{"id":6179,"date":"2017-02-09T21:19:08","date_gmt":"2017-02-10T02:19:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=6179"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:01:54","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:01:54","slug":"no-chemical-industry-you-cant-have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2017\/02\/09\/no-chemical-industry-you-cant-have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"No, chemical industry, you can\u2019t have your cake and eat it too (Part 1)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D.,\u00a0<\/em>is a Lead Senior Scientist.<\/p>\n

There is an extreme anti-regulatory and anti-science bandwagon moving fast through Washington, and much of the chemical industry seems to have jumped right on board.\u00a0 We\u2019re also seeing growing signs of industry pushback against even modest early actions EPA is taking to implement the Lautenberg Act, which reformed the obsolete Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and passed with strong bipartisan support only last June.<\/p>\n

[pullquote]Companies have every right to provide their input to EPA and argue the case for their chemicals in accordance with designated processes the agency has established for this purpose.\u00a0 But resorting to tactics of obstruction and delay won\u2019t fool anyone. \u00a0That\u2019s the very thing that brought about the public crisis in confidence surrounding this industry in the first place.[\/pullquote]<\/p>\n

I\u2019ll address these concerns in this and a second post to follow.\u00a0 This post will address several attempts by some in the chemical industry to thwart EPA\u2019s efforts to implement the new TSCA.\u00a0 The second post<\/a> will look at the industry\u2019s main trade association\u2019s unabashed \u2013 indeed, boisterous \u2013 support for a new Executive Order and multiple \u201cregulatory reform\u201d bills moving in Congress, which it embraces despite the fact that they would impose on EPA (and other agencies\u2019) rulemakings \u2013 including those under the new TSCA \u2013 dozens of new knot-tying strictures, some of which the Lautenberg Act just got rid of<\/em>.<\/p>\n

This suggests that some in the industry have a very short memory:\u00a0 What led the industry to finally support TSCA reform was its recognition that the public, other levels of government and the market itself have little confidence in the safety of its products or the ability of government to protect people and the environment from toxic chemicals.\u00a0 Any relief it sought from its initial endorsement of a stronger federal chemical safety system will quickly dissipate if industry representatives \u2013 emboldened by the current political climate \u2013 take actions to stymie implementation of the new law and to buoy executive and legislative vehicles that would bring the regulatory system to a grinding halt.<\/p>\n

So, let\u2019s start with a few of the battles that some in the industry are waging to undercut recent EPA actions, authorized under the new TSCA, to restrict three highly toxic chemicals \u2013 trichloroethylene (TCE), methylene chloride (MC) and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) \u2013 the first such actions taken under TSCA in nearly 30 years.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Consider the following:<\/p>\n

Various industry groups bombarded the prior Administration\u2019s regulatory oversight office (the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget), seeking to block EPA from even proposing rules that would restrict high-risk uses of these chemicals.\u00a0 For example:<\/p>\n