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
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
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
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!
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist. Allison Tracy is a Chemicals Policy Fellow.
A major initiative of EPA’s toxics office finally made it across the finish line yesterday when EPA posted a pre-publication copy of the final rule upgrading its chemical reporting system under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The process took over 16 months just to get from the draft of the proposed rule to yesterday’s final rule, with EPA having to endure not one but two nearly six-month regulatory reviews by the Office of Management and Budget.
The wait was largely worth it: EPA’s new program – renamed the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule – significantly advances chemical production and use reporting relative to its predecessor, the more arcane-sounding Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule. Most, though not all, of the critical elements EPA proposed last year made it through to the final rule. The catch is we’ll have to wait until 2016 for the program to reach its full potential. Read More
Johanna Katz is a Cornell Iscoll intern at EDF. Jennifer McPartland, Ph.D., is a Health Scientist.
Toxic chemicals called diisocyanates are long-established as occupational hazards known to cause severe respiratory problems to workers who use or are otherwise exposed to them (see here). In fact, diisocyanates are the number one cause of workplace-induced asthma (see here and here). Recently, potential exposure of the general public to diisocyanates has grown, as these chemicals are increasingly used in consumer products. This is certainly a troubling trend considering that the primary health effect of these chemicals, asthma, is a massive and growing public health problem, especially among children. And some of the newest uses of diisocyanates are in products to which children are quite likely to be exposed.
Asthma is at an all-time high, affecting more than 24 million Americans, and creating astronomical health and productivity costs upwards of $20 BILLION each year. And while diisocyanates are but one of many contributors to the increasing rate of asthma in the general population, we surely don’t need to be bringing more products containing such chemicals into our homes, schools, and workplaces. That will only make matters worse.
So what exactly are diisocyanate chemicals, where are they found, and what’s the federal government trying to do about them? Read on to find out. Read More
