EDF Health

Too little, too fast: EDF comments raise numerous concerns with EPA’s proposal to expand use of a toxic chemical

By / Published: March 13, 2018

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 »

Also posted in Health policy / Tagged , , | Comments are closed

ACC’s state of denial about the Lautenberg Act widens – and has further infected EPA, now in its fee rule

By / Published: March 8, 2018

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

I was on vacation last week, so I missed two notable pronouncements from the American Chemistry Council (ACC) regarding the 2016 reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and implementation of them by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

One was a statement issued by ACC upon publication of EPA’s proposed “TSCA fee rule” in the Federal Register on February 27.  The other was remarks given by Cal Dooley, ACC’s CEO and President, to kick off the chemical industry annual GlobalChem meeting on March 1.  Let me start with the fee rule.   Read More »

Also posted in Health policy, Industry influence / Tagged , | Comments are closed

EDF files Opening Brief in legal challenge to EPA’s Inventory Notification Rule

By EDF Blogs / Published: March 7, 2018

Late yesterday, EDF filed our Opening Brief in our case challenging EPA’s Inventory Notification Rule.  The Brief was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Our Brief argues in favor of the public’s right to know.  Among other arguments, it explains that EPA erred by allowing companies to assert “Confidential Business Information” (CBI) claims that do not meet the law’s requirements.  As a result, EPA will be concealing information about chemicals, particularly information about specific chemical identities, in violation of the public’s right to know.  EDF also filed our two-volume Addendum supporting EDF’s standing to pursue this lawsuit.  The Addendum proves that EDF uses this kind of information to study and communicate to the public about chemicals and to advocate for measures to protect public health.

EPA’s response brief in the case is due to the Court on May 21, 2018.

 

Also posted in Health policy / Tagged , , | Comments are closed

No justification: Substantiations for rampant new chemical CBI claims are deficient or lacking altogether

By / Published: February 16, 2018

Stephanie Schwarz, J.D., is a Legal Fellow.  Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

Part 1               Part 2               Part 3               Part 4

We recently started a series of blog posts describing what we did, and did not, get from the EPA Docket Center when we requested the public files on about 70 new chemicals, most of which EPA had determined were “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended in 2016 by the Lautenberg Act.  To continue our series, we address in this post EPA’s pervasive failure to require companies to adequately substantiate Confidential Business Information (CBI) claims, and its own apparent failure to review such claims, despite clear requirements to do so under § 14 of TSCA. [pullquote]Twenty months after passage of the Lautenberg Act, we simply must ask:  When will EPA start carrying out its new responsibilities on CBI claims – which includes compelling companies to comply with the law?[/pullquote]

First, to provide some context, let us address a question we were asked based on our first post: whether the PMN situation we are describing is any worse now than it was pre-Lautenberg Act.  We suspect it is not necessarily worse.  However, the purpose of the reforms to CBI in the Lautenberg Act was to fix these problems, by requiring substantiation and EPA review of most CBI claims, including those asserted in premanufacture notifications (PMNs) submitted for new chemicals.  By and large it appears this is simply not happening, 20 months after the law passed and those provisions took effect.

Few of the PMN public files we received included any substantiations, despite massive assertions of CBI claims that require substantiation; instead, companies simply redacted the information.  In addition, nearly all of those submissions that do include a substantiation document are wholly inadequate, routinely claiming information as CBI that is not eligible for nondisclosure or failing to provide justification for information that may be eligible.  The violations are so egregious that they indicate EPA is failing to conduct even a cursory review of the claims and redactions.   Read More »

Also posted in Health policy / Tagged , , , , | Comments are closed

EDF requests extension of illegally and unreasonably short comment period on proposed rule with incomplete docket

By / Published: February 12, 2018

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

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) today submitted a request to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to extend the mere 15-day period EPA has provided for public comments on a proposed modification to a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR).  The proposed SNUR modification was published in the Federal Register just last Thursday (February 8), and stated that comments must be received by February 23.[pullquote]EPA must comply with its own requirements and provide electronic access to a public file containing all relevant documents prior to commencing at a minimum a 30-day comment period on this proposed rule.[/pullquote]

EPA’s own regulations require EPA to provide the public with at least 30 days to comment on SNURs, see 40 CFR 721.160(c)(4) and 721.170(d)(4), making EPA’s 15-day comment period illegally short.

EDF requested that EPA provide at least 30 days for public comment – with that period to commence only after a complete public docket of relevant materials is made available by EPA.  As our request details, the docket EPA has provided for this proposed SNUR is woefully incomplete, missing even basic documents that preclude the public from being able to provide meaningful comments on the proposal.   Read More »

Also posted in Health policy, Regulation / Tagged , , , | Comments are closed

ACC doubles down on its revisionist history of the Lautenberg Act’s reforms to new chemical reviews under TSCA

By / Published: February 5, 2018

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

Last August, Scott Pruitt announced that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would reverse course in its conduct of risk reviews of new chemicals under the reforms made in 2016 to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by the Lautenberg Act.  The changes will effectively return the program to its pre-Lautenberg state – under which few chemicals were subject to any conditions and even fewer to any testing requirements – or make it even weaker.

In December, despite indicating it had already made the changes Pruitt had previewed, EPA held a public meeting and accepted public comments on the changes.  EDF filed extensive written comments, as did many other stakeholders.[pullquote]Undeterred by the facts, ACC persists in its wishful thinking that the law’s provisions on new chemicals are meant to maintain the status quo and that this is what stakeholders wanted.[/pullquote]

Among them was, of course, the American Chemistry Council (ACC).  While I won’t describe those comments at any length here, ACC’s primary thesis was that the Lautenberg Act made no significant changes to the new chemicals provisions of TSCA, and that this was in keeping with the wishes of Congress and an acknowledgment that the program has always worked just fine.

If this thesis sounds familiar, it should:  ACC has basically echoed this talking point ever since the Lautenberg Act was signed into law nearly 20 months ago.  In seeking to support its case, one of the most outlandish of ACC’s arguments is this one:  ACC asserts that it was the TSCA reform bill passed by the House of Representatives in June 2015 that “led to” the final bill that became the new law, and that because the 2015 House bill made no changes at all to the new chemicals section of TSCA, that is evidence that this was what Congress intended.

In fact, at least with respect to new chemicals, it was the Senate bill – which made extensive changes to the new chemicals section of TSCA – that was reflected in the final bill that became law.  Indeed, Congress expressly rejected the House bill’s decision not to touch these provisions, by instead adopting virtually all of the changes made to these provisions by the Senate bill.

Nonetheless, undeterred by these facts, ACC persists in its wishful thinking that the law’s provisions on new chemicals are meant to maintain the status quo and that this is what stakeholders wanted.

This new round of public comments on the law’s effect on new chemical reviews under TSCA played out almost exactly a year after the first round in December 2016-January 2017.  In that earlier round, ACC also insisted that Congress intended no significant change to those reviews.  In response, EDF included in our comments 23 pages of statements from both members of Congress and stakeholders. The statements demonstrate both that the law was intended to and did make major changes to new chemical reviews under TSCA, and that many stakeholders had emphasized the need for those changes.

Given ACC’s continued state of denial and perpetuation of its revisionist history of this issue, I feel compelled to include the content of those 23 pages here.  Here you go:   Read More »

Also posted in Health policy / Tagged , , | Comments are closed