EDF Health

A near-sisyphusian task: EPA soldiers on to require more testing under TSCA

By / Published: January 5, 2011

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

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced yesterday that it has finalized a rule requiring testing [UPDATE 1/7/11:  The published rule is available here] to determine basic health and environmental effects for 19 high production volume (HPV) chemicals.  While I welcome this as well as any other effort to close the huge safety data gaps that exist even for the most widely used chemicals, the back story behind this rule reveals why it is actually a perfect poster child for what’s wrong with the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

For starters, consider that it took EPA two and a half years to move the rule from the proposed stage to finalization.  And that doesn’t count the several preceding years EPA had to spend developing information sufficient to make the findings it has to make to justify proposing a test rule.

Then consider that the rule addresses only 19 of the many hundreds of HPV chemicals on the market today for which even the most basic, “screening level” hazard data are not publicly available.

And it gets worse.  Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Regulation / Tagged , , , , , | Read 1 Response

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

By / 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 / Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Read 1 Response

A bright spot in industry-NGO dialogue on TSCA

By / Published: December 9, 2010

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

A couple of weeks ago, a short letter was sent to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under this rather unusual letterhead:

 

 

 

 

 

The letter noted:  “Our three organizations have been working together to discuss how best to achieve effective processor reporting of use and exposure information, which is a clear demonstration of our mutual interest in providing EPA with reliable use and exposure information on chemicals in commerce.”

What’s up with that?  Read More »

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

Irresponsible Care: ACC seeks an exception to swallow the IUR Rule

By / Published: November 29, 2010

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

I noted in an earlier post that the American Chemistry Council (ACC) is seeking major delays in the implementation of enhanced chemical information reporting requirements that EPA has proposed under its TSCA Inventory Update Rule (IUR).  But ACC isn’t content with just delaying the enhanced reporting.  It’s also seeking an exemption so large that it literally threatens to swallow much of the rule.

The proposed exemption is called for in a footnote on page 2 of the comments ACC filed on the proposed rule:  “Exemptions should be provided for any company engaged in an acquisition or divestiture during the years since the last reporting cycle.”

Just how large an exemption would that be?  Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Regulation / Tagged , , | Comments are closed

A healthy state of affairs: U.S. states do the public’s bidding by acting to control dangerous chemicals, even as Washington fiddles

By / Published: November 17, 2010

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist and Jennifer McPartland, Ph.D., is a Health Scientist.

A new report documents that state-level legislation to control toxic chemicals adopted over the past eight years has passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.  The report also highlights that both the pace of adoption and the scope of such legislation have grown significantly – a trend expected to continue until Congress enacts meaningful, comprehensive reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The report, Healthy States: Protecting Families While Congress Lags Behind, was released today by Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families and Safer States, a coalition of state-level organizations working for chemicals policy reform.  The report analyzes 71 chemical safety laws that were adopted between 2003 and 2010 in 18 states encompassing 41% of the U.S. population.  The state laws enacted broadly fell into two categories:  those that place restrictions on individual dangerous chemicals, and those that embrace more comprehensive chemical policies.

The report’s main finding is that these laws passed with overwhelming support – and that support was strongly bipartisan:

  • Of more than 9,000 roll call votes cast, 89% favored the legislation, outnumbering opposing votes by more than 8 to 1.
  • Nearly three-quarters of Republican legislators (73%) voted in favor of the legislation, as well as nearly all Democrats (99%).
  • Ten Republican governors and 12 Democratic governors signed these bills into law.

What we find most remarkable about these new numbers is that they mirror almost exactly the views of the American electorate.  Read More »

Posted in Health policy, TSCA reform / Tagged , , | Authors: / Comments are closed

Data and safety requirements for new chemicals: China blows past the US

By / Published: November 16, 2010

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

In yesterday’s post, I pointed to a number of ways in which China is taking a proactive stance on chemical safety.  I cited China because the U.S. chemical industry, when saber-rattling about what it regards as overly onerous proposals for TSCA reform, loves to chide all of us that those proposals will drive chemical production overseas to China and that innovation of new chemicals will still happen, only it will happen in China instead of the U.S.

I mentioned yesterday that China is in the process of enhancing its regulatory requirements, including making them more like the European Union’s REACH Regulation.  Well, a great article detailing China’s new requirements for new chemicals was published yesterday by Geraint Roberts in Chemical Watch’s Monthly Briefing for November (subscription required).

Those requirements – which actually took effect October 15 – include the very same elements the U.S. industry has been warning would send chemical production and innovation running to China if they were to be adopted in the U.S., including:

  • registration as well as notification requirements for all new chemicals, whatever their production volume;
  • a minimum data set, which increases with production volume;
  • a requirement for re-notification whenever production volume increases significantly or the uses of a chemical change or expand; and
  • risk assessments for all new chemicals produced or imported above one metric ton per year.

Next up for the Chinese?  Similar requirements for existing chemicals, according to the article.

So much for the chemical industry’s hand-wringing about us losing out to China. When it comes to raising the bar for chemical safety, it appears the U.S. is increasingly the odd one out.

Posted in Health policy, International / Tagged , , , | Comments are closed