement for retroactive reporting is unfair.

Red herring #6: Requiring electronic reporting is too inflexible.

Posted in Health Policy, TSCA | Also tagged aggregate exposure, chemical identity, data requirements, exposure and hazard, High Production Volume (HPV), IUR/CDR, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), risk assessment | Comments closed

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

By Richard Denison | Bio | 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, TSCA | Also tagged American Chemistry Council (ACC), industry tactics, IUR/CDR, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), risk assessment | Comments closed

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

By Richard Denison | Bio | 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, TSCA | Also tagged American Chemistry Council (ACC), children's safety, Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) | Comments closed

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

By Richard Denison | Bio | 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, TSCA | Also tagged bisphenol A, Canada, CDC, FDA, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB), PBDEs, phthalates, test rule | Comments closed

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 | Bio | 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 | Also tagged American Chemistry Council (ACC), China, formaldehyde, Safe Chemicals Act | Comments closed

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

By Richard Denison | Bio | 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, TSCA | Also tagged chemical identity, Confidential Business Information (CBI) | Comments closed

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

By Richard Denison | Bio | 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, TSCA and REACH | Also tagged American Chemistry Council (ACC), data requirements, exposure and hazard, High Production Volume (HPV), IUR/CDR, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT), risk assessment, Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) | Comments closed

Not playing nice: The American Chemistry Council solidifies its claim to being the "industry of no"

By Richard Denison | Bio | Published: July 30, 2010

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

If you had any doubt when reading my post earlier this week that the chemical industry isn't serious about real TSCA reform, watch American Chemistry Council (ACC) President and CEO Cal Dooley's hard-line performance at yesterday's hearing before a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee (video link at the bottom of this page). The legislative hearing focused on H.R. 5820, the Rush-Waxman Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010 that was introduced last week.

All the themes I struck in my earlier blog post Mr. Dooley played out in spades: more loud and long complaints aimed at every aspect of the bill; placing the worst possible interpretation on any provision subject to interpretation; playing the China and job-loss cards over and over; and last but not least, offering not a single constructive proposal of his own for reform.

A very different industry voice was also at the witness table, however – Howard Williams, V.P. & General Manager of the Pennsylvania division of Construction Specialties. Mr. Williams deftly countered all of ACC's theatrics, embracing all of the bill's key provisions and making a strong business case for them. Read More »

Posted in Health Policy, TSCA | Also tagged American Chemistry Council (ACC), Canada, chemical identity, exposure and hazard, industry tactics, Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT), Safe Chemicals Act | Comments closed

A minimum data set: Why, what, how much and when?

By Richard Denison | Bio | Published: April 21, 2010

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

As I noted in my last post, EDF and the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families coalition believe TSCA needs to ensure that basic safety data are developed and made available for all chemicals in commerce. Such information is:

a core element of the public’s right-to-know;
embodied in the “no data, no market” concept already in place under the EU’s REACH; and
most importantly, critical for identifying BOTH:
- chemicals of concern we have not yet identified, due to data gaps; and
- chemicals presenting little or no concern, which may serve as safer alternatives to chemicals of concern but we need to be able to identify with greater confidence.

The chemical industry’s opposition to comprehensive data requirements is an inherent contradiction: It is often the first to claim “regrettable substitution” when a chemical is restricted, asking: “How do we know the substitute is any better?” The answer is we often won’t – UNLESS we take a comprehensive approach to data development

So what types of data, and how much, should comprise a minimum safety data set? And when should it be submitted? Read More »

Posted in Health Policy, TSCA | Also tagged chemical identity, data requirements, exposure and hazard, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families | Comments closed

Chemicals & Nanomaterials

Tag Archives: prioritization

TSCA reform 2.0, aka, Safe Chemicals Act of 2011: Tastes great, less filling

A sea of red herrings is behind opposition to EPA’s proposal to enhance chemical reporting

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not playing nice: The American Chemistry Council solidifies its claim to being the "industry of no"

A minimum data set: Why, what, how much and when?

About this blog

Get blog posts by email

Search

Categories

Filter posts by tags

Archives

Blogroll

RSS Links

Meta