Expedited action chemicals: EPA posts guidance on requesting risk evaluation.

/in

Seven chemicals will be subject to the expedited action provision of the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) unless manufacturers nominate them for risk evaluation by September 19. However, the scope of the risk evaluation will not be limited even if the manufacturer requests evaluation of only certain uses.

EPA recently posted online guidance interpreting the expedited action provision, which was added by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. EPA must propose rules by June 22, 2019 to restrict or regulate certain persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals identified in the 2014 update to the TSCA Work Plan. The chemicals subject to expedited action are:

  • Decabromodiphenyl ethers (DecaBDE) (CASRN 1163-19-5)
  • Ethanone, 1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-octahydro-2,3,5,5-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl)- (CASRN 54464-59-4)
  • Ethanone, 1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-octahydro-2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl)- (CASRN 54464-57-2)
  • Hexachlorobutadiene (CASRN 87-68-3)
  • Pentachlorothio-phenol (CASRN 133-49-3)
  • Phenol, isopropylated, phosphate (3:1) (iPTPP) (CASRN 68937-41-7)
  • 2,4,6-Tris(-tert-butyl)phenol (CASRN 732-26-3)

Under this provision, EPA is not required to conduct a risk assessment and may impose one or more of a variety of restrictions so that the chemical no longer presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. The agency may levy prohibitions or restrictions on manufacturing, processing, or distribution for a certain use or in excess of a certain concentration. EPA is also authorized to set requirements for record-keeping, testing, or marking substances with warnings. These expedited actions must “address the risks of injury to health or the environment …presented by the chemical substance” and “reduce exposure to the substance to the extent practicable.”

The new guidance also provides instructions on how manufacturers should submit their requests for a risk evaluation, including new requirements for making claims for Confidential Business Information (CBI).

Manufacturers requesting risk revaluations will be required to pay a fee, which will be set by a rule which EPA expects to finalize by June 22, 2017. The guidance notes that risk evaluation requests may not be withdrawn and will be considered “a firm commitment …to pay for the risk evaluation.”

In addition to requesting a risk evaluation, a chemical may also be removed from expedited action eligibility if EPA designates it as a high-priority substance for risk evaluation. In either case, any subsequent regulation of the chemical must “reduce exposure to the substance to the extent practicable.”

Science advisors urge EPA to complete 1-BP risk assessment.

/in ,

The Chemical Safety Advisory Committee is urging the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to complete and publish its risk assessment of 1-bromopropane without delay, due to “the high risks of adverse effects” in occupational and consumer use scenarios that have already been evaluated. In meeting minutes [PDF] submitted to EPA last week, some Committee members commented that these risks might have been under-estimated. The chemical, also known as 1-BP, is used in spray adhesives, dry cleaning, and degreasing, and was among the chemicals identified in the 2012 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Work Plan.

The Committee, an independent panel of scientific advisors comprised of experts in toxicology, environmental risk assessment, exposure assessment and related fields, met in May to review the scientific and technical merit of EPA’s draft risk assessment for 1-BP, which was released in March 2016.

Overall, the Committee praised the draft risk assessment, concluding that “the conceptual model appropriately considers worker exposures and consumer uses, with the majority of exposure occurring via inhalation.” The Committee stressed the importance of including consumer uses with acute exposures, and several members called for better consideration of exposure from co-residence and community-level exposures near dry-cleaning facilities. The Committee provided recommendations “intended to improve the clarity and transparency of the scientific analyses,” including the adoption of systematic review processes to clarify how studies were selected and evaluated. Other recommendations include ways to refine occupational and consumer exposure assessments.

Under the new requirements of the Lautenberg Act, EPA must identify 10 Work Plan chemicals for risk evaluations to be initiated by December 2016. EPA will revamp the prioritization process for risk evaluations in 2017 and 2018, using new criteria to be established, through rule-making, by mid-June 2017.

EPA proposes updates to SNUR regulations on workplace protection and hazard communication.

/in , ,

On July 28, EPA published a proposed rule updating the Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) regulations, which implement section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). In announcing the proposal, EPA emphasized the need to harmonize regulations based on Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards for respiratory protection and hazard communication, which have both been updated since the SNUR regulations were last revised in 1989.

The proposed rule also contains several other changes meant to address “issues identified through EPA’s experience issuing and administering SNURs,” including changes to the bona fide intent to manufacture procedure. Additional, minor changes include correcting typographical errors, updating “material safety data sheet” or “MSDS” to “safety data sheet” or “SDS,” and revising language to “more accurately use the terms manufacture, manufacturer, and manufacturing.”

Notably, many of the proposed changes to the SNUR regulations will affect previously-issued SNURs.

EPA notes that, due to regulatory updates from both the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and OSHA, the current regulatory language for protection in the workplace, concerning respiratory protection, is inconsistent with NIOSH and OSHA requirements. Thus, EPA proposes to replace outdated references to old OSHA standards with the current NIOSH regulations on the certification and testing of respirators, as well as adding specific types of NIOSH-certified respirators to the list of approved respirators. According to the proposed rule, companies subject to previously-issued SNURs containing respirator requirements can either follow the updated requirements or continue using the older respirators, if they are still available, without triggering a Significant New Use Notification (SNUN) requirement.

EPA also proposes to modify a subsection on airborne forms of chemicals by adding “particulate or aerosol,” “gas/vapor,” and combinations thereof.

The proposed rule further revises the workplace protection section by inserting the requirement that a hierarchy of controls – such as enclosure of operations, ventilation, and workplace policies and procedures – must be “considered and implemented to prevent exposure, where feasible” before using personal protective equipment (PPE) for worker protection. This change is reportedly in response to previous comments criticizing “EPA’s approach of exclusively identifying the absence of adequate personal protective equipment as a significant new use” as out of step with best practices in industrial hygiene. EPA notes that the new language has been incorporated in all new chemical SNURs issued since June 26, 2013 and is consistent with OSHA requirements.

The agency’s proposed updates on hazard communication are based on OSHA’s updates to its Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), which was itself modified, in 2012, to conform to the United Nations’ Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). EPA also proposes adding a new requirement which could be used in new SNURs for a written hazard communication program in each workplace in accordance with the OSHA HCS. Another proposed addition provides specific statements and warnings that could be required under a SNUR and “would be based on EPA’s risk assessment of the chemical substance and would be consistent with the OSHA HCS and GHS recommendations.”

In addition to the changes to the workplace protection and hazard communication revisions, EPA proposes various other modifications, including:

  • Bona fide procedure: Currently, when EPA issues a SNUR in which the chemical identity is withheld as confidential business information (CBI), manufacturers and processors may submit information to EPA to “determine whether their substance is subject to the SNUR.” EPA now proposes to amend the process to apply to other kinds of CBI, such as production volume limits, so EPA may inform bona fide submitters whether and how the SNUR applies to them, including any confidential significant new use designations.
  • Notice submission requirements: EPA proposes that notification submissions such as premanufacture notifications or low volume exemptions, among others, must include any SDS that has already been developed for the relevant chemical.

EPA has specifically requested comments on the following issues:

  • the use of “next generation” respirators;
  • the incorporation of the hierarchy of controls approach to worker protection in the SNUR requirements; and
  • “any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including revisions to the automated collection techniques being used for submissions to EPA under TSCA, …the Agency’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) portal.”

The deadline for comments on the proposed rule is September 26, 2016.

First new chemical determinations released by EPA under amended TSCA.

/in

Last Friday, the U.S. EPA issued its first regulatory determinations for new chemical substances under the newly amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). EPA published premanufacture notices (PMNs) for four new chemicals, concluding that all four were “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” to human health or the environment. The decision means that manufacturers and importers may make or import the chemicals, which will be used as lubricants, plastics additives, and in combination with other substances to make polymers.

For all four new chemicals, the agency found low potential for both human health and environmental hazards. Two of the chemicals were “very persistent,” but the agency found that neither presented an unreasonable risk due to “low potential for bioaccumulation,” as well as low health and environmental hazards.

These actions are the agency’s first under “TSCA 2.0,” after the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act went into effect last month. As reported by Greenwire, the American Chemistry Council lauded the new chemical determinations as “an example of the new law already working.” The environmental advocacy nonprofit EDF praised the EPA’s openness while criticizing the agency on other issues, including the withholding of confidential business information (CBI), use of estimated data, providing only summaries of the determination documents, and “cursory consideration of exposure and exposed subpopulations.”

Lautenberg Act: EPA releases Implementation Plan and other resources.

/in ,

Following President Obama’s signing, last week, of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, EPA has begun to roll out a variety of resources to help stakeholders understand this update to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Today, EPA posted its Implementation Plan for the Lautenberg Act, a “roadmap of major activities EPA will focus on during the initial year implementation.” The requirements and goals outlined in the Plan are based on deadlines set in the statute. The agency noted that the Plan is a “living document” that will be updated over time.

Notably, the Plan states that the Lautenberg Act’s passage “effectively resets the 90-day review period” for submitted Premanufacture Notices (PMNs). As an “Immediate Action” under the Plan, EPA’s goal is to meet the “applicable” deadlines for reviewing and making affirmative determinations on all PMNs and Significant New Use Notifications (SNUNs). The agency says it “will make every effort to complete its review and make a determination within the remaining time under the original deadline.”

Another “Immediate Action” under the Plan is the routine review and making of determinations on new confidentiality claims for the identities of chemicals offered for commercial distribution. These Confidential Business Information (CBI) claims must receive a determination within 90 days and upheld claims will result in the chemical receiving a unique identifier and associated information. EPA also set a goal of creating a plan to link such associated information in 30 days, by mid-July. For CBI claims not related to chemical identity, EPA is required to review and make determinations for at least 25% of new claims, with a goal of developing an approach for routine review by mid-July. EPA plans to provide additional information on required statements and certifications for asserted CBI claims by mid-July as well.

The new law allows EPA to publish proposed and final rules, under Section 6, for chemicals with risk assessments completed prior to the enactment of the Lautenberg Act. These rules must be consistent with the scope of the risk assessments, “even if they do not cover all conditions of use.” EPA has set “Immediate Action” goals to address the identified risks associated with trichloroethylene (TCE), methylene chloride (MC), and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), with various proposed and final rules anticipated to be released from October through December 2017.

Other mandatory actions to be completed within the first year of implementation include:

  • Scope of Initial Risk Evaluations: The scope of the first ten Work Plan chemicals’ risk evaluations will be published in mid-June 2017.
  • Annual Plan for Risk Evaluations: The first annual plan, providing updates on evaluations to be started or completed each calendar year, among other things, will be due January 2017.
  • Additions to Mercury Export Ban: The initial list of mercury compounds prohibited from export is slated for publication mid-September 2016.
  • Mercury Inventory: EPA must publish an inventory of mercury supply, use, and trade in the U.S. by April 1, 2017, and update it every three years thereafter.
  • Small Business Definitions: By mid-December 2016, EPA must review the standards for identifying small manufacturers and processors and determine whether revisions are warranted.
  • Report to Congress: EPA’s first report to Congress must be submitted by mid-December 2016. The report must address the agency’s capacity and resources needed to conduct risk evaluations and issue rules addressing unreasonable risks, as well as EPA’s capacity to conduct industry-requested risk evaluations, the likely demand for such requests, and anticipated schedule for meeting that demand.

Beyond the first year of implementation, the Plan outlines “Framework Actions” that will guide the program on a longer-term basis. These are all on the same timeframe and include:

  • Initial Risk Evaluations: The list of ten Work Plan chemicals will be published in December 2016, with scope of assessments published in June 2017, as mentioned above.
  • Prioritization Process Rule: The Proposed Rule establishing EPA’s process and criteria for prioritizing chemicals for risk evaluations is expected by mid-December 2016; the Final Rule in June 2017.
  • Risk Evaluation Process Rule: The Proposed Rule establishing EPA’s process for evaluating the risk of high priority chemicals is expected in mid-December 2016; the Final Rule in June 2017.
  • Fees Rule: EPA plans to meet and consult with industry in developing the rules for collecting newly-authorized fees, including those for industry-requested risk evaluations, which must be fully funded by fees. The Proposed Rule is expected mid-December 2016 and the Final Rule in June 2017.
  • Inventory Rule: This rule will collect information via required industry reporting on chemicals manufactured or processed in the last ten years to determine which chemicals on the TSCA Inventory are “active” or “inactive.” Publication of the Proposed Rule is slated for mid-December 2016 and the Final Rule in June 2017.
  • Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals: This committee will be established to provide independent advice and scientific and technical expertise on the law’s implementation. EPA aims to establish the Committee by mid-December 2016, six months before the statutory deadline. The agency plans to publish the applicable Federal Register notice in early September 2016, with public comment accepted through early November 2016.

“Later Mandatory Actions” designated in the Plan include the publication of an Alternative Testing Methods Strategy by June 2018 and negotiated rulemaking on byproducts reporting for Chemical Data Reporting (CDR), with a Proposed Rule (by negotiating process) anticipated in June 2019.

In addition, EPA will hold an informational overview of the Lautenberg Act by webinar tomorrow, June 30, at 2:00 p.m. EST. The webinar will be accessible here: http://epawebconferencing.acms.com/overviewreform/. Audio will be available by phone by dialing 866-299-3188 and entering the code 2025648098#.

Other resources from EPA’s website about the Lautenberg Act include a summary of key provisions, a Frequently Asked Questions document, and the full text of the Act itself.

President Obama to sign Lautenberg Act tomorrow.

/in ,

The White House has announced that on Wednesday, June 22, President Obama will sign into law the “Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act,” the long-awaited update to the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The Senate passed the Lautenberg Act by voice vote on June 6, two weeks after the House approved the negotiated legislation. Both houses of Congress approved different versions of the bill in 2015, but were unable to reach a deal to reconcile the legislation until last month.

The bipartisan bill gives EPA new authority to regulate chemicals based on impacts to health and the environment, not cost, and order testing via order rather than rulemaking. Existing chemicals in commerce will be screened and prioritized for risk assessment, and industry will be allowed to apply for fee-funded expedited assessments. Fees for new and existing chemicals will be collected into a “TSCA Implementation Fund” to defray about 25% (initially $25 million annually) of the program cost. For new chemicals, EPA will be required to make an affirmative safety finding that the substance is not likely to present an unreasonable risk. The Lautenberg Act also provides for an “Inventory reset” under Section 8 of TSCA, requiring industry to report to EPA which Inventory chemicals they have manufactured or imported in the previous ten years. Most claims of Confidential Business Information (CBI), which allow companies to avoid disclosing certain information to EPA, will now have to be substantiated when made and will expire after ten years unless re-substantiated. EPA will be required to review and approve or deny past CBI claims for chemical identities on the Inventory.

The preemption of state and local laws was a major sticking point throughout TSCA reform negotiations, resulting in a complicated system of limited preemption. Generally, restrictions by states will not be preempted until EPA takes action on a particular substance, while reporting, monitoring, and disclosure requirements will not be affected. State actions in effect by April 22, 2016, or actions taken under a law in effect on August 31, 2003, will not be preempted. The Act also provides for a process under which states can seek waivers from preemption.

After the Lautenberg Act is signed into law, EPA will soon face a variety of tough implementation challenges. Within the first six months, EPA must designate ten chemicals from the Work Plan for risk assessment. Within the first year, EPA must develop guidance for industry-initiated risk evaluations and rules for Inventory reset reporting, prioritization of chemicals, and risk evaluation process.

Whether EPA will receive adequate funding from Congress to achieve all these goals remains to be seen; the Lautenberg Act does not permit EPA to assess fees unless Congress has appropriated at least the amount appropriated for the “Chemical Risk Review and Reduction” program project in FY 2014. Last week, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported out its appropriations bill for FY 2017, which included language to meet that requirement.

EPA grants partial exemption from Chemical Data Reporting rule for six biodiesel chemicals.

/in

Today, EPA announced that six biodiesel chemicals will be partially exempt from certain reporting requirements of the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule, under section 8(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The Final Rule amends the list of chemical substances exempt from submitting processing and use information by adding the six chemicals, all of which are involved in the production of biodiesel. These chemicals will still be subject to other CDR reporting requirements, on facility and manufacturing and import volume information.

The affected chemicals and their Chemical Abstract Services Registry Numbers (CASRNs) are:

  • Fatty acids, C14-18 and C16-18 unsaturated, methyl esters (CASRN 67762-26-9);
  • Fatty acids, C16-18 and C-18 unsaturated, methyl esters (CASRN 67762-38-3);
  • Fatty acids, canola oil, methyl esters (CASRN 129828-16-6);
  • Fatty acids, corn oil, methyl esters (CASRN 515152-40-6);
  • Fatty acids, tallow, methyl esters (CASRN 61788-61-2); and
  • Soybean oil, methyl esters (CASRN 67784-80-9).

This partial exemption was granted as part of the petition process for “Low Current Interest” chemicals developed in 2003. Under this process, EPA considers the “totality of information” available for a particular substance and certain considerations, defined in the regulations, including the availability of other risk screening information and whether potential risks of the substance are adequately managed, in determining the agency’s “current assessment of the need for collecting CDR processing and use information.” The agency stresses that this process is not necessarily based on potential risks, and interest may increase in the future, in which case the agency would reconsider the applicability of the partial exemption.

In this case, EPA determined that it had low current interest in processing and use information for the six substances. The analyses (“Review Reports”) for the individual chemicals are available at docket number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0809.

These chemicals were requested to be added to the partial exemption list in a petition submitted by a biofuels industry group in October 2014. EPA initially granted the petition in a Direct Final Rule published in January 2015, but withdrew the rule in March 2015 after receiving an adverse comment to the Direct Final Rule. The agency proposed to make the same additions to the partial exemption list in a Proposed Rule published July 22, 2015; the Final Rule announced today makes no changes from that Proposed Rule. However, the Final Rule does discuss comments submitted by the petitioner arguing that these biodiesel chemicals should be treated similarly to comparable “petroleum process” chemicals, which the EPA has designated partially exempt because the agency “believes worker exposure is diminished.” The agency made “no determination” on the petitioner’s argument that the biodiesel chemicals should be partially exempt because they share similar manufacturing conditions, properties, and uses as petroleum process chemicals, since the issue is “moot” as the agency is now granting equivalent partial exemption under the “Low Current Interest” process.

The EPA signed the Final Rule on March 22, 2016. The partial exemption goes into effect when the rule is published in the Federal Register, which should be well before the June 1 start of the 2016 CDR reporting cycle.

Congressional leaders at work on reconciling TSCA reform bills.

/in ,

Quickly reconciling the recently passed House and Senate bills overhauling the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is reportedly a top priority for congressional leaders this year. Earlier this month, Bloomberg BNA reported that House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), chairman of the energy committee’s Environment and the Economy Subcommittee, would be meeting privately to set the subcommittee’s agenda, including how to reconcile the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697) and the TSCA Modernization Act (H.R. 2576). Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, also told reporters that he was meeting with Rep. Upton to discuss the same topic.

Asked when final legislation might come before Congress, Sen. Inhofe suggested as early as this month or next month. He also noted that priorities for reconciliation include “making sure the EPA does what they’re supposed to be doing in pre-classifying chemicals.” Rep. Upton told Bloomberg BNA that reconciling the two bills is “high on both of our agendas,” and Rep. Shimkus said he was “pretty optimistic.”

It remains unclear, however, if both chambers will hold a formal conference committee or find a compromise in private that would then be approved by the House and Senate.

The bills are supported by a broad range of industry stakeholders, including the 3M, American Apparel & Footwear Association, American Chemistry Council, BASF, Dow Chemical, DuPont, and the National Retail Federation.

However, state and territorial environmental regulators have taken a more critical position. Last week, the Environmental Council of States released an analysis of the two bills highlighting provisions and sections that should be added or retained during reconciliation. Although not an official position of the organization, ECOS said the analysis is meant to be “a guide to selected issues of interest” to state environmental agencies. The analysis focuses mainly on preemption issues, including timing, grandfathering, and waivers, as well as the requirement that EPA share Confidential Business Information (CBI) data with states, and largely favors the Senate bill. However, the analysis also strongly advocates eliminating several provisions from the Senate version, including those authorizing a “regulatory pause” on state action and industry requests for safety determinations.

Yesterday, Chemical Watch reported that the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA) sent a letter to key members of Congress expressing its preference for certain features of the House bill. SOCMA, the trade group for specialty chemical manufacturers, cited the House version’s stronger protections for the confidentiality of chemical identity. The trade group argued that the Senate version would have the perverse effect of discouraging submitters of Premanufacture Notices (PMNs) from conducting health and safety studies, which would trigger the disclosure of chemical identity information. SOCMA also wrote in support of the House bill’s provisions on fees, which are linked to recovering costs for the TSCA Section 5 program and do not apply to businesses that are exempt from submitting data, whereas the Senate bill authorizes fees for exemption requests. In addition, the letter urged Congress “to resist calls to adopt an approach that would prevent a [PMN] submitter from commencing manufacture until EPA issued its determination, even if EPA missed its 90/180-day deadline.”

U.S. Senate passes TSCA reform bill.

/in ,

Today, the U.S. Senate broke its months-long deadlock on chemical safety reform and approved by voice vote the “Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act” (S. 697). The bill, sponsored by Senators David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM), overhauls the decades-old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for the first time. We previously discussed aspects of S. 697 upon its March introduction and approval, a month later, by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

After two years of negotiations, the legislation earned the support of 60 Senators of both parties as well as industry and many environmental groups. However, the bill was held up in October by Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), who were seeking to renew the Land and Water Conservation Fund. After that hold was lifted earlier this week, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who has long criticized the proposal as too weak, placed another hold on the bill. Sen. Boxer reportedly lifted her hold after being promised that the legislation would be changed in reconciliation to more closely match the bill passed by the House (H.R. 2567) in June, which Sen. Boxer considers more protective.

The main issue legislators will face in reconciliation will likely be whether states will be allowed to impose tighter restrictions than federal standards.

TSCA reform becomes filibuster proof, but floor vote remains elusive.

/in ,

Last week, the U.S. Senate came closer to passing bipartisan legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) than ever before – but still failed to bring S. 697 to the floor. The bill, co-authored by Senators Tom Udall (D-NM) and David Vitter (R-LA), is still not scheduled for a floor vote, which will have to wait until after Congress returns from its Columbus Day recess.

On Friday, October 2, the “Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act” reached the filibuster-proof level of 60 cosponsors with the added support of Senators Ed Markey (D-MA) and Dick Durbin (D-IL). The new cosponsors came aboard as part of a deal promising changes to the bill, including increases to the annual funding cap for industry fees from $18 million to $25 million and measures to streamline the state preemption waiver process. At the same time, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who has been a vocal critic of the bill, reportedly agreed to allow S. 697 to advance. On Thursday, a diverse alliance of advocates – including the American Chemistry Council and Environmental Defense Fund – rallied outside the Capitol to support the legislation.

However, the news and optimism was quickly overshadowed by the announcement on Monday, October 5, from Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) that they would block consideration of the TSCA reform bill unless reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was added as an amendment.

The LWCF proposal was met with resistance by Senators Udall and James Inhofe (R-OK), chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who are trying to keep out amendments that are not “germane.” In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Democratic leaders pushed for separate floor time to address the reauthorization of LWCF, with the hope of clearing the way for TSCA reform.

Instead, the Senate adjourned today for a week-long recess without voting on the matter, meaning the Udall-Vitter bill could not reach the floor until October 19, at the earliest. Senators Udall and McConnell are said to be working on resolving the LWCF roadblock in order to secure the passage of S. 697, which is expected to pass easily once the procedural hurdles of scheduling a floor vote are surpassed.