Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.
Last month EDF blogged about our request to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to extend the illegally and unreasonably short 15-day comment period it had provided on a modification EPA is proposing to make to expand the ways a toxic chemical could be used, subject to certain conditions, without triggering any requirement to first notify EPA. Specifically, EPA is proposing to modify the Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) applicable to the chemical – which currently limits its use to metalworking fluid – to allow the chemical also to be used as an anti-corrosive agent in in oilfield operations and hydraulic fluids.
Our request also noted that EPA had failed to provide the public with anything approaching a complete set of documents relevant to its proposal. For example, the public docket for the proposed modified SNUR lacked even a redacted copy of the Significant New Use Notice (SNUN) that triggered EPA’s consideration of the expanded use.
EPA’s proposal to amend the SNUR noted that, while EPA was expanding the allowable uses of the chemical, it was also proposing to impose additional conditions on the use. These conditions were necessary, EPA argued, because of “test data on the substance and on new data regarding the expected release of formaldehyde from the substance, for skin and eye irritation, neurotoxicity, mutagenicity, oncogenicity, allergic responses, and developmental toxicity.”
Yet the docket did not include copies of these health and safety studies or the test data, despite being referred to in the proposal and in other documents that are in the docket. As a reminder, such health and safety studies and their underlying data must be made public under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). And of course, access to them is crucial if the public is expected to comment on EPA’s proposal.
A few days before the end of the 15-day comment period, EPA did grant a 17-day extension. It also added a copy of the SNUN to the docket. But it failed to add any of the health and safety studies or associated data we had identified as missing.
The comment period ended yesterday, and despite the serious time constraint and information gaps, EDF filed these extensive comments last night. In preparing our comments, however, we found that the amount of health and safety data EPA had failed to provide is even greater than we had originally thought. And our concerns over the adequacy of EPA’s review of this new proposed use and of the conditions it proposes to include in the modified SNUR have only grown. Read More »