May 13, 2011

Inventory Update Reporting Rule Delayed Following Five Industry Meetings at the White House and Some Specious Claims

EPA announced Wednesday that it is delaying the reporting period for its Inventory Update Reporting requirement. It's not good news.

EPA had announced its intention to revise (pdf) the TSCA Inventory Update Rule (IUR) back in August of last year. The TSCA Inventory is the official list of chemicals in commerce, and the IUR is the regulation that requires companies to submit production and use data to EPA to ensure the Inventory accurately represents all of the chemicals out there. Determining the risks posed by chemicals in the environment is a matter of combining hazard information with exposure data. The TSCA Inventory, along the data in EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory, provide answers to the “exposure” half of that equation.

EPA's proposal was a step forward, requiring more information reporting from chemical manufacturers, more frequent updates, less information hidden from the public by confidentiality, and other improvements.

EPA sent the rule to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs back on January 20th. OIRA then hosted at least six meetings on the issue -- five with industry representatives and just one with environmental and public health groups. The chemical industry has been bombarding the administration and congress with fallacious arguments against the updated IUR (see this useful post by Richard Denison and Allison Tracy for a rundown and explanation. In one example, industry claims small businesses will be unduly burdened, when they are in fact largely exempted).

Under Executive Order 12866, OIRA is supposed to finish review of significant rules in 90 days (with one optional 30-day extension). By my count, OIRA’s had the rule under review for 113 days. EPA was supposed to begin a new reporting period under the new rule next month. That's now been postponed indefinitely.

OMB continues to be a sluice gate to health and safety regulation, and it seems like industry’s holding the controls. The public's health -- in the form of protection from toxic chemicals -- pays the price.


Matt Shudtz, Policy Analyst, Center for Progressive Reform. Bio.

  • Read Comments (0)
  • + Add a Comment
Be the first to comment on this entry.

First Name:
Last Name:
Email:
We ask for your email address so that we may follow up with you, ask you to clarify your comment in some way, or perhaps alert you to someone else's response. Only the name you supply and your comment will be displayed on the site to the public. Our blog is a forum for the exchange of ideas, and we hope to foster intelligent, interesting and respectful discussion. We do not apply an ideological screen, however, we reserve the right to remove blog posts we deem inappropriate for any reason, but particularly for language that we deem to be in the nature of a personal attack or otherwise offensive. If we remove a comment you've posted, and you want to know why, ask us (info@progressivereform.org) and we will tell you. If you see a post you regard as offensive, please let us know.