{"id":893,"date":"2010-08-20T08:23:38","date_gmt":"2010-08-20T13:23:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/nanotechnology\/?p=893"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:01:04","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:01:04","slug":"epa-seeks-to-improve-tsca-data-reporting-a-real-litmus-test-looms-for-the-chemical-industry","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2010\/08\/20\/epa-seeks-to-improve-tsca-data-reporting-a-real-litmus-test-looms-for-the-chemical-industry\/","title":{"rendered":"EPA seeks to improve TSCA data reporting; a real litmus test looms for the chemical industry"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

While I was on vacation last week, EPA’s proposed rule to improve chemical information reporting under its so-called Inventory Update Rule (IUR)<\/a> was finally published in the Federal Register<\/a>.\u00a0 (I say “finally” because the proposal languished for almost 6 months over at OMB, nearly double the 90 days such mandatory reviews are supposed to take.\u00a0 That unfortunate delay is curious given the relatively modest changes that appear to have been made by OMB \u2013 mostly limited to compelling EPA to shift a few elements from proposals to options open to comment, and requiring EPA to expand the range of issues on which it now seeks comment.)<\/p>\n

I won’t summarize the EPA proposals here; EPA’s factsheet<\/a> does a good job of that, and Daniel Rosenberg at NRDC<\/a> has also nicely recapped the proposal on his blog.\u00a0 Suffice it to say that the proposed changes would go far to address the many failings of the current IUR, which amply manifested themselves in the last reporting cycle<\/a> and severely hampered EPA’s ability<\/a> to assess high production volume (HPV) chemicals under its ill-fated ChAMP Initiative<\/a>.<\/p>\n

So how will the chemical industry react?\u00a0 Here’s why I’ll be watching intently.\u00a0 <\/p>\n

Perhaps the most prominent of all of the chemical industry’s talking points about chemicals management is that all decisions on chemicals must be risk-based<\/em><\/strong>.\u00a0 (Let’s set aside for the time-being the contradiction<\/a> between that position and the industry’s demand in the context of TSCA reform that new chemicals be allowed onto the market without a risk-based safety determination.)<\/p>\n

A risk-based system demands robust chemical production and use information<\/strong><\/p>\n

The only means by which sound risk-based decisions can be made is for EPA to have access to robust information not only on a chemical’s hazards<\/em>, but also on chemical production, processing and use to inform its assessment of the potential for exposure<\/em> to the chemical.\u00a0 (Recall that risk = hazard x exposure.)\u00a0 Under TSCA, the only routine means for EPA \u2013 and for that matter the entire Federal government \u2013 to collect chemical production, processing and use data is the IUR.<\/p>\n

So, if the chemical industry is serious about wanting a risk-based system \u2013 one that will actually restore the confidence of its customers as well as the public about the safety of chemicals \u2013 surely it’ll welcome and support EPA’s proposals to ensure it has the chemical production, processing and use data it needs, right?<\/p>\n

We’ll see.\u00a0 The last time EPA proposed changes to the IUR, back in 2003, the industry flooded the Agency with comments seeking to limit the reporting requirements; if you don’t believe me, just peruse this docket<\/a> containing the hundreds of industry comments EPA had to address.<\/p>\n

Will ACC abide by its principles calling for greater EPA authority to get good chemical information?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The American Chemistry Council’s much-touted principles for modernizing TSCA<\/a> also call for EPA to have ample authority to get the data it needs to determine safety, and for the industry to bear the responsibility of providing the data it possesses or can generate.<\/p>\n

Having good information is also critical to EPA’s ability to effectively prioritize<\/em> chemicals, another of ACC’s ten principles (though, as I reported in a recent post<\/a>, ACC appears to be having second thoughts about prioritization, based on its President’s recent Congressional testimony).<\/p>\n

So the extent to which the chemical industry lends its support to EPA’s proposal \u2013 or simply resorts to its old nickel-and-diming ways of the past \u2013 will be a good test of whether those principles actually mean anything or not.<\/p>\n

The industry continues to attack every attempt by EPA to act on chemicals of concern<\/strong><\/p>\n

I’m frankly more than a bit skeptical about how industry will respond.\u00a0 That skepticism was boosted after seeing ACC’s latest tirade<\/a> about the new batch of chemical action plans<\/a> EPA issued this week.\u00a0 That attack came despite ACC’s principle (#6) calling for EPA to “be empowered to impose a range of controls to ensure that chemicals are safe for their intended use, \u2026 [including] labeling, handling instructions, exposure limits and engineering controls to use restrictions and product bans.”<\/p>\n

EPA’s latest plans address benzidine dyes, the flame retardant hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) and nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs).\u00a0 Mike Walls of ACC went after EPA for targeting HBCD in particular.<\/p>\n

To give you a sense of how extreme ACC’s position is, HBCD is a persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemical that is in the crosshairs of authorities worldwide:<\/p>\n