{"id":1574,"date":"2011-09-13T09:45:26","date_gmt":"2011-09-13T14:45:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/nanotechnology\/?p=1574"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:01:17","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:01:17","slug":"avoiding-paralysis-by-analysis-epa-proposes-a-sensible-approach-to-identifying-chemicals-of-concern","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2011\/09\/13\/avoiding-paralysis-by-analysis-epa-proposes-a-sensible-approach-to-identifying-chemicals-of-concern\/","title":{"rendered":"Avoiding paralysis by analysis: EPA proposes a sensible approach to identifying chemicals of concern"},"content":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D.<\/em>, is a Senior Scientist.\u00a0 Thanks to my colleagues Jennifer McPartland and Allison Tracy for their analysis of the EPA proposal discussed in this post.<\/em><\/p>\n

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held stakeholder meetings to get public input into the criteria it will use to identify additional chemicals of concern beyond the <\/span>11 chemicals or chemical classes it has already identified<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 EPA used these meetings (as well as an <\/span>online forum open until September 14<\/span><\/a>) as an opportunity for the public to respond to a \u201c<\/span>discussion guide<\/span><\/a>\u201d it issued in August that sets forth draft criteria and identifies data sources it intends to use to look for chemicals that meet the criteria. <\/span><\/p>\n

The day before the EPA meetings, the <\/span>American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued<\/span><\/a> its own <\/span>\u201cprioritization tool\u201d<\/span><\/a> which lays out its own criteria and ranking system for identifying chemicals of concern.\u00a0 This post will make a few observations about EPA\u2019s proposal.\u00a0 My next post will provide a critique of ACC\u2019s proposed tool.<\/span><\/p>\n

EDF and the <\/span>Safer Chemicals Healthy Families coalition strongly support EPA<\/span><\/a>\u00a0in this endeavor \u2013 both for what it is, and for what it is not.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The word \u201caction\u201d was for many years virtually <\/span>missing from the EPA chemicals program\u2019s vocabulary<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 (I guess you could say the program was kinda \u201cmissing in action.\u201d)\u00a0 Of the more than 60,000 chemicals on the market at the time TSCA was adopted in 1976, <\/span>fewer than two percent have received any substantive, data-informed review<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 So it is a welcome development that EPA is actually looking at chemicals in commerce \u2013 despite the lack of a mandate to do so under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) \u2013 and, for those posing concerns, initiating at least those limited actions allowed by TSCA.<\/span><\/p>\n

For the chemicals of concern EPA identifies, it expects to develop \u201cchemical action plans\u201d similar to those it has developed for the first 11 noted above.\u00a0 These plans identify \u201ca range of actions \u2026 from voluntary phase-outs and alternatives assessments in cooperation with industry and other stakeholders, to the development of test rules to require the development of additional data under section 4 of TSCA, to controls or use restrictions under sections 5 or 6 of TSCA.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

What EPA\u2019s proposal is not<\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

That\u2019s the purpose of the criteria EPA is now proposing to formalize.\u00a0 Equally important is what EPA\u2019s purpose is not<\/em>.\u00a0 As <\/span>EPA states on its website<\/span><\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cEPA\u2019s goal is to identify priority chemicals for near-term evaluation, not to screen and prioritize the entire TSCA Inventory of approximately 84,000 chemicals<\/em>.\u201d\u00a0 (emphasis added)<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

EPA has been clear that the latter task \u2013 a comprehensive review and ranking of all chemicals in commerce \u2013 is beyond its current authority and resources, and that any such effort \u2013 to the extent it is desired \u2013 must await TSCA reform.<\/span><\/p>\n

Clarity as to the more limited purpose of EPA\u2019s current initiative is important to note for two reasons.\u00a0 First, it means that EPA is not<\/em> claiming that chemicals it identifies as priorities are necessarily those that have somehow been shown to pose the greatest risk in comparison to all other chemicals.\u00a0 Rather, they are chemicals for which there is sufficient evidence or reason for concern that they warrant further scrutiny.\u00a0 And, of course, in order to actually regulate the production or use of such chemicals, EPA would have to <\/span>meet the very high burdens<\/span><\/a>imposed on it under TSCA.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Second, some in industry have been arguing that EPA cannot even name a chemical of concern unless it first shows it is at the top of the list, identified through some kind of comprehensive ranking system that is applied to all chemicals in commerce.\u00a0 That approach is indeed awfully close to what ACC has proposed as its \u201ccomprehensive\u201d prioritization tool, about which I\u2019ll have more to say in my next post.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

This impression is amplified by <\/span>ACC\u2019s invoking of the Canadian approach to prioritization<\/span><\/a> to support its tool.\u00a0 What ACC fails to mention is that Canada\u2019s approach \u2013 which entailed a review of all 23,000 chemicals on Canada\u2019s equivalent to the TSCA Inventory \u2013 was <\/span>mandated by statute<\/span><\/em><\/a>in amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) adopted in 1999.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Moreover, Canadian agencies were given seven years and a major infusion of new resources to complete just the first phase of its process.\u00a0 With 84,000 chemicals on the TSCA Inventory \u2026 well, I\u2019ll let you do the math to guesstimate how long and how many resources it would take for EPA to carry out the same approach.\u00a0 Without the authority and the resources, well, that\u2019s just a recipe for paralysis by analysis.<\/span><\/p>\n

So, what is EPA\u2019s proposal?<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

While the EPA description of its proposal is merely a \u201cdiscussion guide\u201d and more detail will be needed to fully comprehend it, the agency proposes to utilize a basic set of criteria about which there is little controversy at least at the 30,000-foot level.\u00a0 We are pleased to see an emphasis on chemicals that can adversely affect children\u2019s health, on PBTs (persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals), and on chemicals detected in biomonitoring.<\/span><\/p>\n

EPA also identifies a list of sources of information it would use initially to identify chemicals meeting each of the criteria, and then additional sources it would use to refine the list, conduct reviews of the selected chemicals and initiate risk assessment and risk management actions as warranted.\u00a0 Again, the sources EPA identifies are pretty straightforward.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The idea, according to EPA, is to <\/span>generate and make public an additional list of chemicals of concern this fall<\/span><\/a>, and then to proceed on to identify more chemicals over time using the same criteria.\u00a0 Release of that list would provide all parties with an opportunity to provide more information to the agency.<\/span><\/p>\n

What else is needed?<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

We generally support EPA\u2019s approach and believe it strikes the right balance between clarity and transparency and avoiding paralysis by analysis.\u00a0 Nonetheless, we offer the following 10 additional suggestions for improvement:<\/span><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Cast a wide net in Step 1<\/em>:\u00a0 EPA need not and should not limit the sources it relies on in Step 1 to a small number, as it suggests it will do, especially if those sources are intended to identify the longer list from which a subset will be selected for further review and action.<\/span><\/p>\n