Selected category: EPA

No, chemical industry, you can’t have your cake and eat it too (Part 2)

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

[Part 1 here]

We have been watching with growing alarm the rapidly unfolding efforts by leadership in Congress and the Trump Administration to gut health and safety protections that provide millions of Americans with clean air, water and safe products.  Support by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) for such efforts, detailed below, gives us profound worry and deep frustration given the trade association’s support of major reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act last year.

Many of ACC’s member companies worked for many years to move the industry towards strong federal legislation that can restore public and market confidence in the safety of their products.  Many of these companies have also been embracing sustainability commitments, and have acknowledged that a strong federal chemicals management system is critical for charting the path to a safer more sustainable future.  Those companies with a real commitment to safer chemicals and sustainability should be very alarmed that their trade association has endorsed legislation and the Trump Administration’s deregulatory executive order that would profoundly limit EPA’s and the rest of the Federal government’s ability to protect human health and the environment.

These actions by the executive and legislative branches will or would severely constrain EPA from acting to address chemical risks under the Lautenberg Act as well as other federal laws that protect our air, water, land, workplaces, schools and homes.

Here are the specifics:   Read More »

Also posted in Health Policy, TSCA Reform| Tagged | Leave a comment

No, chemical industry, you can’t have your cake and eat it too (Part 1)

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

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.  We’re 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.

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.  But resorting to tactics of obstruction and delay won’t fool anyone.  That’s the very thing that brought about the public crisis in confidence surrounding this industry in the first place.

I’ll address these concerns in this and a second post to follow.  This post will address several attempts by some in the chemical industry to thwart EPA’s efforts to implement the new TSCA.  The second post will look at the industry’s main trade association’s unabashed – indeed, boisterous – support for a new Executive Order and multiple “regulatory reform” bills moving in Congress, which it embraces despite the fact that they would impose on EPA (and other agencies’) rulemakings – including those under the new TSCA – dozens of new knot-tying strictures, some of which the Lautenberg Act just got rid of.

This suggests that some in the industry have a very short memory:  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.  Any relief it sought from its initial endorsement of a stronger federal chemical safety system will quickly dissipate if industry representatives – emboldened by the current political climate – 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.

So, let’s 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 – trichloroethylene (TCE), methylene chloride (MC) and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) – the first such actions taken under TSCA in nearly 30 years.  Read More »

Also posted in Health Policy, TSCA Reform| Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

When it comes to lead, formula-fed infants get most from water and toddlers from food, but for highest exposed children the main source of lead is soil and dust

Tom Neltner, J.D.is Chemicals Policy Director

On January 19, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a major new draft report proposing three different approaches to setting health-based benchmarks for lead in drinking water. We applauded EPA’s action and explored the implications for drinking water in a previous blog. One of the agency’s approaches provides useful, and surprising, insights into where the lead that undermines the health of our children comes from. Knowing the sources enables regulators and stakeholders to set science-based priorities to reduce exposures and the estimated $50 billion that lead costs society each year.

The EPA draft report is available for public comments until March 6, 2017, and it is undergoing external peer-review by experts in the field in support of the agency’s planned revisions to its Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) for drinking water. Following this public peer-review process, EPA expects to evaluate and determine what specific role or roles a health-based value may play in the revised LCR. With the understanding that some of the content may change, here are my takeaways from the draft:

  • For the 20% of most exposed infants and toddlers, dust/soil is the largest source of lead. Since we know that 21% of U.S. homes (24 out of 114 million) have lead-based paint hazards, this should not be surprising.
  • For most infants, lead in water and soil/dust have similar contributions to blood lead levels, with food as a smaller source. If the infant is formula-fed, water dominates.
  • For 2/3 of toddlers, food appears to provide the majority of their exposure to lead. This result was a surprise for me. EPA used data from the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Total Diet Study collected from 2007 to 2013 coupled with food consumption data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey collected from 2005 to 2011. In August 2016, FDA reported on levels of lead (and cadmium in food) commonly eaten by infants and toddlers based on a data set that is different from its Total Diet Study. FDA concluded that these levels, “on average, are relatively low and are not likely to cause a human health concern.”
  • For all children, air pollution appears to be a minor source of lead exposure. We think it is most likely because exposure is localized around small airports and industrial sources.

For a visual look at the data, we extracted two charts from the draft EPA report (page 81) that show the relative contribution of the four sources of lead for infants (0-6 month-olds) and toddlers (1 to <2 year-olds) considered by the agency. The charts represent national exposure distributions and not specific geographical areas or age of housing.

Read More »

Also posted in Drinking Water, Emerging Science, FDA, Food, Health Policy, lead| Tagged , , , , , , | Comments are closed

California requires replacement of all lead service lines – but vigilance needed on implementation

Tom Neltner, J.D.is Chemicals Policy Director

In 2016, California became the first state in the country to make enforceable commitments to eliminating all lead service lines (LSLs) in the state.  These lead pipes that connect the main under the street to homes are the primary source of lead in drinking water and unpredictably release lead particulate when disturbed.  Under the leadership of Senator Connie Leyva, the state’s Senate voted unanimously, and the Assembly voted 72 to 7 to pass SB1398 to require drinking water utilities to inventory LSLs in use and then provide the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) a timeline for replacement of the lines.

Based on a national survey of utilities, the American Water Works Association reported that California has 65,000 LSLs out of 6.1 million nationally.  Large utilities have the most with 46,000 LSLs, medium systems have 4,700 and small systems have 15,000.  However, most utilities do not have an accurate inventory of LSLs, so the true number may be much greater.

California’s SB1398 recognized that an accurate inventory was critical and laid out a thoughtful two-step plan to accomplish the objective of full LSL replacement.  By July 1, 2018, it requires public water systems (PWS) to submit an inventory of known LSLs and a timeline for their replacement.  Two years later, PWSs must submit an updated inventory of LSLs and provide a timeline to replace any service line where it may be made of lead.  The law does not set a deadline for replacement that PWSs must meet.

This two-step approach makes replacing known LSLs the highest priority and, by essentially presuming that a service line is lead unless known otherwise, also creates an incentive for PWSs to develop accurate inventories in the next three years.

Read More »

Also posted in Drinking Water, lead, Regulation, States| Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments are closed

Getting it up front: EPA clarifies substantiation requirements for CBI claims under the new TSCA

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

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing a notice in tomorrow’s Federal Register affirming that the Lautenberg Act requires upfront substantiation of all confidential business information (CBI) claims submitted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), except for certain claims that the law exempts from substantiation requirements.

While EPA initially took a narrower approach on an interim basis in the flurry of activity following last June’s passage of the Lautenberg Act, today’s notice supersedes that earlier approach and clarifies the upfront substantiation requirement.

In today’s notice, EPA notes the strong support for its clarification in the statute itself as well as in the legislative history in both Houses of Congress leading up to its final passage.

This clarification hopefully won’t be controversial:  A broad swath of stakeholders have voiced support for the upfront substantiation requirement and have noted that it is a key reform made by the new law.

In November the American Alliance for Innovation (AAI) sent a letter to EPA Administrator McCarthy signed by more than 60 trade associations – including the American Chemistry Council, the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, the American Cleaning Institute, the American Petroleum Institute and the Consumer Specialty Products Association – noting that under the Lautenberg Act “[c]laims for CBI protection must be accompanied by an upfront substantiation.”

And back in 2013, the American Chemistry Council provided responses to questions for the record posed by then-Congressman Henry Waxman that stated that “[i]mprovements to the CBI provisions in a modernized TSCA should include … [r]equiring upfront substantiation of the CBI claim.”  The same response letter noted that:  “The American Chemistry Council and its members support up-front substantiation of CBI claims.”

Importantly, EPA’s notice makes clear that the substantiation requirement applies to all non-exempt CBI claims made since passage of the law last June, although EPA is providing an exceedingly generous length of time for companies to comply.

Given the law’s 90-day deadline for EPA review of CBI claims, there are strong policy reasons for requiring upfront substantiation of CBI claims:

  • First, EPA’s own experience based on recent chemical reporting it has required demonstrates that requiring upfront substantiation reduces the number of CBI claims asserted. That means fewer claims EPA has to review and a greater likelihood that claims are only asserted for information that warrants protection.
  • Second, when those reviews are conducted, EPA will already have the information it needs to review the claim instead of having to request it from the company, wasting precious days or weeks of the 90-day review period.
Also posted in Health Policy, TSCA Reform| Tagged , | Comments are closed

On a roll: EPA proposes to ban or restrict two highly toxic paint stripping chemicals

Lindsay McCormick is a Project Manager.  

Yesterday, EPA proposed a rule to ban methylene chloride and either ban or restrict the use of N-methylpyrrolidone in paint stripping products, subject to certain national security exemptions. This proposal is the third such proposed action by the agency in the past month (see here and here). Below, find a short description of these chemicals and EPA’s proposed actions.

Read More »

Also posted in Health Policy, Regulation, TSCA Reform| Tagged | Comments are closed
  • 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

    • aggregate exposure (10)
    • American Chemistry Council (ACC) (57)
    • biomonitoring (9)
    • bisphenol A (23)
    • BP Oil Disaster (18)
    • building code (1)
    • building code official (1)
    • California (2)
    • Canada (7)
    • carbon nanotubes (24)
    • carcinogen (22)
    • CDC (8)
    • Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP) (13)
    • chemical identity (32)
    • children's safety (24)
    • citizens petition (2)
    • Clinton (1)
    • computational toxicology (11)
    • Confidential Business Information (CBI) (60)
    • conflict of interest (8)
    • Congress (1)
    • Congressman Israel (1)
    • consumer products (52)
    • cumulative exposure (4)
    • data requirements (47)
    • Design for Environment (1)
    • disclosure (3)
    • Drinking Water (11)
    • dry food (1)
    • DuPont (11)
    • Durbin (1)
    • dust (1)
    • endocrine disruption (31)
    • EPA (8)
    • exposure and hazard (49)
    • FDA (17)
    • Firemaster (2)
    • flame retardants (25)
    • Flint (1)
    • Food (1)
    • front group (13)
    • general interest (22)
    • Globally Harmonized System (GHS) (5)
    • haz (1)
    • hazard (6)
    • High Production Volume (HPV) (23)
    • home buyers (1)
    • home sales (1)
    • Household action level (3)
    • HUD (2)
    • hypochlorite (2)
    • ICC (1)
    • in vitro (14)
    • in vivo (11)
    • industry tactics (44)
    • International Code Council (1)
    • IUR/CDR (27)
    • Lautenberg Act (57)
    • lead (21)
    • lead and copper rule (3)
    • lead dust hazard (2)
    • Lead Exposure (6)
    • lead hazard (1)
    • Lead in Drinking Water (1)
    • Lead Service Line (3)
    • lead-based paint (4)
    • lead-safe renovator (1)
    • methylene chloride (1)
    • model (1)
    • nanodelay (4)
    • National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (20)
    • National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (7)
    • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) (5)
    • National Toxicology Program (1)
    • NCHH (1)
    • NDWA (1)
    • New chemicals (8)
    • NMP (1)
    • Obama (1)
    • 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)
    • packaging (1)
    • paint (2)
    • PBDEs (19)
    • perchlorate (4)
    • Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT) (22)
    • pesticides (7)
    • phthalates (20)
    • pipes (1)
    • prenatal (6)
    • prioritization (37)
    • Public Water Supplier (1)
    • PWS Water Board (1)
    • Quigley (1)
    • real estate (1)
    • Redfin (1)
    • renovation (1)
    • rental (1)
    • renters (1)
    • report on carcinogens (1)
    • residential code (1)
    • right-to-know (1)
    • risk assessment (72)
    • Safe Chemicals Act (24)
    • Safer Chemicals Healthy Families (33)
    • SB 1398 (1)
    • Science Advisory Board (1)
    • SDWA (1)
    • Sierra Club (1)
    • Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) (21)
    • snur (1)
    • soil (1)
    • soil lead hazard (1)
    • State Senator Levya (1)
    • Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) (15)
    • TBB (2)
    • test rule (18)
    • ToxCast (10)
    • toxic substances control act (1)
    • Transparency (2)
    • trichloroethylene (TCE) (9)
    • TSCA inventory (1)
    • TSCA Modernization Act (14)
    • TSCA Reform (1)
    • TSCA Title IV (1)
    • User Service Line (1)
    • Washington Post (1)
    • worker safety (23)
    • Zillow (1)