EDF Health

Chemical industry reacts to EPA on CBI: Burglars claim to like new alarm system

By / Published: January 22, 2010

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

After EPA announced yesterday that it will deny certain confidential business information (CBI) claims that have masked the identity of risky chemicals, two chemical industry trade associations responded favorably, saying they “welcome” the move as “the right thing to do.”

Entirely missing from their responses, however, was any acknowledgment of the fact that the EPA policy shift would not have been necessary but for the huge number of illegitimate CBI claims made by none other than the member companies of those same trade associations. In a classic case of industry-speak, the companies who have been effectively stealing information from the public about their chemicals try to obscure their nefarious role by now saying they welcome the new alarm system they have forced EPA to install.

EPA starts to chip away at chemical secrecy; but don’t stop here!

By / Published: January 20, 2010

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

Tomorrow’s Federal Register will contain a short notice from EPA that partially corrects a decades-old Agency practice that has denied the public access to the identity of chemicals that present substantial risks.

This welcome action begins to pull back the curtain on the chemical secrecy that has been a hallmark of life for the public under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). As I noted in a previous post, this action is one of a host of changes needed to remedy the major excesses and abuses of confidentiality under TSCA. EPA’s action makes clear that some things can be done even as we await TSCA reform.

Also posted in Health policy / Tagged Chemical identity, Confidential Business Information (CBI) | Comments are closed

EPA deserves an “A for Effort” for its new Chemical Action Plans

By / Published: January 4, 2010

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

Just squeaking in under its self-imposed deadline, late on December 30 EPA issued the first batch of chemical action plans it has promised under its enhanced chemical management program. In doing so, EPA has signaled its intention to do all it can using its existing authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) – even as it also makes clear that authority is “both outdated and in need of reform.” To my ear, that strikes just the right balance. Read More »

Also posted in Health policy / Tagged American Chemistry Council (ACC), Biomonitoring, Children's safety, Consumer products, Exposure and hazard, High Production Volume (HPV), PBDEs, Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT), Phthalates, Risk assessment, Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) | Read 1 Response

Over-Exposed: Why relying on exposure to prioritize chemicals is dangerous

By / Published: November 11, 2009

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

When the chemical industry talks about prioritization – a central question in the debate over TSCA reform – more often than not it quickly reduces the question down to the argument that we should focus only on those chemicals, however hazardous or untested they may be, to which we know people are exposed. In a perfect world, that might suffice. But, as this post will explore, the world of exposure assessment is anything but perfect. Read More »

Also posted in Health policy / Tagged Biomonitoring, CDC, Confidential Business Information (CBI), Exposure and hazard, Flame retardants, PBDEs, Phthalates, Prioritization, Risk assessment | Comments are closed

ChAMP “superseded”: EPA shifts into action mode

By / Published: October 1, 2009

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

A new entry showed up sometime in the last day on EPA’s webpage for its ChAMP initiative. It reads: “The Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP) has been superseded by the comprehensive approach to enhancing the Agency’s current chemicals management program announced by Administrator Lisa Jackson on September 29, 2009.”

Don’t miss this bit at the top of the page:

Yes, that image is a cobweb, which EPA uses to designate archived web content. What’s happening here? Read More »

Also posted in Health policy / Tagged Bisphenol A (BPA), Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP), Data requirements, Hazard, High Production Volume (HPV), IUR/CDR, Lead, Mercury, PBDEs, Phthalates, Risk assessment | Comments are closed

The nanotube SNURs: Nano step forward, nano step back

By / Published: August 21, 2009

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

In June, EPA published a Federal Register notice that included Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) for two carbon nanotubes (as well as 21 other chemicals). That notice certainly got the attention of lawyers in town (see here, here and here). The nanotube SNURs would require anyone planning to produce or process either of the two substances to notify EPA if the person intended not to comply with the (rather limited) risk management conditions specified by EPA. Well, as reported yesterday by Sara Goodman of E&E News, EPA is now withdrawing the SNURs, at least temporarily.

Read More »

Also posted in Health policy, Nanotechnology / Tagged Carbon nanotubes, Chemical identity, Confidential Business Information (CBI), Risk assessment, Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) | Read 3 Responses

Search
Get new posts by email

Sign up and you'll be notified when we post something new.

Subscribe via RSS
Categories

Categories