EDF Health

Selected tag(s): Risk assessment

Changes for the better: EPA looks out for workers in revised risk finding for HBCD

By Samantha Liskow / Published: March 9, 2022

By Samantha Liskow, Lead Counsel, Health

EPA has started to fulfill its promise to take another look at many of the chemical risk findings made during the Trump Administration. First up was “HBCD,” a collection of flame retardants present in many goods, including building insulation, furniture, and electronics. In its revised risk determination for the chemical EPA proposed important changes that are needed to protect health and the environment and are required under TSCA, our main federal law on chemical safety.

We highlighted these positive steps in our comments to the agency and urged EPA to formalize these changes when it releases its final revised risk determination for HBCD and other chemicals undergoing reevaluation.

Here is a look at the changes EPA made: Read More »

Posted in TSCA reform, Worker safety / Also tagged , , , , | Read 2 Responses

EPA can incorporate cumulative impacts in its chemical assessments right now

By Maria Doa, PhD, Senior Director, Chemicals Policy / Published: March 8, 2022

By Maria Doa, Senior Director, Chemicals Policy, and Lariah Edwards, Ph.D., EDF-George Washington University Postdoctoral Fellow

EPA recently asked its Science Advisory Board to provide advice on how it can incorporate cumulative impact assessments into its decisions making and on research to support cumulative impact assessments. At a public meeting of the SAB on March 2, we highlighted several areas where EPA can incorporate cumulative impact assessments right now.

Cumulative impacts refer to the total burden from chemical and non-chemical stressors and their effect on health, well-being, and quality of life. EPA asked the SAB for advice in two areas: First, what research should the agency conduct to strengthen the methods used in cumulative impact assessments. Second, and somewhat more important, how can EPA start now to incorporate cumulative impact assessments into its decision-making using data that is currently available.

People living in communities are often exposed to multiple chemical and non-chemical stressors. When individuals are exposed to multiple chemicals that cause a particular type of harm, they do not experience the risks for each chemical separately from the other. Nor are these chemical burdens experienced in isolation from other non-chemical stressors a person may face, like nutritional deficiencies or psychosocial stress. Cumulative impact assessments consider the combination and impact of both types of stressors, and therefore are more reflective of real-life conditions.

EPA assessments and decision making should take into consideration this reality and move away as much as possible from the status quo of evaluating one source, one chemical, and one environmental medium. Read More »

Posted in Health science / Also tagged , , | Comments are closed

Shifting the burden for toxics with a sneaky website: one more reason Dourson shouldn’t lead EPA toxics office

By Jack Pratt / Published: September 14, 2017

Jack Pratt is Chemicals Campaign Director

[Use this link to see all of our posts on Dourson.]

With Congress back from recess, it is slated to take up the nomination of Michael Dourson to run the toxics office at EPA. Here are links to our recent blog posts documenting why we are deeply concerned about his nomination:

Starting with work he did for the tobacco industry, Dourson has made a career downplaying concerns about chemicals, from harmful pesticides to cancer-causing solvents, paid for that work by the same companies that make or use those chemicals.

In addition to his work as a toxicologist-for-hire, Dourson and his firm, TERA, have provided more public-facing services.  One of these, done with funding from the American Chemistry Council, was the “Kids+Chemicalsafety” website, now defunct, but still available online at the Internet Archive.

Read More »

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

Making federally-assisted housing lead-safe for children

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: November 30, 2016

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.

Read More »

Posted in Health policy, Lead, Regulation / Also tagged , , , , , | Comments are closed

Advancing the ball while minding the gaps: EDF’s comments on EPA’s risk scoping documents for flame retardant chemicals

By Lindsay McCormick / Published: December 1, 2015

Lindsay McCormick is a Research Analyst.

Until June 2014, EPA had not completed a chemical risk assessment under its Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authority in 28 years.  Since then, EPA seems to have been somewhat picking up the pace: Over the past year and a half EPA has completed four additional risk assessments through the TSCA Work Plan Chemical Program, which is designed to assess the risks of priority chemicals currently on the market.

Recently, EPA initiated its assessment process for the next set of Work Plan chemicals, including three “clusters” of flame retardant chemicals.  We fully support EPA’s current efforts to assess the risks of these flame retardants – with the end goal of managing identified risks – and have provided quite extensive comments on EPA’s initial scoping documents.  In this post, I’ll highlight some of our comments and recommendations; see the links at the end to access the comments themselves.   Read More »

Posted in Food, Health policy, Health science / Also tagged , , | Comments are closed

TSCA reform legislation: How chemicals are selected for safety evaluations

By Richard Denison / Published: April 20, 2015

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

Part 1              Part 2              Part 3              Part 4              Part 5

[UPDATE 4-29-15:  On April 28, 2015, the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee passed a revised version of the Lautenberg Act out of the committee on a bipartisan 15-5 vote.  The new bill made a few revisions to provisions discussed in this post; see updates below.]

[UPDATE 5-17-15:  On May 14, 2015, the House Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy passed a revised version of the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 out of the subcommittee on a bipartisan 21-0 vote.  The new draft made several revisions to provisions discussed in this post; see updates dated 5-17-15 below.  UPDATE 5-28-15:  The legislation was formally introduced as H.R. 2576 on May 26, 2015.  ]

This is the third in a series of blog posts looking at less talked-about, but critically important, elements of bipartisan legislative proposals to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  This post deals with how EPA would select which chemicals would undergo safety evaluations.

Under current TSCA, EPA has no mandate to review the safety of existing chemicals. There are no pacing requirements, such as specifying minimum numbers of chemicals to be examined.  The law provides no criteria for EPA to use in identifying chemicals that may pose risks.  There are no requirements for EPA to establish goals for reviews or schedules for any reviews it does undertake.

Safety reviews are rarely undertaken, and often consume many years (or even decades) – in large part because there are no mandates or deadlines.  As a result of these aspects of the current law, only about 2% of the chemicals that were on the market at the time TSCA was enacted have undergone any sort of safety review.

In 2012, EPA on its own initiative undertook a prioritization process that has led to identification of about 90 so-called “work plan” chemicals, for which EPA is conducting or intends to conduct risk assessments; five have been completed to date.

How would TSCA reform legislation identify chemicals to be subjected to safety reviews?   Read More »

Posted in Health policy, TSCA reform / Also tagged | Comments are closed