EDF Health

Industry to EPA, Congress: Restrain me before I falsely claim CBI again!

By / Published: March 2, 2010

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

Sara Goodman of Greenwire/E&E News had a great piece picked up by the New York Times yesterday about state governments pressing for meaningful TSCA reform.  I blogged earlier about the states’ reform principles, quoting Ted Sturdevant, Director of the Washington State Department of Ecology, urging that “[w]e need a federal law that prevents contamination from happening in the first place, and phases out the harmful chemicals that are already in widespread use.”

Goodman’s piece yesterday focused more on the need for fundamental reform of confidential business information (CBI) claim allowances under TSCA.  Recall that, under TSCA, state governments as well as the public are denied access to any CBI EPA receives.  Judging by their quotes in Goodman’s piece, they’re not happy about it:  Read More »

Also posted in Regulation / Tagged , | Comments are closed

EPA IG report: New Chemicals Program fails to assure protection

By / Published: February 20, 2010

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

In a post to this blog nearly a year ago, I noted that many voices in the chemical industry were claiming that EPA’s New Chemicals Program (NCP) was robust and served as an excellent model for TSCA reform.  My post took considerable issue with that point of view, noting the many structural constraints TSCA imposes on EPA in its effort to review new chemicals:

  • No data, no problem: No up-front testing requirement or minimum data set applies to new chemicals.
  • Guessing game: EPA is forced to heavily rely on limited models and methods to predict the toxicity or behavior of a new chemical.
  • Catch-22: While EPA can require testing of a new chemical on a case-by-case basis, it must first show the chemical may pose a risk – not an easy task without any data in the first place!
  • One bite at the apple: EPA typically gets only a single opportunity to review a new chemical.
  • Crystal-ball gazing: EPA has to try to anticipate a new chemical’s for-all-time future production and use.
  • Black box: New chemical reviews lack transparency.
  • Anti-precaution: In deciding whether to require testing or controls for a new chemical, EPA equates lack of evidence of harm with evidence of no harm.

Lately, I’ve been hearing chemical industry representatives trying to resuscitate the NCP-as-model-for-TSCA-reform mantra.  So it is especially timely that a new report from EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) has just been released that again thoroughly dismantles that notion.  The new report’s critique of the NCP closely mirrors the appraisal I provided earlier.  And adding weight to its analysis is the fact that EPA’s senior management has fully concurred with the report’s conclusions and recommendations. Read More »

Also posted in Regulation / Tagged , , , | Read 2 Responses

Worse than we thought: Decades of out-of-control CBI claims under TSCA

By / Published: February 12, 2010

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

I recently obtained – not without some effort on both EPA’s and my part – a scanned copy of a 1992 report commissioned by EPA innocuously titled “Influence of CBI Requirements on TSCA Implementation,” authored by the now-defunct Hampshire Research Associates.  I subsequently found a copy in an old EPA docket, located here (6 MB PDF file).

This understated yet remarkable report is a veritable treasure trove of information that painstakingly documents the rampant rise in illegitimate confidential business information (CBI) claims made by the chemical industry in the first decade after passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) – and the very limited options available to EPA to stop such activity (despite recent admirable efforts on its part). Read More »

Also posted in Regulation / Tagged , , , | Read 2 Responses

Householder words — and my reply

By / Published: February 2, 2010

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

Interesting exchange this afternoon between Joe Householder, Executive Director of the Coalition for Chemical Safety, and myself in comments on my last blog post.  See Mr. Householder’s comment here, and my reply here.

Also posted in TSCA reform / Tagged , | Comments are closed

Chemical industry “astroturf” group pads membership with agribusinesses – even though TSCA doesn’t regulate ag chemicals!

By / Published: February 2, 2010

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

The chemical industry’s fake grassroots group formed to feign broad support for its version of reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) – the Coalition for Chemical Safety, issued a press release today touting that it’s surpassed 150 members.

I blogged earlier about how some of the small businesses it has enlisted apparently weren’t told about the Coalition backers’ actual positions on toxic chemicals.

Now a review of the 150 members that have allowed the Coalition to meet its latest “milestone” reveals it has supplemented unwitting small businesses with dozens of agriculture-related companies and associations – despite the fact that TSCA doesn’t regulate ag chemicals!

Who knew that growing astroturf requires pesticides?? Read More »

Also posted in TSCA reform / Tagged , , | Read 2 Responses

TSCA-geek contest: And the answer is …

By / Published: January 27, 2010

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

The “identify-that-quote” contest I posted yesterday attracted quite a few responses, some as comments on the post, others in emails to me.  Most people were on the right track in thinking that it was said decades ago, though one guess was of someone in the last decade.  (I have to agree it does read like something EU Commissioner Margot Wallstrom might have said.)

Read More »

Also posted in Regulation / Read 2 Responses