Jennifer McPartland, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist with the Health Program.
Today, EPA issued a proposed rule to ban uses of trichloroethylene (TCE) as a spot cleaning agent in dry cleaning and as an aerosol spray degreaser in commercial and consumer settings. This marks the first time in 27 years EPA is proposing to restrict the use of a chemical and represents a significant milestone under the Lautenberg Act.
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.
In the many conversations I have had over these last many years about the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the single thing that most resonated with people about why the old law didn’t work was about new chemicals. Folks were stunned when they learned that the old law didn‘t require our government to review chemicals and determine they were safe before they were allowed onto the market. People simply assumed this was the case and were shocked to find it wasn’t. I heard repeatedly, what could be a more basic need to ensure protection of the public’s health?
That is why many in Congress worked so hard to drive improvements to the new chemicals provisions in the new law – that, and a clear understanding of the many ways in which the old law hamstrung EPA when it came to new chemicals. In my view, these reforms and robust implementation of them by EPA are absolutely essential to the task of restoring public and market confidence in our national chemical safety system – the shared objective that allowed disparate stakeholders and lawmakers to come together to support the Lautenberg Act.
[pullquote]For too long, economic factors have dominated over the public’s right to expect that chemicals to which they may be exposed will not be allowed into use without adequate assurance of their safety. That has undermined consumer confidence in our chemical safety system. The public understands that the most efficient and effective stage at which to provide assurance of safety is before commercial production and use begins, rather than waiting and then having to try to mitigate risks that arise after a new chemical is embedded in commerce.[/pullquote]
I have blogged previously about why the new chemicals reforms in the new law represent a balanced approach, on the one hand, ensuring that the safety of new chemicals is carefully examined and a reasonable assurance of safety is provided before market entry; and, on the other hand, ensuring an efficient process that doesn’t unduly slow or create too high a bar for market entry.
Of course, even as it has supported the new law’s balanced reforms, the chemical industry did and continues to assert that the old new chemicals system worked just fine. I’ve always maintained that’s because it rarely required much of them. It’s not wholly surprising, therefore, that the industry is expressing angst over EPA’s implementation of the new requirements. Change is hard.
Bear in mind also that the new requirements of the law not only changed the status quo significantly, they also became effective immediately upon passage of the law, without any time given to EPA to migrate to the new regimen. That, too, has been a source of the growing pains felt by both EPA and the regulated community. Abrupt change is even harder.
But a broader and longer view of the new law is called for. The bulk of this post will describe why EDF believes that EPA’s implementation to date is not only consistent with the new law but in fact mandated by it, and why, despite initial growing pains, the new system will be a major improvement over the long run for both public health and business. But first … Read More
Lindsay McCormick is a Project Manager.
As promised in Tuesday’s blog post, we’ve compiled additional information on the 10 chemicals EPA selected as the first to undergo risk evaluations under the new TSCA.
Click on the image to the right to see:
persistence & bioaccumulation characteristics of these chemicals in its TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments;
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.
Yesterday a bipartisan group of nine Senators who were deeply involved in passage of the Lautenberg Act wrote to President-Elect Trump’s transition team to urge that EPA under the next Administration “vigorously implement the new law.” The Lautenberg Act amended the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA) and was signed into law by President Obama on June 22, of this year.
The group went on to state that strong implementation “includes moving expeditiously to identify and address chemicals with the greatest potential impact on public health, especially those affecting vulnerable populations. … Successful implementation of this law will also help ensure there is certainty and restore confidence in the marketplace for manufacturers, consumer product producers, and the public.”
The Senators urged that the transition team work with EPA “to communicate on critical steps that are underway and to get a full appreciation of the new law’s deadlines. We urge that you view appointments, funding and staffing to this office with the utmost importance. It is essential to maintain momentum during the Presidential transition and in the early months of the new Administration to ensure that this new law is successful.”
The signatories to the letter are Sens. Tom Udall (D-NM), James Inhofe (R-OK), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Tom Carper (D-DE), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).
Tom Neltner, J.D., is Chemicals Policy Director
Housing supported by the Federal Government should not be poisoning children.
That was the simple message Congress delivered to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992. Despite some real progress since then, recent cases of lead poisoning in federally-assisted housing in Chicago and Indiana suggest there is still much work to be done.
Thanks to a strong public push to highlight these failings, HUD recently proposed changes to its “Lead Safe Housing Rule.” At the heart of these changes is lowering the level of lead in children’s blood considered “elevated,” the trigger for local housing authorities to conduct detailed inspections of a child’s home for lead. HUD has continued to use a level of 20 µg/dL set in 1999, despite a consensus that lead is harmful to children at much lower levels. HUD is on track to finalize the rule in January 2017 after sending it to the Office of Management and Budget on November 21 for final review. Jan. 13, 2017 update: HUD issued a final rule that was similar to what was proposed.
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist. Lindsay McCormick and Jennifer McPartland contributed to this post.
Today, in advance of the December 19, 2016 deadline specified under the new TSCA, EPA has announced the first 10 chemicals to undergo risk evaluations (see list below).
This is a very important early step called for under the Lautenberg Act, which passed Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support. Early action by EPA was seen by stakeholders across the spectrum as essential to begin the process of restoring public and market confidence in our nation’s chemical safety system. So EPA’s issuance of this list in advance of the statutory deadline next month is a welcome sign of timely implementation of the new law.
While not every chemical that everyone may have wanted is included among the first 10, that is because there are many more than 10 chemicals that need far greater scrutiny as to their safety. Indeed, the longer “Work Plan Chemicals” list from which EPA drew the first 10 consists of nearly 100 chemicals that present significant potential risk.
What is most important is that EPA gets started, so that it can complete risk evaluations of the first 10 and move on to the next. EPA now has 6 months to establish the scope of its risk evaluations for these chemicals, identifying the uses, hazards, exposure and vulnerable populations it will evaluate. Read More
