EDF Health

Selected tag(s): Test rule

Getting under the surfac-tants: EDF comments support EPA regulations to limit their risks

By Lindsay McCormick / Published: January 15, 2015

Lindsay McCormick is a Research Analyst.  Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist. 

Today EDF submitted comments supporting EPA’s proposal to limit the use of two groups of toxic chemicals that have historically been widely used as, or to make, surfactants in consumer and commercial cleaning products.  The chemicals, nonylphenols (NPs) and nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs), are produced in high volumes for a variety of industrial uses and consumer products, some of which have led to widespread water pollution.  The chemicals are highly toxic to aquatic organisms, and also pose significant potential human health risks.

In October, EPA proposed a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) for these chemicals that would require any company intending to begin manufacture or import of these chemicals to notify EPA prior to doing so, thereby allowing EPA to evaluate the risks associated with the proposed use of the chemical and to take action if appropriate.

SNURs are one of the few regulatory tools that EPA has to seek to restrict the use of chemicals under the nation’s outdated chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

While EDF’s comments generally support EPA’s proposed rule, they also raise some concerns.  Some highlights of our comments are described below.   Read More »

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

A hint of movement in the Super Slo-Mo that is nanoregulation at EPA under TSCA

By / Published: October 8, 2014

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

Nearly 4 years ago, EPA sent to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a pair of draft proposed rules that would require reporting of certain information by makers of nanomaterials.  The proposed rules under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) seemed by all measures to have fallen into a black nano-hole. 

But earlier this week, a smidgen of movement was discernible on the EPA regulatory tracker entry for this long-dormant activity.  What appears to have happened is that EPA has withdrawn the original proposed rules and resubmitted one of them to OMB.  Dropped, apparently, is the proposed significant new use rule (SNUR), which would have required companies proposing to commercialize a nanomaterial for a new use to first notify EPA so that it could conduct a safety review.  Retained is the other half of the original pair of proposed rules, an information reporting rule under the authority of section 8(a) of TSCA.  While details are not yet available, that proposal would require companies currently making nanomaterials to report basic information to EPA.  Read More »

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

Flame retardants impair normal brain development: Even more evidence, still no action

By Jennifer McPartland / Published: May 28, 2014

Jennifer McPartland, Ph.D., is a Health Scientist.

Today a new study was published linking fetal exposure to certain flame retardants called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) with cognitive and behavioral effects that develop later in childhood.  While the specific findings in this study are new, the link between these types of neurodevelopmental effects and exposure to PBDEs is not. 

Numerous scientific studies and governmental bodies across the globe have flagged the health effects of PBDEs.  At the same time, current proposals by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to better understand the hazards and sources of certain PBDEs remain in limbo.  Read on to learn more about today’s new study on PBDEs and the stalling of EPA initiatives to help protect us from exposure to them.  Read More »

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

Maybe not surprising, but still upsetting: New report highlights role of election-year politics in OIRA delays

By / Published: December 18, 2013

Rachel Shaffer is a research assistant.

Earlier this month, the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) completed an investigation into the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs’ (OIRA) long delays in reviewing proposed and final rules and to offer recommendations for improving the efficiency and transparency of OIRA’s review process. The final report – which was featured in a front page story in the Washington Post – echoes and expands upon concerns we discussed in a previous blog post and a joint letter sent to Senator Blumenthal’s office earlier this year.

ACUS documents that the average time for OIRA reviews has significantly increased in recent years. From 1994-2011, the average review time was 50 days. However, in 2012, the average review time rose to 79 days. And in the first part of 2013, the average review time rose further to 140 days. 

The reason for these growing delays?  Read More »

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

NGOs ask Senators to investigate chronic delays in OMB’s review of TSCA regulatory actions

By / Published: September 10, 2013

Rachel Shaffer is a research assistant.  Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

Last Friday afternoon, we received the discouraging news that EPA has withdrawn two draft rules it had developed under its Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authority.  As discussed in our earlier blog post, these proposed rules had been kept in limbo by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for 1,213 and 619 days, respectively – far longer than the 90-day limit for such reviews set by Executive Order 12866.

Unfortunately, these delays are anything but unique.  OIRA’s reviews of draft rules and other actions now routinely exceed by large margins their mandated deadlines.  Our examination of EPA’s TSCA regulatory agenda over the past several years reveals just how extensive OIRA’s “rulemaking purgatory” has become.  

Since 2009, a total of 33 TSCA-related notices or proposed or final regulatory actions have been submitted to OIRA:

  • Eighteen submissions were proposed or final rules subject to a 90-calendar-day deadline.  Reviews of only six of these rules were completed within this deadline; on average, they have been held at OIRA for over 300 days.
  • The other 15 were advance notices of proposed rulemakings or other notices subject to a 10-working-day deadline.  Of these notices, only one was completed within this deadline; on average, they were kept under review by OIRA for over 70 working days.

Today, EDF, Earthjustice, Union of Concerned Scientists, and League of Conservation Voters sent a letter documenting these delays and expressing our serious concerns to Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight, Federal Rights, and Agency Action.  Our letter emphasized that such delays both prevent the public from providing input in the rulemaking process and limit EPA’s already constrained ability to obtain and share basic safety information on chemicals under TSCA.

Our letter was sent in response to an August 1, 2013, hearing held by that subcommittee, titled Justice Delayed: The Human Cost of Regulatory Paralysis, which began a much-needed discussion of the real-world impact of OIRA’s protracted review of proposed regulations.  We urged a further investigation into the causes and consequences of this too-hidden obstruction of the long-established rulemaking process. 

You can read our letter here, and stay tuned for updates in the coming months.

 

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

Doing its best under a flawed law: 35 groups file comments supporting EPA efforts to reduce exposure to toxic flame retardants

By Jennifer McPartland / Published: July 31, 2012

Jennifer McPartland, Ph.D., is a Health Scientist. Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

Today Environmental Defense Fund and Earthjustice, joined by 33 other health and environmental groups, filed comments that urge the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to swiftly move forward with two proposed actions to regulate a group of toxic flame retardants called PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers). 

The first proposed rule would require anyone intending to begin production, processing or import of any PBDE, or a product containing one, to notify EPA before doing so.  This would give the agency an opportunity to evaluate the risks of the proposed activity and if necessary take action to restrict or prohibit it.  The second proposed rule would require anyone who continues after 2013 to produce, process or import any PBDE, or a product containing one, to conduct extensive tests needed to allow EPA to determine the risks posed by those ongoing activities.   Read More »

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