{"id":7390,"date":"2018-01-22T11:08:41","date_gmt":"2018-01-22T16:08:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=7390"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:02:05","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:02:05","slug":"edf-files-extensive-comments-challenging-epas-changes-to-new-chemical-reviews-under-tsca","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2018\/01\/22\/edf-files-extensive-comments-challenging-epas-changes-to-new-chemical-reviews-under-tsca\/","title":{"rendered":"EDF files extensive comments challenging EPA\u2019s changes to new chemical reviews under TSCA"},"content":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D.,\u00a0<\/em>is a Lead Senior Scientist.<\/p>\n

This weekend EDF submitted detailed comments<\/a> to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its implementation of changes to the New Chemicals Review Program, as well as comments responding to the agency\u2019s draft New Chemicals Decision\u2010Making Framework.<\/p>\n

After the passage of the Lautenberg Act in June 2016, EPA started out on a sound footing in implementing the major changes to Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), correctly subjecting more new chemicals to conditions or testing requirements through issuance of consent orders.\u00a0 It also took successful steps to address a temporary backlog that was largely due to the fact that these changes to TSCA took immediate effect.<\/p>\n

Beginning in August of last year, however, using the already eliminated backlog as an excuse, the new political leadership at EPA signaled its intent to reverse course and effectively return the program to its pre-Lautenberg state \u2013 under which few chemicals were subject to any conditions and even fewer to any testing requirements, despite the fact that the great majority of new chemicals reviewed by EPA lack any health or environmental safety data.<\/p>\n

EPA convened a meeting in early December of last year to present its New Chemicals Decision\u2010Making Framework implementing these changes.\u00a0 The agency noted it was already using the Framework, despite also accepting comments on it.<\/p>\n

EDF\u2019s comments<\/a> raise a host of legal, policy, scientific, good government and transparency objections to EPA\u2019s new approach.\u00a0 I won\u2019t attempt to summarize the 42 pages of our comments here, many aspects of which we have raised through this blog <\/a>over the past many months.<\/p>\n

We hope EPA reconsiders its rash change of course and opts to comply with the law.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D.,\u00a0is a Lead Senior Scientist. This weekend EDF submitted detailed comments to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its implementation of changes to the New Chemicals Review Program, as well as comments responding to the agency\u2019s draft New Chemicals Decision\u2010Making Framework. After the passage of the Lautenberg Act in June 2016, EPA started …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":100,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[44,114108],"tags":[68,56107,56108,39178],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-7390","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-policy","category-tsca","tag-epa","tag-lautenberg-act","tag-new-chemicals","tag-significant-new-use-rule-snur"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t