{"id":7599,"date":"2018-03-13T11:00:56","date_gmt":"2018-03-13T16:00:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=7599"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:02:07","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:02:07","slug":"too-little-too-fast-edf-comments-raise-numerous-concerns-with-epas-proposal-to-expand-use-of-a-toxic-chemical","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2018\/03\/13\/too-little-too-fast-edf-comments-raise-numerous-concerns-with-epas-proposal-to-expand-use-of-a-toxic-chemical\/","title":{"rendered":"Too little, too fast: EDF comments raise numerous concerns with EPA\u2019s proposal to expand use of a toxic chemical"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

Last month EDF blogged about <\/a>\u00a0our request to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to extend the illegally and unreasonably short 15-day comment period it had provided on a modification EPA is proposing <\/a>to make to expand the ways a toxic chemical could be used, subject to certain conditions, without triggering any requirement to first notify EPA.\u00a0 Specifically, EPA is proposing to modify the Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) applicable to the chemical \u2013 which currently limits its use to metalworking fluid \u2013 to allow the chemical also to be used as an anti-corrosive agent in in oilfield operations and hydraulic fluids.<\/p>\n

Our request <\/a>\u00a0also noted that EPA had failed to provide the public with anything approaching a complete set of documents relevant to its proposal.\u00a0 For example, the public docket for the proposed modified SNUR lacked even a redacted copy of the Significant New Use Notice (SNUN) that triggered EPA\u2019s consideration of the expanded use.<\/p>\n

EPA\u2019s proposal to amend the SNUR noted that, while EPA was expanding the allowable uses of the chemical, it was also proposing to impose additional conditions on the use.\u00a0 These conditions were necessary, EPA argued, because of \u201ctest data on the substance and on new data regarding the expected release of formaldehyde from the substance, for skin and eye irritation, neurotoxicity, mutagenicity, oncogenicity, allergic responses, and developmental toxicity.\u201d<\/p>\n

Yet the docket did not include copies of these health and safety studies or the test data, despite being referred to in the proposal and in other documents that are in the docket.\u00a0 As a reminder, such health and safety studies and their underlying data must be made public under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).\u00a0 And of course, access to them is crucial if the public is expected to comment on EPA\u2019s proposal.<\/p>\n

A few days before the end of the 15-day comment period, EPA did grant a 17-day extension<\/a>.\u00a0 It also added a copy of the SNUN to the docket.\u00a0 But it failed to add any of the health and safety studies or associated data we had identified as missing.<\/p>\n

The comment period ended yesterday, and despite the serious time constraint and information gaps, EDF filed these extensive comments<\/a> last night.\u00a0 In preparing our comments, however, we found that the amount of health and safety data EPA had failed to provide is even greater than we had originally thought.\u00a0 And our concerns over the adequacy of EPA\u2019s review of this new proposed use and of the conditions it proposes to include in the modified SNUR have only grown.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

As detailed in our comments, among the concerns we identified based on our review of the public record for this proposed SNUR modification are the following:<\/p>\n