Selected category: EPA

Children’s lead exposure: Relative contributions of various sources

Tom Neltner, J.D.is Chemicals Policy Director and Dr. Ananya Roy is Health Scientist

Last week, we noted in our blog that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) dropped the statement that paint, dust and soil are the most common sources of lead in its “Protect Your Family from Lead in Your Home” booklet. Property owners provide this booklet to prospective homebuyers and tenants in housing built before 1978. The change implicitly recognizes that there is no safe level of lead in the children’s blood, and we must reduce all sources of lead exposure. It also acknowledges that the relative contribution of air, water, food, soil, dust, and paint to children’s blood lead levels is complicated. Exposure varies significantly based on age of the home, the child’s race and age, the family’s income-level, and region of the country. Any simplification obscures these important differences.

EPA’s scientists made this clear in a model published earlier this year that pulled together the available data, divided children into three age categories, and assigned children in each category into ten groups based on their overall lead exposure. For each group, they estimated the relative contribution of air, water, food, and soil/dust (from paint). Not surprisingly, children living in older homes with lead-based paint hazards by far have the most exposure to lead. For 1 to 6 year olds in the top 90-100 percentile, more than 70% of the lead in their blood is from soil and dust. The contribution from food is 20% and drinking water is 10%. For infants, soil and dust contributes to 50% of the lead in blood, while 40% is from water and 10% from food.

Since there is no known safe level of lead in blood, we must do even more to reduce children's exposure to lead-contaminated soil and dust.

However, to prioritize action at a national level, it is important to understand how different sources contribute to lead exposure in the average child as well as the most-exposed child. We used the underlying EPA data to calculate the average relative source contribution of different sources to blood lead levels for infants from birth to six months old, for toddlers 1 to 2 years old, and young children from 1 to 6 years old. The results indicate that infants have a much higher source contribution of lead from water in comparison to older children (Figure 1). For the average child 1 to 6 years old, food is the largest source of lead exposure, with 50%, followed by soil/dust then water.

Read More »

Also posted in Drinking Water, Emerging Science, Health Policy, Health Science, lead, Public Health| Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Response

EDF Applauds Dourson’s Reported Withdrawal from Chemical Safety Position

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

[Use this link to see all of our posts on Dourson.]

According to press reports, the nomination of Michael Dourson to lead EPA’s toxics office is being withdrawn.

Dr. Richard Denison, Lead Senior Scientist, said, “The withdrawal of Michael Dourson’s nomination is good news for the health of American families. It was clear from the beginning that Dr. Dourson was a dangerous choice. His record of mercenary science made clear he would have undermined public health and damaged the historic chemical safety reforms passed by Congress last year.

“The administration should now nominate a person of integrity, with a demonstrated commitment to protecting public health. Dr. Dourson must now leave the EPA, and the Administration should move forward to implement the new law as it was intended. Communities from California to North Carolina will be able breathe easier knowing Dr. Dourson will not be at EPA.”

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

Is there no limit to industry’s overreach and hubris when it comes to new chemicals under TSCA?

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

We’ve already blogged about how changes the agency is making to its reviews of new chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) are illegal as well as bad policy.  But an industry letter and attachment added last week to EPA’s new chemicals docket shows the chemical industry isn’t done yet in seeking to eviscerate the program.

The letter and position statement were submitted to Jeffery Morris, Director of EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) by something called the TSCA New Chemicals Coalition (NCC).

They raise a multitude of red flags.

The NCC is a creation of the industry law firm Bergeson & Campbell (B&C). The letter to Morris describes NCC as “a group of representatives from over 20 companies that have come together to identify new chemical notification issues under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and to work collaboratively with you and your team to address them.”

First red flag:  Nowhere are the 20+ companies identified, not in the letter or associated position statement, nor on B&C’s web pages for NCC.  Such secrecy always sets off an alarm when it comes to the chemical industry’s history of forming misleading front groups and coalitions.  Why don’t the companies want their identities known?

Second red flag:  The NCC letter and position statement claim that “OSHA has in place an extensive regulatory scheme, as well as enforcement mechanisms, governing chemical exposure in the workplace” and refers to the “robust nature of the existing OSHA regulatory program” and its “overarching and comprehensive requirements” that apply in the workplace.  Now, anyone outside of industry readily acknowledges that OSHA’s ability to adequately address workplace exposures has been decimated over time – through sustained industry efforts on many fronts, including mounting legal challenges to OSHA’s authority and successfully pressing for reduction after reduction in its budget and staffing.  Those attacks continue today, and if anything have accelerated under the Trump Administration.

Why then, you may wonder, is NCC writing to the director of EPA’s TSCA office to tout OSHA’s sweeping authority over workplace chemical exposures?  By now you may be getting a sense of where this is headed … .   Read More »

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

EDF comments at EPA’s public meeting on identifying chemicals for prioritization stress legal requirements and urge adoption of sound and fair policies

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

EPA held a public meeting today on “Approaches to Identifying Potential Candidate Chemicals for Prioritization” under last year’s reforms made to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by the Lautenberg Act.

EPA provided brief opportunities for stakeholders to provide comments.  Four of us from EDF gave oral comments at the meeting.  Below we provide links to those comments in written form and briefly describe them (in the order in which they were presented).

EDF Senior Attorney Robert Stockman’s comments argue that, under the law, EPA:

  • must use its broad information-gathering authorities under section 4, 8 and 11 of TSCA to collect all “reasonably available information” to inform the prioritization process;
  • should exercise those authorities in the processes leading up to and including prioritization; and
  • should start immediately to develop additional information on chemicals in its Work Plan.

EDF Project Manager Lindsay McCormick’s comments:

  • stress the need to use its information-gathering authorities to develop experimental data early in the prioritization process;
  • caution against over-reliance on voluntary information submissions;
  • urge EPA to avoid implanting a bias toward information-rich chemicals; and
  • remind EPA of its obligations to make full health and safety studies and underlying data publicly available.

My comments:

  • stress that the law sets a higher bar for low-priority than for high-priority designations;
  • urge EPA to identify only small numbers of low-priority candidates at a time;
  • caution EPA not to identify categories of chemicals as candidates for low-priority designations; and
  • argue EPA should consider ensuring a minimum set of hazard data is available for candidates.

EDF Senior Scientist Dr. Jennifer McPartland’s comments point to serious limitations and critical caveats relating to some of EPA’s proposed approaches for identifying candidates, including:

  • Canadian Categorization and Chemicals Management Plan;
  • Safer Choice Ingredient List; and
  • Functional category approaches.
Also posted in Health Policy, Health Science, TSCA Reform| Tagged , | Leave a comment

CBS News covers a chemical's tragic impact; points to urgent need to ban high-risk uses of methylene chloride

Lindsay McCormick is a Project Manager.  

This morning, CBS News focused on the tragic story of Kevin Hartley—a young man who died at the age of 21 while working with a product that contains methylene chloride. Kevin’s story, powerfully relayed by his mother Wendy, illustrates the need to ban high-risk uses of this chemical.

As we have previously noted, in January, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to ban methylene chloride in paint and coating removal products. The agency based its proposal on an extensive assessment of the scientific literature, which demonstrated not only lethal risks from acute exposures to methylene chloride but also a host of other acute and chronic health impacts, like harm to the central nervous system, liver toxicity, and cancer.

Products containing this chemical can be readily found in most hardware stores in America and more tragedies are all but certain, if EPA does not promptly finalize its proposed ban.

The ongoing debates in Washington over the implementation of a new chemical safety law passed just last year are often dense and dry. In sharing her son Kevin’s story, Wendy Hartley reminds us that how these policies are applied has a very real human impact. That is why EDF continues to demand EPA better protect American families from toxic chemicals like the one highlighted by CBS News today.

Please watch the story: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dangers-of-common-paint-stripper-chemical-methylene-chloride/

Also posted in Public Health, TSCA Reform| Tagged , , , | 1 Response

Federal government updates real estate disclosure booklet to address lead in drinking water

Tom Neltner, J.D.is Chemicals Policy Director

In June 2017, the federal government updated the “Protect Your Family from Lead in Your Home” booklet to expand the information provided on lead in drinking water from a few lines to a full page. Since 1996, when someone rents or buys a home built before 1978, the property owner or landlord is required to provide them with a copy of this booklet. The last update to the booklet was made in 2012.

What is removed?

  • Statement that paint, dust and soil are the most common sources of lead. The new version does not make the comparison. See our September 2017 blog for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) latest estimates on sources of lead exposure.
  • Running water for 15 to 30 seconds before drinking. The new version is silent on length of time to flush water and instead highlights taking a shower, doing laundry, or doing a load of dishes as options to flush the line at the tap. The change was necessary because homes with lead service lines, the lead pipe that connects the main under the street to the home, often experience higher levels of lead after 30 seconds of flushing.

What background is added?

  • Lead pipes, faucets and fixtures are the most common sources of lead in drinking water.
  • Reminder that older homes with private wells can have lead plumbing materials too.
  • Some states or utilities offer programs that pay for water testing for residents.

What are the new recommendations?

  • Regularly clean your faucet screen (also known as an aerator).
  • If using a filter to remove lead, follow directions to learn when to change the cartridge.
  • Use only cold water to make baby formula.
  • Contact your water company to determine if your home has a lead service line and to learn about lead levels in the system’s drinking water and water testing for residents.
  • Call EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791 for information about lead in drinking water and 1-800 424-LEAD for other questions about lead poisoning prevention.

Read More »

Also posted in Drinking Water, Health Policy, lead, Public Health, Regulation| 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

  • Get new posts by email

    We'll deliver new blog posts to your inbox.

    Subscribe via RSS

  • Filter posts by tags

    • aggregate exposure (10)
    • American Chemistry Council (ACC) (58)
    • BBDR (1)
    • biomonitoring (9)
    • bisphenol A (23)
    • BP Oil Disaster (18)
    • building code (1)
    • building code official (1)
    • California (3)
    • Canada (7)
    • carbon nanotubes (24)
    • carcinogen (22)
    • CDC (9)
    • Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP) (13)
    • chemical identity (32)
    • children's safety (24)
    • CHPAC (1)
    • citizens petition (2)
    • Clinton (1)
    • Compliance (1)
    • computational toxicology (11)
    • Confidential Business Information (CBI) (61)
    • conflict of interest (9)
    • Congress (1)
    • Congressman Israel (1)
    • consumer products (52)
    • CPSC (1)
    • cumulative exposure (4)
    • data requirements (47)
    • Design for Environment (1)
    • disclosure (4)
    • Dourson (21)
    • Drinking Water (15)
    • dry food (1)
    • DuPont (11)
    • Durbin (1)
    • dust (1)
    • dust/soil (1)
    • endocrine disruption (31)
    • EPA (18)
    • EPA scientists (1)
    • exposure and hazard (49)
    • FDA (20)
    • Firemaster (2)
    • First Trimester (1)
    • flame retardants (25)
    • Flint (1)
    • Food (3)
    • front group (13)
    • fT4 (1)
    • Funding (1)
    • general interest (22)
    • Georgia (1)
    • Georgia Health News (1)
    • Globally Harmonized System (GHS) (5)
    • haz (1)
    • hazard (6)
    • health-based benchmark (3)
    • High Production Volume (HPV) (23)
    • home buyers (1)
    • home sales (1)
    • Household action level (3)
    • HUD (5)
    • hypochlorite (2)
    • hypochlorite bleach (2)
    • Hypothyroxinemia (1)
    • ICC (1)
    • IEUBK (1)
    • in vitro (14)
    • in vivo (11)
    • Indiana (1)
    • industry tactics (45)
    • Infrastructure (1)
    • International Code Council (1)
    • IUR/CDR (27)
    • Lautenberg Act (78)
    • LCR (2)
    • lead (37)
    • lead and copper rule (4)
    • lead dust hazard (2)
    • Lead Exposure (7)
    • lead hazard (2)
    • Lead in Drinking Water (9)
    • lead in food (1)
    • lead in water (1)
    • lead paint (2)
    • Lead Service Line (4)
    • Lead Service Lines (6)
    • lead-based paint (6)
    • lead-safe renovator (1)
    • Legislation (1)
    • LSL (1)
    • methylene chloride (3)
    • model (2)
    • NAAQS (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)
    • neurodevelopment (1)
    • New chemicals (14)
    • NHANES (2)
    • NMP (3)
    • 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)
    • peer review (1)
    • Pennsylvania (2)
    • perchlorate (8)
    • Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT) (22)
    • pesticides (8)
    • phthalates (21)
    • pipes (1)
    • Pregnant Women (1)
    • prenatal (6)
    • prioritization (40)
    • Private Property (1)
    • Pruitt (1)
    • Public Water Supplier (1)
    • PWS Water Board (1)
    • Quigley (1)
    • real estate (1)
    • Redfin (1)
    • Regulatory Accountability Act (3)
    • Regulatory Reform (1)
    • renovation (1)
    • rental (1)
    • renters (2)
    • report on carcinogens (1)
    • residential code (1)
    • right-to-know (1)
    • risk assessment (73)
    • Risk Communication (1)
    • risk evaluation (2)
    • Safe Chemicals Act (24)
    • Safer Chemicals Healthy Families (33)
    • SB 1398 (1)
    • Science Advisory Board (1)
    • SDWA (1)
    • SHEDS (1)
    • Sierra Club (1)
    • Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) (23)
    • snur (1)
    • soil (1)
    • soil lead hazard (1)
    • State Senator Levya (1)
    • Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) (15)
    • T4 (1)
    • TBB (2)
    • test rule (18)
    • ToxCast (10)
    • toxic substances control act (1)
    • Transparency (2)
    • trichloroethylene (TCE) (10)
    • TSCA inventory (2)
    • TSCA Modernization Act (15)
    • TSCA Reform (1)
    • TSCA Title IV (1)
    • User Service Line (1)
    • Utility Commission (1)
    • Washington Post (1)
    • WebMD (1)
    • Wisconsin (2)
    • worker safety (24)
    • Zillow (1)