{"id":7171,"date":"2017-11-29T13:45:16","date_gmt":"2017-11-29T18:45:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=7171"},"modified":"2017-11-29T13:45:16","modified_gmt":"2017-11-29T18:45:16","slug":"more-questions-for-epa-on-identifying-chemicals-for-prioritization-under-tsca","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2017\/11\/29\/more-questions-for-epa-on-identifying-chemicals-for-prioritization-under-tsca\/","title":{"rendered":"More questions for EPA on identifying chemicals for prioritization under TSCA"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.edf.org\/people\/lindsay-mccormick\"><em>Lindsay McCormick <\/em><\/a><em>is a Project Manager. \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n<p>When EPA finalized its framework prioritization rule under TSCA last June, the agency deleted its proposed approach to identifying potential candidate chemicals for prioritization.\u00a0 EDF had <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2017\/03\/21\/getting-the-framework-right-for-the-new-tsca-edf-comments-filed-on-key-epa-proposed-rules\/\">supported EPA\u2019s initial proposed rule<\/a>, and EPA\u2019s decision to delay this process to allow for additional stakeholder engagement tracks closely with the comments chemical industry groups submitted on that proposed rule.<\/p>\n<p>EPA is now holding <a href=\"https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca\/meetings-and-webinars-amended-toxic-substances-control\">a public meeting<\/a> on December 11<sup>th<\/sup> to discuss its <a href=\"https:\/\/www.epa.gov\/sites\/production\/files\/2017-11\/documents\/final_pre-prioritization_-_discussion_document_11.13.17.pdf\">proposed approaches<\/a> and get input from stakeholders.\u00a0 As with the upcoming <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2017\/11\/21\/more-questions-than-answers-edf-submits-extensive-questions-to-epa-in-advance-of-public-meeting-on-new-chemical-reviews\/\">meeting on new chemical reviews<\/a>, EPA is accepting questions ahead of the meeting.<\/p>\n<p>In response, EDF submitted a number of questions to the agency on Monday, relating to our concerns in the following areas:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>EPA\u2019s stated intention to significantly exceed its statutory minimum of designating 20 low-priority chemicals within the law\u2019s specified timeframe.<\/li>\n<li>EPA\u2019s passive approach to utilizing its new authorities to fill data gaps on chemicals before they enter the prioritization and risk evaluation processes.<\/li>\n<li>The need to ensure transparency with respect to health and safety studies and underlying data used by EPA to identify candidate chemicals for prioritization.<\/li>\n<li>Specific concerns regarding EPA\u2019s proposed approaches, including to utilize Canada\u2019s Chemicals Management Plan as a model and to use EPA\u2019s Safer Chemicals Ingredient List (SCIL) as a basis for identifying low-priority chemicals.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Read our full list of questions <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/11\/files\/2017\/11\/EDF-Questions_Public-Meeting_Approaches-for-Identifying-Potential-Candidates-for-Prioritization.pdf\">here <\/a>for more details.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Lindsay McCormick is a Project Manager. \u00a0 When EPA finalized its framework prioritization rule under TSCA last June, the agency deleted its proposed approach to identifying potential candidate chemicals for prioritization.\u00a0 EDF had supported EPA\u2019s initial proposed rule, and EPA\u2019s decision to delay this process to allow for additional stakeholder engagement tracks closely with the &#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":50533,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[68,44,56096,114108],"tags":[68,56107,39193],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-7171","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-epa","category-policy","category-omboira","category-tsca","tag-epa","tag-lautenberg-act","tag-prioritization"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7171","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/50533"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7171"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7171\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7171"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7171"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7171"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=7171"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}