New chemicals under the new TSCA: Growing pains now, but a stronger system going forward

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

In the many conversations I have had over these last many years about the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the single thing that most resonated with people about why the old law didn’t work was about new chemicals. Folks were stunned when they learned that the old law didn‘t require our government to review chemicals and determine they were safe before they were allowed onto the market.  People simply assumed this was the case and were shocked to find it wasn’t.  I heard repeatedly, what could be a more basic need to ensure protection of the public’s health?

That is why many in Congress worked so hard to drive improvements to the new chemicals provisions in the new law – that, and a clear understanding of the many ways in which the old law hamstrung EPA when it came to new chemicals.  In my view, these reforms and robust implementation of them by EPA are absolutely essential to the task of restoring public and market confidence in our national chemical safety system – the shared objective that allowed disparate stakeholders and lawmakers to come together to support the Lautenberg Act.

For too long, economic factors have dominated over the public’s right to expect that chemicals to which they may be exposed will not be allowed into use without adequate assurance of their safety.  That has undermined consumer confidence in our chemical safety system.  The public understands that the most efficient and effective stage at which to provide assurance of safety is before commercial production and use begins, rather than waiting and then having to try to mitigate risks that arise after a new chemical is embedded in commerce.

I have blogged previously about why the new chemicals reforms in the new law represent a balanced approach, on the one hand, ensuring that the safety of new chemicals is carefully examined and a reasonable assurance of safety is provided before market entry; and, on the other hand, ensuring an efficient process that doesn’t unduly slow or create too high a bar for market entry.

Of course, even as it has supported the new law’s balanced reforms, the chemical industry did and continues to assert that the old new chemicals system worked just fine.  I’ve always maintained that’s because it rarely required much of them.   It’s not wholly surprising, therefore, that the industry is expressing angst over EPA’s implementation of the new requirements.  Change is hard.

Bear in mind also that the new requirements of the law not only changed the status quo significantly, they also became effective immediately upon passage of the law, without any time given to EPA to migrate to the new regimen.  That, too, has been a source of the growing pains felt by both EPA and the regulated community.  Abrupt change is even harder.

But a broader and longer view of the new law is called for.  The bulk of this post will describe why EDF believes that EPA’s implementation to date is not only consistent with the new law but in fact mandated by it, and why, despite initial growing pains, the new system will be a major improvement over the long run for both public health and business.  But first …   Read More »

Posted in EPA, Health Policy, TSCA Reform| Tagged , | 1 Response

More on EPA’s first 10 chemicals up for review

Lindsay McCormick is a Project Manager.  

As promised in Tuesday’s blog post, we’ve compiled additional information on the 10 chemicals EPA selected as the first to undergo risk evaluations under the new TSCA.

 

Click on the image to the right to see:

  • EPA’s 2014 rankings on hazard, exposure, and persistence & bioaccumulation characteristics of these chemicals in its TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments;
  • Examples of consumer, commercial, and industrial uses; and
  • National production volume (i.e., volume produced and imported into the U.S.) for 2011 based on EPA’s 2012 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) information. (Note the 2012 data are the latest publicly available. EPA recently completed its collection of 2016 data, but they are not yet publicly available.)

 

Posted in EPA, Health Policy, TSCA Reform| Tagged | Leave a comment

Bipartisan group of Senators urges new Administration to ensure strong implementation of new TSCA

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

Yesterday a bipartisan group of nine Senators who were deeply involved in passage of the Lautenberg Act wrote to President-Elect Trump’s transition team to urge that EPA under the next Administration “vigorously implement the new law.”  The Lautenberg Act amended the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA) and was signed into law by President Obama on June 22, of this year.

The group went on to state that strong implementation “includes moving expeditiously to identify and address chemicals with the greatest potential impact on public health, especially those affecting vulnerable populations.  … Successful implementation of this law will also help ensure there is certainty and restore confidence in the marketplace for manufacturers, consumer product producers, and the public.”

The Senators urged that the transition team work with EPA “to communicate on critical steps that are underway and to get a full appreciation of the new law’s deadlines.  We urge that you view appointments, funding and staffing to this office with the utmost importance.  It is essential to maintain momentum during the Presidential transition and in the early months of the new Administration to ensure that this new law is successful.”

The signatories to the letter are Sens. Tom Udall (D-NM), James Inhofe (R-OK), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Tom Carper (D-DE), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).

Posted in EPA, Health Policy, TSCA Reform| Tagged | Leave a comment

Making federally-assisted housing lead-safe for children

Tom Neltner, J.D.is Chemicals Policy Director

Housing supported by the Federal Government should not be poisoning children.

That was the simple message Congress delivered to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992. Despite some real progress since then, recent cases of lead poisoning in federally-assisted housing in Chicago and Indiana suggest there is still much work to be done.

Thanks to a strong public push to highlight these failings, HUD recently proposed changes to its “Lead Safe Housing Rule.” At the heart of these changes is lowering the level of lead in children’s blood considered “elevated,” the trigger for local housing authorities to conduct detailed inspections of a child’s home for lead. HUD has continued to use a level of 20 µg/dL set in 1999, despite a consensus that lead is harmful to children at much lower levels. HUD is on track to finalize the rule in January 2017 after sending it to the Office of Management and Budget on November 21 for final review.

Read More »

Posted in Health Policy, lead, Regulation| Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Off and running: EPA identifies first 10 chemical for review under new TSCA

Richard Denison, Ph.D.is a Lead Senior Scientist.  Lindsay McCormick and Jennifer McPartland contributed to this post.

Today, in advance of the December 19, 2016 deadline specified under the new TSCA, EPA has announced the first 10 chemicals to undergo risk evaluations (see list below).

This is a very important early step called for under the Lautenberg Act, which passed Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support.  Early action by EPA was seen by stakeholders across the spectrum as essential to begin the process of restoring public and market confidence in our nation’s chemical safety system.  So EPA’s issuance of this list in advance of the statutory deadline next month is a welcome sign of timely implementation of the new law.

While not every chemical that everyone may have wanted is included among the first 10, that is because there are many more than 10 chemicals that need far greater scrutiny as to their safety.  Indeed, the longer “Work Plan Chemicals” list from which EPA drew the first 10 consists of nearly 100 chemicals that present significant potential risk.

What is most important is that EPA gets started, so that it can complete risk evaluations of the first 10 and move on to the next.  EPA now has 6 months to establish the scope of its risk evaluations for these chemicals, identifying the uses, hazards, exposure and vulnerable populations it will evaluate.   Read More »

Posted in EPA, Health Policy, TSCA Reform| Tagged | Leave a comment

Early disconnect between industry rhetoric and actions under the new TSCA?

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

It was more than a bit heartening that, even post-election, chemical industry representatives have been publicly urging that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) implementation of the new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) should continue apace.

So it pains me greatly to be reading that some in industry are aggressively pressing the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to block at least one of EPA’s proposals to restrict certain very high-risk uses of trichloroethylene (TCE), which focuses on TCE’s use in commercial vapor degreasing operations.  As reported late last week by Inside EPA (subscription required), industry representatives have asked OMB not to even allow EPA to issue its proposal for public comment, despite the fact that the industry and the rest of the public have yet to see it.

These are the first risk reduction actions EPA is proposing to take under the Lautenberg Act, which passed earlier this year with strong bipartisan support.  Industry supported the new law, saying it accepted the need to give EPA stronger authority to identify and restrict dangerous uses of chemicals in order to help restore public confidence in the nation’s chemical safety system.  So why are some now seeking to block the very first actions taken under the new law?  This type of behavior— fighting even limited steps by EPA to address even the riskiest of chemicals—is what brought about this crisis in confidence in the first place.   Read More »

Posted in EPA, Health Policy, TSCA Reform| Tagged , | Leave a comment
  • About this blog

    Science, health, and business experts at Environmental Defense Fund comment on chemical and nanotechnology issues of the day.
    Our work: Chemicals

  • Stay Updated

    Get blog posts and breaking news to your email inbox.

  • Filter posts by tags

    • ADHD (1)
    • aggregate exposure (10)
    • Air Pollution (1)
    • Alternatives assessment (3)
    • American Chemistry Council (ACC) (57)
    • Ami Zota (1)
    • arsenic (3)
    • artificial colors (1)
    • asthma (4)
    • Australia (1)
    • behavior (1)
    • Behind the Label (1)
    • biomonitoring (9)
    • bipartisan (6)
    • bisphenol A (22)
    • blue (1)
    • BP Oil Disaster (18)
    • building code (1)
    • building code official (1)
    • California (1)
    • Canada (7)
    • carbon nanotubes (24)
    • carcinogen (22)
    • Carcinogenic Mutagenic or Toxic for Reproduction (CMR) (12)
    • CDC (8)
    • Center for Science in the Public Interest (1)
    • certified colors (1)
    • Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP) (13)
    • chemical exposure (2)
    • chemical identity (32)
    • chemical testing (4)
    • Chemicals in Commerce Act (3)
    • Chicago Tribune (6)
    • Children's health (2)
    • children's safety (24)
    • China (10)
    • citizens petition (2)
    • Climate change (1)
    • Clinton (1)
    • color (1)
    • color additive (1)
    • computational toxicology (11)
    • Confidential Business Information (CBI) (59)
    • conflict of interest (8)
    • Congress (1)
    • Congressman Israel (1)
    • consumer products (52)
    • Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) (4)
    • contamination (4)
    • CSPI (1)
    • cumulative exposure (4)
    • data requirements (47)
    • DEHP (1)
    • dermal exposure (1)
    • Design for Environment (1)
    • development (2)
    • developmental (1)
    • diabetes (4)
    • disclosure (2)
    • DNA methylation (4)
    • Drinking Water (7)
    • DuPont (11)
    • Durbin (1)
    • endocrine (2)
    • endocrine disruption (30)
    • environmental justice (1)
    • EPA (5)
    • epigenetics (4)
    • exposure and hazard (49)
    • fast food (1)
    • FD&C (1)
    • FDA (14)
    • fees (1)
    • Firemaster (2)
    • flame retardants (25)
    • Flint (1)
    • food additive (2)
    • food additive petition (2)
    • food additives (2)
    • Food Advisory Comittee (1)
    • food contact substances (1)
    • food dyes (1)
    • formaldehyde (15)
    • fragrances (1)
    • front group (13)
    • GAO (1)
    • general interest (22)
    • Generally Recognizes as Safe (1)
    • George Washington University (1)
    • Globally Harmonized System (GHS) (5)
    • Government Accountability Office (5)
    • GRAS (3)
    • haz (1)
    • hazard (6)
    • High Production Volume (HPV) (23)
    • home buyers (1)
    • home sales (1)
    • Household action level (2)
    • HUD (2)
    • ICC (1)
    • in vitro (14)
    • in vivo (11)
    • industry tactics (44)
    • informed substitution (1)
    • inhalation (18)
    • International Code Council (1)
    • IUR/CDR (27)
    • Japan (3)
    • Lautenberg Act (48)
    • lead (18)
    • lead and copper rule (1)
    • lead dust hazard (2)
    • Lead Dust Standards (1)
    • Lead Exposure (5)
    • lead hazard (1)
    • lead poisoning preventon (1)
    • lead-based paint (4)
    • Lead-safe (1)
    • lead-safe renovations firms (1)
    • lead-safe renovator (1)
    • LSHR (1)
    • markets (1)
    • Markey (1)
    • MCHM (1)
    • mercury (4)
    • methylmercury (2)
    • microbiome (3)
    • Milken Institute School of Public Health (1)
    • nanosilver (6)
    • National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (20)
    • National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (7)
    • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) (5)
    • National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) (7)
    • National Toxicology Program (1)
    • NCHH (1)
    • NDWA (1)
    • New chemicals (6)
    • NHANES (1)
    • Obama (1)
    • obesity (6)
    • Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (3)
    • Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) (4)
    • Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (16)
    • Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) (3)
    • oil dispersant (18)
    • ortho-phthalate (1)
    • ortho-phthalates (1)
    • paint (1)
    • PBDEs (19)
    • Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT) (22)
    • personal care products (1)
    • pesticides (7)
    • PFOA (1)
    • phthalate (1)
    • phthalates (20)
    • pipes (1)
    • polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) (5)
    • prenatal (6)
    • prioritization (37)
    • Quigley (1)
    • real estate (1)
    • red (1)
    • Redfin (1)
    • renovation (1)
    • rental (1)
    • renters (1)
    • report on carcinogens (1)
    • reproductive (2)
    • residential code (1)
    • revised CSIA (4)
    • right-to-know (1)
    • risk assessment (72)
    • risk evaluation (1)
    • RRP (1)
    • Safe Chemicals Act (24)
    • Safer Chemicals Healthy Families (33)
    • safety (2)
    • Science Advisory Board (1)
    • secrecy (1)
    • Sierra Club (1)
    • Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) (21)
    • Small business (1)
    • snur (1)
    • soil lead hazard (1)
    • South Korea (4)
    • styrene (6)
    • Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) (15)
    • systematic review (1)
    • TBB (2)
    • test rule (18)
    • Tox21 (5)
    • ToxCast (10)
    • Transparency (1)
    • tributyltin (3)
    • trichloroethylene (TCE) (6)
    • TSCA inventory (1)
    • TSCA Modernization Act (14)
    • TSCA Title IV (1)
    • Turkey (3)
    • U.S. states (17)
    • Voluntary (1)
    • vulnerable populations (1)
    • Walmart (3)
    • Washington Post (1)
    • worker safety (23)
    • wristband (2)
    • WV chemical spill (12)
    • yellow (1)
    • Zillow (1)