EDF Health

Selected tag(s): Confidential Business Information (CBI)

Smoke and Mirrors: ACC lawyers are working hard to rein in your right to know

By / Published: March 1, 2012

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

I’ve blogged here frequently about EPA’s efforts over the past couple of years to make more chemical information available to the public, especially health and safety information.  A key part of this, believe it or not, is simply making sure that when EPA shares a health study with the public – as required by law – you get to know the identity of the chemical that is the subject of that study.

EPA’s initial steps (see below) were met with a little grumbling on the part of the chemical industry, but not a whole lot.  After all, the industry says it wants the public to have more information about chemicals.  At #7 on the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) top 10 principles for TSCA reform is:  “Companies and EPA should work together to enhance public access to chemical health and safety information.”

Times, apparently, have changed.  In recent weeks, ACC has launched a broadside attack on the EPA’s efforts to compel its member companies ever to name a chemical when submitting health and safety information to EPA.  My evidence?  A 36-page White Paper delivered by ACC to the office of the regulatory czar at the Office of Management and Budget, at a meeting held there on January 20.  The ACC document is a wonder of tortured logic, obfuscation and selective renditions of the history of TSCA.

Today, a response was mounted.  EDF and Earthjustice staff, as well as representatives of health-affected individuals, environmental justice communities and workers, held their own meeting with OMB officials.  And we delivered our own letter to OMB that thoroughly rebuts ACC’s White Paper.  It also points out that, way back in 1976, the drafters of TSCA actually wanted you to have access to health and safety information on chemicals – and they darn well didn’t expect you to have to guess at the identity of those chemicals.  Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Industry influence, Regulation / Also tagged , , , , | Read 2 Responses

EPA moves chemical reporting into the 21st century – though we’ll have to wait until mid-decade to actually get there

By / Published: August 3, 2011

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

A major initiative of EPA’s toxics office finally made it across the finish line yesterday when EPA posted a pre-publication copy of the final rule upgrading its chemical reporting system under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  The process took over 16 months just to get from the draft of the proposed rule to yesterday’s final rule, with EPA having to endure not one but two nearly six-month regulatory reviews by the Office of Management and Budget.

The wait was largely worth it:  EPA’s new program – renamed the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule – significantly advances chemical production and use reporting relative to its predecessor, the more arcane-sounding Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule.  Most, though not all, of the critical elements EPA proposed last year made it through to the final rule.  The catch is we’ll have to wait until 2016 for the program to reach its full potential.  Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Regulation / Also tagged , , , | Read 1 Response

ECHA adds seven more Substances of Very High Concern to REACH Candidate List

By Allison Tracy / Published: June 2, 2011

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

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) issued a press release on Tuesday announcing the addition of seven chemicals to the Candidate List of Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) under the European Union’s REACH Regulation.  [Update 6/20/11:  The formal addition of these substances to the candidate list, the initial announcement of which this post addressed, happened today.  See ECHA’s press release, which also contains some additional information about the uses of these chemicals.  The full candidate list including these seven substances is available here.]

All of the chemicals are officially classified as Carcinogenic, Mutagenic or Reproductive toxicants (CMRs).  Their addition brings the total number of chemicals on the Candidate List to 53.  Adding a chemical to REACH’s Candidate List is the first step toward subjecting it to REACH’s Authorization process, whereby the chemical can be used only if specifically authorized by EU authorities.

In this brief post we present a bit more information on these latest seven SVHCs, including the extent of their presence in U.S. commerce and their main uses.  Read More »

Posted in Health policy / Also tagged , , , , , , | Comments are closed

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

By / 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 reform / Also tagged , , , , , | Comments are closed

Ripples of REACH: Chemicals policy changes in Japan, Turkey and South Korea

By Allison Tracy / Published: April 5, 2011

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

The November 31st deadline for the first batch of registrations under REACH (the European Union’s Regulation for Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals) may have passed, but life is far from dull on the international scene of chemicals policy.  As discussed in a previous post, chemicals policy enhancements are ramping up across the globe, many of them mirroring the innovations introduced under REACH.

In this post, we’ll discuss significant advances in Japan, Turkey and South Korea that drive home the message that the ripples from REACH are ever-widening.  Read More »

Posted in Health policy, International / Also tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments are closed

EPA’s right-to-know effort declassifies the chemicals in 42 health and safety studies

By / Published: March 24, 2011

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

EPA has just released today the full versions — showing the identities of the chemicals in question — of 41 “substantial risk” notices of health and safety studies it had previously received from companies that had denied the public’s right to know those identities by claiming them to be confidential business information (CBI).  These notices had been submitted pursuant to Section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  One additional notice of a health and safety study that EPA had received under Section 8(d) of TSCA was also released today with its chemical identified.

What’s most significant about today’s posting is that it makes publicly available the identities of chemicals associated with health and safety data that:

  1. the submitting companies themselves believed the data “reasonably supports the conclusion that [the chemical] presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment;” and
  2. should have been publicly available all along, based on the plain language of TSCA that disallows health and safety studies to be claimed CBI in the first place.

Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Regulation / Also tagged , , , | Read 2 Responses