Climate change solutions
We deliver game-changing environmental solutions that have a real impact for people around the globe.
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
A long-awaited study documenting the presence of multiple toxic chemicals in the bodies of pregnant women was published today in Environmental Health Perspectives. The study, conducted by researchers at Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment at the University of California, San Francisco, analyzed the most recent comprehensive biomonitoring data collected by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) as part of its national human biomonitoring program.
The new study found widespread exposure of pregnant women to a large fraction of the chemicals for which biomonitoring is conducted, including chemicals that are currently in widespread use, such as brominated flame retardants (known as PBDEs) used in furniture foam and plastics, perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) used in everything from packaging to textiles, and a pervasive environmental contaminant used in rocket fuel (perchlorate).
In particular the study noted: “Certain PCBs, organochlorine pesticides, PFCs, phenols, PBDEs, phthalates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and perchlorate were detected in 99 to 100% of pregnant women.” (emphasis added) (more…)
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced yesterday that it has finalized a rule requiring testing [UPDATE 1/7/11: The published rule is available here] to determine basic health and environmental effects for 19 high production volume (HPV) chemicals. While I welcome this as well as any other effort to close the huge safety data gaps that exist even for the most widely used chemicals, the back story behind this rule reveals why it is actually a perfect poster child for what’s wrong with the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
For starters, consider that it took EPA two and a half years to move the rule from the proposed stage to finalization. And that doesn’t count the several preceding years EPA had to spend developing information sufficient to make the findings it has to make to justify proposing a test rule.
Then consider that the rule addresses only 19 of the many hundreds of HPV chemicals on the market today for which even the most basic, “screening level” hazard data are not publicly available.
And it gets worse. (more…)
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
On May 12 of this year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent a proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for its review, which is supposed to be completed within 90 days. The proposed rule is not considered a major rule, is classified as “not economically significant,” imposes no unfunded mandates and is unequivocally allowed under EPA’s statutory authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The proposed rule would establish a so-called “chemicals of concern” list and populate it with one chemical and two chemical categories. All of these chemicals are well-studied, already widely identified to be chemicals of significant concern and subject to numerous regulations by governmental bodies both in the U.S. and abroad.
Yet, as of today – more than seven months after receiving the draft of the proposed rule from EPA – OMB has not allowed EPA to release it for public notice and comment.
In 1976, when passing TSCA, Congress gave EPA the express authority to establish and populate a “chemicals of concern” list. There’s simply no excuse for OMB’s delay. (more…)
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
A couple of weeks ago, a short letter was sent to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under this rather unusual letterhead:
The letter noted: “Our three organizations have been working together to discuss how best to achieve effective processor reporting of use and exposure information, which is a clear demonstration of our mutual interest in providing EPA with reliable use and exposure information on chemicals in commerce.”
What’s up with that? (more…)
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
I noted in an earlier post that the American Chemistry Council (ACC) is seeking major delays in the implementation of enhanced chemical information reporting requirements that EPA has proposed under its TSCA Inventory Update Rule (IUR). But ACC isn’t content with just delaying the enhanced reporting. It’s also seeking an exemption so large that it literally threatens to swallow much of the rule.
The proposed exemption is called for in a footnote on page 2 of the comments ACC filed on the proposed rule: “Exemptions should be provided for any company engaged in an acquisition or divestiture during the years since the last reporting cycle.”
Just how large an exemption would that be? (more…)
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist and Jennifer McPartland, Ph.D., is a Health Scientist.
A new report documents that state-level legislation to control toxic chemicals adopted over the past eight years has passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. The report also highlights that both the pace of adoption and the scope of such legislation have grown significantly – a trend expected to continue until Congress enacts meaningful, comprehensive reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The report, Healthy States: Protecting Families While Congress Lags Behind, was released today by Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families and Safer States, a coalition of state-level organizations working for chemicals policy reform. The report analyzes 71 chemical safety laws that were adopted between 2003 and 2010 in 18 states encompassing 41% of the U.S. population. The state laws enacted broadly fell into two categories: those that place restrictions on individual dangerous chemicals, and those that embrace more comprehensive chemical policies.
The report’s main finding is that these laws passed with overwhelming support – and that support was strongly bipartisan:
What we find most remarkable about these new numbers is that they mirror almost exactly the views of the American electorate. (more…)
