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
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
[Links to posts in this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5]
Let’s now turn to dissecting just how limited EPA’s authorities are both to collect information that companies already possess on their nanomaterials, and to require companies to generate and submit new information. 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]
In my last post, I decried EPA’s shortsighted decision to declare nano forms of chemicals listed on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory to be “existing” rather than “new” chemicals. But I noted that EPA did not rule that all nanomaterials are existing chemicals. EPA says it will consider buckyballs, carbon nanotubes, or anything else that has no counterpart – a substance with the same chemical structure – already on the TSCA Inventory to be “new.” So can we rest assured that, at least for these nanomaterials, EPA has sufficient authority under TSCA to effectively identify and address their potential risks? Would it were so. Read More
