EDF Health

The Trump Administration’s got a problem with testing (TSCA edition)

By / Published: June 12, 2020

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

A constant criticism of EPA’s draft risk evaluations for the first 10 chemicals has been the dearth of information on which EPA has relied to draw sweeping, unqualified risk conclusions.  EDF and other stakeholders, as well as EPA’s own Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC), have repeatedly pointed to the lack of sufficient, reliable information on:[pullquote]The Trump EPA appears intent on continuing to conduct risk evaluations that are ill-informed by actual data.[/pullquote]

  • the chemicals’ presence in and releases into various environmental media;
  • their presence in and releases from industrial, commercial, and consumer products and materials;
  • the extent and magnitude of workplace exposure levels;
  • key human hazard endpoints; and
  • ecological hazards to and exposures of sediment- and soil-dwelling and terrestrial, as well as aquatic, organisms.

Concerns have also been repeatedly raised about EPA’s over-reliance on models in the absence of measured data and on physical-chemical and environment fate data to rule out exposure pathways, especially in the absence of rigorous uncertainty analyses and incorporation of uncertainty into EPA’s risk conclusions.

It’s not as if there isn’t a solution to the dearth-of-data problem.  Yet the Trump EPA has steadfastly refused to use it.  Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Health science, TSCA reform / Tagged | Comments are closed

EPA’s own words reveal what its new chemicals program has become – a captive of industry

By / Published: May 29, 2020

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

[pullquote]“The agency’s goal is to allow the commercialization of products,” said EPA associate deputy assistant administrator for new chemicals Lynn Dekleva.[/pullquote]Readers of this blog know that EDF is no fan of how the Trump EPA has implemented – in our view, twisted – the 2016 reforms made to the review process for new chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  Decision after decision over the last 3.5 years under this administration has undercut public health and benefitted industry interests, despite some noble efforts by career staff to chart a better course.  In recent weeks the Trump EPA’s intentions have been even more clearly revealed, thanks to the trade press’s reporting of EPA political appointees’ comments delivered to industry audiences.  That’s what this post is about.  Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Industry influence, Regulation, TSCA reform, Worker safety / Tagged , | Comments are closed

NGOs call on EPA to revise the draft scopes for its upcoming risk evaluations to comply with TSCA and its own regulations

By / Published: May 14, 2020

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

Environmental Defense Fund, Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Safer Chemicals Healthy Families yesterday told the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that the 20 draft scope documents the agency released for public comment on April 9 and April 23, 2020, fail to meet TSCA and EPA regulatory requirements.  The groups called on EPA to revise the drafts to include the information that both TSCA and EPA’s Risk Evaluation Rule require be included, and then make the revised draft scopes available for public comment.  Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Regulation, TSCA reform / Tagged , , , | Comments are closed

Amid COVID-19, the Trump administration sets dangerous air pollution standards. What is at stake for Houstonians?

By Ananya Roy / Published: May 11, 2020

Ananya Roy, Senior Health Scientist; Rachel Fullmer, Senior Attorney; Jeremy Proville, Director; Grace Tee Lewis, Health Scientist

The Trump administration’s disregard for science has been clear in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but it’s not the only health threat they’re making worse by ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence. For three years the administration has systematically sought to weaken clean air safeguards, endangering all Americans.

We know air pollution causes heart disease, diabetes and lung disease—and that the people suffering from these conditions are at greater risk of severe illness from COVID-19. Independent of the ongoing pandemic, air pollution is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths across America year after year. This underscores the vital importance of pollution protections to protect human health both during and after the COVID-19 crisis.

Unfortunately, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler has proposed to retain an outdated and inadequate standard for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution despite strong scientific evidence that it must be strengthened to adequately protect human health.

To understand what having this pollution standard means for families living in the Greater Houston area, Harvard University and EDF scientists undertook an analysis of the impacts of PM2.5 exposure across the city. We found that:

  • Exposure to fine particle air pollution in 2015 was responsible for 5,213 premature deaths and over $49 billion in associated economic damages.
  • More than 75% of the health burden was borne by communities exposed to PM2.5 levels below the current standard.
  • Meeting the current standard alone would have prevented 91 deaths of the more than 5,000 premature deaths due to fine particle pollution.

By ignoring the scientific evidence and retaining the current standard, Administrator Wheeler is ignoring the very real health impacts felt by Houstonians and communities across the country from exposure to fine particle pollution.

Read More »

Posted in Air pollution, Health policy, Health science, Hyperlocal mapping / Tagged , , , , , | Comments are closed

EPA refuses to extend TCE comment deadline, ignoring requests from Congress, health groups

By Joanna Slaney / Published: April 28, 2020

Joanna Slaney, Legislative Director and Lindsay McCormick, Program Manager. 

Yesterday, in the midst of the COVID-19 national emergency, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) closed the comment period on an extremely flawed draft risk evaluation on the toxic chemical, trichloroethylene (TCE).

Due to the many scientific and legal concerns raised by the draft risk evaluation, and its significance for any future regulation of TCE, the draft needs thorough and careful review from experts, the public, and other affected stakeholders. However, EPA refused to delay the deadline for the draft risk evaluation’s comment period, despite the growing hardships and major disruptions resulting from the current COVID-19 crisis.  EPA now seems intent on racing to the finish line with its flawed evaluation, ignoring multiple requests to ensure the document is fully vetted:

  • Congress: In two separate letters from the House and Senate, Members of Congress raised concerns with EPA moving forward with various rulemakings and scientific reviews without sufficient opportunity for expert and public input in light of the pandemic – explicitly referencing the TCE draft risk evaluation as a prime example.
  • Health groups: Health organizations whose staff and members are on the front lines of the pandemic requested that EPA extend the public comment period until after the national emergency is lifted due to severe capacity constraints. EPA did not respond.
  • Impacted communities: In early March, nearly 300 people from communities grappling with TCE contamination asked EPA to hold a public meeting to allow them “to ask questions of the agency and engage in critical dialogue.” EPA denied the request.

Read More »

Posted in Health policy, TSCA reform / Tagged , , | Authors: / Comments are closed

Michigan utilities report much lower percentages of service lines of lead or unknown material than Wisconsin or Illinois

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: April 21, 2020

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

Note to readers: As we all grapple with the grave global health challenge from COVID-19, we want to acknowledge the essential service that the public health professionals at water utilities provide in delivering safe water not only for drinking but for washing our hands and our surroundings. In the meantime, we are continuing to work towards improved health and environmental protections – including reducing lead in drinking water. We’ll plan to keep sharing developments regarding lead in drinking water that may be useful to you. In the meantime, please stay safe and healthy.

Lead service line (LSL) inventories provide useful insights into the location and number of LSLs in states and the funding needed to fully replace these lines. In previous blogs, we examined mandatory reporting by utilities of service line material in Illinois and Wisconsin.[1] Here, we examined a March 2020 preliminary report by the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) summarizing data submitted by 1,029 utilities. Unlike the annual reporting in Illinois and Wisconsin, Michigan required utilities to submit a preliminary inventory by January 1, 2020 and requires a complete inventory before 2025. While the preliminary report allows lines to be designated as unknown, the material must be determined by 2025. This is a two-step process, rather than the annual report approach that California has taken.

Michigan reports less than 100,000 LSLs and 276,000 lines of unknown material that may be lead

The state’s preliminary report is based on 1,029 utilities[2] (74% of the state’s 1,386 total) with 2.40 million service lines (90% of the 2.66 million total).[3] This reporting rate is lower than what Illinois experienced at a similar stage in the first year of mandatory reporting.

For the 1,029 utilities that reported, utilities reported 99,000 (4% of total) lead, 21,000 (0.9%) galvanized steel,[4] 177,000 (7%) of unknown material but likely to be lead, and 276,000 (12%) as unknown with no information. If all of the four categories are actually lead (which is unlikely), there would be 573,000 (23%) LSLs in Michigan.

Read More »

Posted in Drinking water, Lead / Tagged , , , , | Comments are closed