Cal Baier-Anderson, PhD, is a Health Scientist.
In our critique of EPA’s Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP), we have pointed out that, despite its limitations, there is value in the hazard data that EPA is collecting and analyzing. How so? Read More
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.
[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
