{"id":78,"date":"2009-05-07T12:42:13","date_gmt":"2009-05-07T17:42:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/nanotechnology\/2009\/05\/07\/how-can-champ-get-back-on-track\/"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:00:44","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:00:44","slug":"how-can-champ-get-back-on-track","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2009\/05\/07\/how-can-champ-get-back-on-track\/","title":{"rendered":"(How) Can ChAMP get back on track?"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

As I noted in our first post on ChAMP<\/a>, after getting off to a strong start in 2007, EPA’s abrupt decision in 2008 to steer ChAMP in the direction of cranking out hasty risk decisions was entirely its own.\u00a0 Can ChAMP be put back on track?\u00a0 <\/p>\n

Neither EPA’s own advisory committee – which had many members from the chemical industry as well as a few environmental NGOs – nor the commitment made by the U.S. under the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership<\/a> (SPP) agreement signed with Canada and Mexico in August 2007, called for such risk assessments or risk-based prioritizations.<\/p>\n

The commitment EPA made under the SPP agreement was “to assess<\/em><\/strong> and initiate needed action on the over 9,000 existing chemicals produced above 25,000 lbs\/yr in the United States.”\u00a0 There was no mention of risk assessment anywhere in the agreement.\u00a0 Indeed, at that time, EPA had already begun to publish hazard characterizations<\/a><\/em><\/strong>, which, as assessments of the hazards of high production volume (HPV) chemicals – fully meet the terms of its SPP commitment.<\/p>\n

EPA’s focus on developing HPV chemical hazard characterizations was also precisely what it had committed to do when it adopted, in November 2005, the recommendations of its own National Pollution Prevention & Toxics Advisory Committee<\/a> (NPPTAC).\u00a0 Specifically, it agreed to complete and make public such hazard characterizations on all HPV chemicals for which it had received final data sets from the HPV Challenge – some 1,200 chemicals – within four years<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

How close is EPA to meeting that commitment, with only six months to go?\u00a0 As of today, EPA has issued only about 130 hazard characterizations covering about 315 HPV chemicals (many of the chemicals are in categories).<\/p>\n

So EPA’s rush to risk is not only resulting in flawed risk decisions that are prematurely exonerating hundreds of chemicals, as described in our earlier posts.\u00a0 It is also causing EPA to renege on its promise to characterize the hazards of all sponsored HPV chemicals in a timely manner – and to clearly identify gaps in the quality and completeness of the data received under its voluntary program.<\/p>\n

In short, EPA is compromising the public’s right to know about the hazards of the most widely used chemicals in U.S. commerce.\u00a0 That’s quite ironic when you consider EPA bills the HPV Challenge and ChAMP as cornerstones of its Chemical Right to Know Initiative<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

What should<\/em> EPA be doing under ChAMP?<\/strong><\/p>\n

EDF is the only environmental NGO that has been willing to engage with EPA, first on the HPV Challenge and more recently on ChAMP.\u00a0 We served on advisory panels, participated in public meetings, carefully peer-reviewed draft assessments, filed comments and met with EPA staff repeatedly.<\/p>\n

Even now, we are the only voice in our community arguing that the HPV data and ChAMP could<\/em><\/strong> provide value if it got back on track.<\/p>\n

We have pointed out that many of the shortcomings of the HPV and ChAMP initiatives are due to EPA’s limited authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and we are actively working toward fundamental reform of TSCA to give EPA the tools it needs to do a better job.<\/p>\n

But we also believe that in the interim, and despite EPA’s constraints under TSCA, EPA can and should be doing a more credible and valuable job under ChAMP.<\/p>\n

EPA should:<\/p>\n