EDF Health

Mandatory lead service line inventories – Illinois and Michigan as strong models

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: July 30, 2018

Tom Neltner, J.D., Chemicals Policy Director and Lindsay McCormick, Project Manager

This blog is part of a series focused on how states are handling the essential task of developing inventories of lead service lines (LSLs) and making them public. The first blog identified 14 states that were taking on the issue: four with mandatory programs and ten with voluntary.  In this blog, we explore the four mandatory programs and highlight Illinois and Michigan as strong models for other states to consider.  Updated 11/3/18 to reflect updated estimates from Illinois.

Four states – California, Illinois, Michigan and Ohio – require utilities that operate community water systems (CWSs) to identify and report to the state in some form their number of lead service lines (LSLs). Illinois and Michigan both have strong approaches that could serve as models for other states and EPA to require nationally. California’s approach is seriously flawed because it ignores part of the service lines and can be misleading. Ohio requires utilities to either report they have zero LSLs or provide maps where the LSLs are likely to be found, with no requirement to provide an estimated number. We explore all of these approaches below.

Read More »

Also posted in Drinking water, Lead, Public health, Regulation / Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments are closed

Six Senators key to TSCA reform question EPA’s new chemical reviews in letter to Wheeler

By / Published: July 24, 2018

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

In a letter sent today to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler, six Senators who were instrumental to achieving the 2016 Lautenberg Act’s reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) raised “serious concern” about further weakening changes EPA is poised to make in its review of new chemicals.

EDF had blogged about the changes last week.

The Senators’ letter includes a “request that your staff brief our offices about the planned changes prior to moving to implement them.”

The letter was signed by Senators Tom Udall, Tom Carper, Sheldon Whitehouse, Ed Markey, Cory Booker, and Jeff Merkley.

The Senators noted that “While in the months after passage EPA began to implement these provisions in a manner we believe was faithful to both the letter and spirit of the law, beginning in the middle of last year EPA signaled it would change course by narrowing the scope of its new chemical reviews and the requisite risk determinations in a manner that deviated from the statute.”

EDF has for many months raised concerns over the steady effort by Trump Administration political appointees at EPA to undermine the provisions of the Lautenberg Act intended to significantly enhance EPA reviews of new chemicals prior to allowing them onto the market.  The latest moves deviate even further from the requirements of the new law and threaten public and worker health.

EDF hopes that today’s letter will help convince EPA to return to a lawful, health-protective approach to conducting reviews of new chemicals under TSCA.

Also posted in TSCA reform / Tagged , , | Comments are closed

EDF submits comments for peer reviewers on EPA’s exposure, use and hazard information on five PBT chemicals

By Lindsay McCormick / Published: July 24, 2018

Lindsay McCormick, is a Project Manager. Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

Yesterday, EDF filed comments on several draft EPA documents that are part of the basis for developing restrictions EPA is required to impose on five persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals under the 2016 reforms made to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  The draft documents are to undergo peer review, and EDF’s comments raise issues we believe peer reviewers need to pay particular attention to.

As required by TSCA section 6(h), EPA last year identified five PBT chemicals (DecaBDE, HCBD, PCTP, PIP (3:1), and 2,4,6 TTBP) that meet the statutory criteria for “expedited action”: By June 22, 2019, EPA must propose a rule to restrict these five chemicals.  Last month, EPA released draft documents for peer review and public comment that summarize available hazard information and assess exposure and use of each of the five PBTs.

Our main points for consideration for the peer review committee are summarized below: Read More »

Also posted in TSCA reform / Tagged , | Authors: / Comments are closed

American Academy of Pediatrics calls for “urgently needed reforms” to fix broken food additive regulatory system

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: July 23, 2018

Tom Neltner, J.D. is Chemicals Policy Director

Today, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released a “Food Additives and Child Health” policy statement calling for “urgently needed reforms to the current regulatory process at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for food additives.” The policy applies to chemicals deliberately added to food or to food packaging or food processing equipment that get into food. These substances are used to flavor, color, preserve, package, process and store our food, but many never appear among the list of ingredients. AAP’s statement calls specifically for the following:

  • “Greatly strengthening or replacing the GRAS [Generally Recognized as Safe] determination process;
  • Updating the scientific foundation of the FDA’s safety assessment program;
  • Retesting all previously approved chemicals; and
  • Labeling direct additives with limited or no toxicity data.”

EDF applauds AAP’s policy statement and its decision to add its influential voice to the rising call for reform of the process by which FDA and food manufacturers decide additives are safe. AAP, a professional society representing 67,000 pediatricians, develops policy statements regarding federal, state, and community policies that affect children through an extensive, deliberative process that draws on tremendous scientific expertise. As with past policies, such as those concerning lead toxicity and fruit juice consumption, this statement on chemicals in food presents a well-reasoned assessment of the problem and clear recommendations for reform.

Read More »

Also posted in FDA, Food, Health science, Perchlorate, Public health / Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments are closed

EPA undermines its own proposal for more protective dust-lead hazard standards

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: July 18, 2018

Tom Neltner, J.D., is Chemicals Policy Director

On July 2, 2018, in response to a court order, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposed rule[1] tightening its standards for lead in dust on floors and window sills for housing and child-occupied facilities built before 1978. The agency declined to lower the standard for lead in paint – citing insufficient information – and did not consider tightening the standards for lead in soil. While the proposed rule is a tentative step forward for lead poisoning prevention, as explained below, it will create unnecessary confusion and falls far short of what the science and the law demands. Comments are due by August 16, 2018. Pursuant to an order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, EPA must finalize the rule by July 1, 2019.

Read More »

Also posted in Lead, Public health / Tagged , , , , | Comments are closed

Trump’s EPA pivots yet again on reviews of new chemicals under TSCA, leaving public and worker health in the dust

By / Published: July 17, 2018

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

EDF has learned from multiple sources that political appointees at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are on the verge of taking yet another huge lurch away from what the 2016 reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) require when EPA reviews the safety of new chemicals prior to their market entry.  A reporter at Bloomberg Environment has heard the same thing, and published an article this morning on some of the changes.

The Trump EPA apparently intends to abandon its November 2017 “New Chemicals Decision-Making Framework,” which already strayed far from the law’s requirements.  That approach would have allowed EPA staff to limit their review of a new chemical only to the intended uses identified by its manufacturer, despite the law’s clear mandate that EPA consider known or reasonably foreseen, as well as intended, uses when conducting its review.  Under the framework, where EPA had concerns about reasonably foreseen but not intended uses – rather than issue an order as required by the law – EPA would take two other steps:  make a “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” determination for the chemical, clearing it to enter commerce; and issue a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR), which could trigger a separate, future review on any subsequently intended use, wholly divorced from the initial review.

Initially, EPA staff indicated the “not likely” finding would be made only once a final SNUR had been promulgated.  That then slipped to have issuance of the finding coincide with the proposal of the SNUR.  That then slipped further to allow the finding to be issued based on EPA’s mere intent to develop a SNUR.

Now, however, the Trump EPA plans to decouple completely its ability to issue a “not likely” finding from any dependency at all on promulgation of a SNUR.  How then, you might well ask, would EPA consider reasonably foreseen uses of a new chemical?  The short answer is, it won’t.   Read More »

Also posted in Industry influence, TSCA reform / Tagged , , , | Comments are closed