Climate change solutions
We deliver game-changing environmental solutions that have a real impact for people around the globe.
Featured
Our impact
For more almost 60 years, we have been building innovative solutions to the biggest environmental challenges — from the soil to the sky.
Featured
About us
Guided by science and economics, and committed to climate justice, we work in the places, on the projects and with the people that can make the biggest difference.
Featured
Get involved
If we act now — together — there’s still time to build a future where people, the economy and the Earth can all thrive. Every one of us has a role to play. Choose yours.
Featured
News and stories
Stay informed and get inspired with our in-depth reporting about the people and ideas making a difference, insight from our experts and the latest environmental progress.
Featured
    • EDF Health

    Chemical Concerns – Insights on Air Pollution, Public Health, and Chemical Safety

    More questions for EPA on identifying chemicals for prioritization under TSCA

    Posted: in Health policy, Regulation, TSCA reform

    Written By

    Lindsay McCormick
    Lindsay McCormick

    Share

    Lindsay McCormick is a Project Manager.  

    When EPA finalized its framework prioritization rule under TSCA last June, the agency deleted its proposed approach to identifying potential candidate chemicals for prioritization.  EDF had supported EPA’s initial proposed rule, and EPA’s decision to delay this process to allow for additional stakeholder engagement tracks closely with the comments chemical industry groups submitted on that proposed rule.

    EPA is now holding a public meeting on December 11th to discuss its proposed approaches and get input from stakeholders.  As with the upcoming meeting on new chemical reviews, EPA is accepting questions ahead of the meeting.

    In response, EDF submitted a number of questions to the agency on Monday, relating to our concerns in the following areas:

    • EPA’s stated intention to significantly exceed its statutory minimum of designating 20 low-priority chemicals within the law’s specified timeframe.
    • EPA’s passive approach to utilizing its new authorities to fill data gaps on chemicals before they enter the prioritization and risk evaluation processes.
    • The need to ensure transparency with respect to health and safety studies and underlying data used by EPA to identify candidate chemicals for prioritization.
    • Specific concerns regarding EPA’s proposed approaches, including to utilize Canada’s Chemicals Management Plan as a model and to use EPA’s Safer Chemicals Ingredient List (SCIL) as a basis for identifying low-priority chemicals.

    Read our full list of questions here for more details.

    Related Posts