Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
As I noted in our first post on ChAMP, after getting off to a strong start in 2007, EPA’s abrupt decision in 2008 to steer ChAMP in the direction of cranking out hasty risk decisions was entirely its own. Can ChAMP be put back on track? Read More
Cal Baier-Anderson, Ph.D., is a Health Scientist and Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
This example raises some new issues as well as some we discussed in the earlier examples: EPA relies on a highly flawed “category approach” that ignores major differences in the properties and structures of the 13 members of this category. It compounds this problem by unquestioningly accepting data from inadequate studies to assert low toxicity, rather than demanding that sufficient studies be provided. As a result, it fails to identify, let alone require to be filled, the enormous gaps in the data available for many of the category members. EPA ignores or dismisses without explanation its own earlier comments raising serious concerns about the quality and completeness of data provided by the sponsor of these chemicals under the HPV Challenge. Finally, this example once again shows how EPA’s heavy reliance on self-reported use information from manufacturers paints an incomplete and potentially very misleading picture of the actual uses of industrial chemicals. Read More
Cal Baier-Anderson, Ph.D., is a Health Scientist and Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
Our analysis of EPA’s risk decision under ChAMP for this category of toxic chemicals vividly illustrates how EPA has failed to adopt a health-protective approach to its screening of HPV chemicals. Rather, it misclassifies or understates these chemicals’ hazards, asserts that existing regulations are sufficient even when they are quite old or do not cover identified exposures, and naively assumes that children will not be as exposed as adults to consumer products used in the home unless they are intended for their use. Finally, this case demonstrates that manufacturers are not reporting to EPA even readily available information on their chemicals’ uses. Read More
Cal Baier-Anderson, Ph.D., is a Health Scientist and Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
This post is the first of a number to come that will examine in some detail specific chemicals and chemical categories for which EPA has made questionable or flawed risk decisions under ChAMP. Many of these problems can be traced to EPA’s near-exclusive reliance on incomplete or poor-quality data provided by manufacturers, or its need to resort to unsupported assumptions in the absence of sufficient data. For each posting, we’ll summarize what is known about production and use of the chemical(s); describe EPA’s hazard, exposure, risk and priority rankings; and then discuss why we question or disagree with EPA’s decisions. First up: a category of three alkyl nitriles. Read More
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
[Earlier posts in this series can be found here and here.]
Over the past decade, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has pursued a voluntary program, the High Production Volume (HPV) Chemical Challenge, as a means to fill the enormous gaps in publicly available data on the hazards of the most widely used chemicals in the U.S. Using the Challenge data, EPA has recently begun assessing HPV chemicals under its Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP). But is ChAMP up to the job? Read More
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
[Links to posts in this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5]
This was going to be the last post in my series on the fate of nanomaterials under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), where I turn to what will likely be – at least in the near term – the most common regulatory scenario that will apply: the extent to which EPA has authority to regulate nanomaterials as “existing” chemicals under TSCA. But there’s so much to cover that I’ve decided to split this last topic into three separate posts. Read More