EDF Health

EPA proposes yet another TSCA workaround: Creative, yes, but why not just give it the authority it needs?

By / Published: November 2, 2011

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

One thing I’ve learned in observing EPA try to operate under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) over the years is that – faced with limited authority and significant evidentiary and resource burdens – the Agency often has to resort to a workaround to get something it needs to do done.

Can’t ban a nasty chemical?  Wait until it’s voluntarily withdrawn and then pounce on it with a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) to try to wedge the door closed.  Witness PFOS and penta and octaBDE.  (Under TSCA, without a SNUR in place on a chemical, a new producer or importer could start up without even letting EPA know; where EPA has issued a SNUR for a chemical, advance notification is required and EPA least has a chance to weigh in before production or import proceeds.)

Can’t require an up-front minimum data set for new chemicals?  Recommend to companies that for certain chemicals they submit such a data set along with the pre-manufacturing notice (PMN) they’re required to file, or risk having EPA extend the review of their new chemical or negotiate with them to do the testing.  EPA has made such “recommendations” for those relatively few new chemicals where the company “anticipates” at the outset producing it in large amounts in the first three years or where significant release or exposure is projected. 

The latest such workaround?  EPA’s simultaneous issuance of a proposed test rule and a proposed SNUR for a batch of high production volume (HPV) “orphan” chemicals that no company agreed to sponsor under the Agency’s voluntary HPV Challenge Program.

Necessity is the mother of invention, they say, and these creative new proposals are a case in point.  But, my oh my, there’s gotta be a better way…. Read More »

Also posted in Regulation / Tagged , , , , , | Read 1 Response

New Ways in the Ancient World: Japan and China advance their chemicals policies

By Allison Tracy / Published: October 5, 2011

Allison Tracy is a Chemicals Policy Fellow.

This isn’t the first time on this blog that we’ve observed that chemicals reform is popping up all over the world.  Whatever their strengths and shortcomings, the 1999 amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the European Union’s REACH Regulation got the ball rolling.  The momentum of chemicals reform is reaching around the globe as governments pay more attention to the risks posed by chemicals.  In this post, we will focus on recent developments in Japan and China.

Japan and China are two of the U.S.’s top competitors, so it’s noteworthy that they have not allowed themselves to fall behind in chemicals management.  Why are they expanding their chemicals regulations?  Do they know something we don’t?  Read More »

Also posted in International / Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments are closed

Expansion of my critique of the ACC tool’s persistence and bioaccumulation criteria

By / Published: September 29, 2011

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

I want to clarify and expand on the discussion in my last post on ACC’s selection of criteria for persistence (P) and bioaccumulation (B).  The bottom line remains the same:  ACC selected the least conservative values proposed by any authoritative body for these parameters.  Read More »

Posted in Health policy / Tagged , , | Comments are closed

ACC’s chemical prioritization tool: Helpful, but flawed and off the mark for EPA to use without TSCA reform

By / Published: September 20, 2011

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

As I noted in my last post, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued its own “prioritization tool” in anticipation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) public meetings  to get input on the approach it will use to identify additional chemicals of concern under its Enhanced Chemicals Management Program.

In the context of TSCA reform, various actors in the industry have long called for prioritization, often saying they support EPA’s ability to get off to a quick start on identifying chemicals for further work – only to propose schemes that are more likely to do the opposite.

ACC itself has over time come off as a bit schizophrenic on prioritization, apparently being for it before they were against it.  ACC’s release of its tool puts it squarely back in the pro-prioritization camp, but just what is it proposing?  My sense is it’s after something quite different from what EPA proposes, and frankly, different from what EPA is currently capable of deploying, given its limited authority and resources under TSCA.  In this sense, ACC’s proposal is more relevant in the context of TSCA reform, where we presumably would have an EPA with a mandate to review all chemicals in commerce, the authority to readily get the data it needs, and the resources required to execute the kind of comprehensive prioritization scheme ACC proposes.

But setting that disconnect aside for the moment, let’s delve a bit deeper into the ACC proposal on its own merits.  Read More »

Also posted in Regulation, TSCA reform / Tagged , , , , , , , | Read 1 Response

Avoiding paralysis by analysis: EPA proposes a sensible approach to identifying chemicals of concern

By / Published: September 13, 2011

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.  Thanks to my colleagues Jennifer McPartland and Allison Tracy for their analysis of the EPA proposal discussed in this post.

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held stakeholder meetings to get public input into the criteria it will use to identify additional chemicals of concern beyond the 11 chemicals or chemical classes it has already identified.  EPA used these meetings (as well as an online forum open until September 14) as an opportunity for the public to respond to a “discussion guide” it issued in August that sets forth draft criteria and identifies data sources it intends to use to look for chemicals that meet the criteria.

The day before the EPA meetings, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued its own “prioritization tool” which lays out its own criteria and ranking system for identifying chemicals of concern.  This post will make a few observations about EPA’s proposal.  My next post will provide a critique of ACC’s proposed tool.

EDF and the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families coalition strongly support EPA in this endeavor – both for what it is, and for what it is not.    Read More »

Also posted in Regulation / Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments are closed

A question of priorities: Comparing available statistics for baseball’s “boys of summer” to those for U.S. chemical production and use

By / Published: August 8, 2011

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

I’ve often been amazed when watching sports games on TV how quickly commentators can dig up the most obscure statistic about a player or team in real time, truly on the fly.  It’s not uncommon to be watching a game when a batter comes to the plate and I am immediately provided with his on-base percentage when batting left, facing that specific pitcher in the 9th inning when there’s a runner on second and his team is trailing by two or fewer runs.

I was reminded of all that this morning when perusing the New York Times sports page, which had this incredible graphic.  It depicts the exact location of every ball put in play this season by Yankee first baseman Mark Teixeira, who’s having a bad year, comparing how well (or in this case, poorly) he does when he bats left- vs. right-handed.

In the accompanying article, there is a link to Teixeira’s BaseballReference.com page showing batting stats for his entire career.  These include his batting stats for home vs. away games, games before vs. after the All-Star Game break, stats broken down by month of the season, by whether his team won or lost, by whether he was a starter or a substitute, by what position he was playing, by his position in the batting order, by inning, by what the ball-strike count was when he got a hit, by what bases were occupied at the time – this list represents only half of the slices and dices of the data provided on this one player’s page.

One player out of hundreds active this year, all with such stats available at the flick of a mouse.  Comparable stats on past players for decades past.  And this is just major league baseball.  There’s football, soccer, tennis, horse racing.

So, just one question:  Would somebody tell me why can’t I find out how many chemicals are produced in the U.S. and how they’re used?  Or what their hazards or risks are?

Speaking of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and baseball, I can’t help but point to this recent quote (subscription required) that, believe it or not, links the two.  It was delivered by Fisk Johnson, CEO of S.C. Johnson & Son, at the American Chemical Society’s 15th annual Green Chemistry & Engineering Conference in Washington, DC on June 21:

Your child has a better chance of becoming a Major League Baseball player than a chemical has of being regulated by EPA.

Now there’s a  statistic!

Also posted in Regulation / Tagged | Read 1 Response