{"id":9324,"date":"2020-01-10T10:05:04","date_gmt":"2020-01-10T15:05:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=9324"},"modified":"2025-12-09T14:21:12","modified_gmt":"2025-12-09T19:21:12","slug":"the-trump-epa-says-precede-means-follow","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2020\/01\/10\/the-trump-epa-says-precede-means-follow\/","title":{"rendered":"The Trump EPA says \u201cprecede\u201d means \u201cfollow\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

[Corrections added below in bracketed italics on 1-17-20]<\/em><\/p>\n

Last month EPA finally released its long-awaited update<\/a> to its controversial 2017 New Chemicals Decision-Making Framework<\/a>, which describes how EPA is conducting risk reviews of new chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).\u00a0 While we are still reviewing it and will be filing comments, it is clear the new document suffers from many of the same problems as the prior version<\/a>, as well as raising additional concerns.<\/p>\n

A core problem of both documents is EPA\u2019s illegal bifurcation of its treatment of a new chemical\u2019s \u201cintended\u201d conditions of use \u2013 those proposed by the company submitting a premanufacture notification (PMN) to EPA \u2013 from the chemical\u2019s \u201creasonably foreseen\u201d conditions of use.\u00a0 EPA does so despite TSCA\u2019s clear instruction that EPA address potential risks from both categories in an integrated manner and at the same time.\u00a0 EPA\u2019s frameworks instead relegate any consideration of \u201creasonably foreseen\u201d conditions of use to a separate, later process undertaken upon receipt of a separate notification submitted to EPA in response to a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) \u2013 assuming EPA has actually promulgated a final SNUR for the chemical in question.<\/p>\n

EPA has now used this bifurcated approach to greenlight hundreds of new chemicals for market entry \u2013 finding that they are \u201cnot likely to present an unreasonable risk\u201d based on a review only of the chemicals\u2019 intended conditions of use.\u00a0 EDF has blogged in detail about the inadequacies of EPA\u2019s \u201cSNUR-only approach<\/a>\u201d and the disturbing extent of its application<\/a>.<\/p>\n

EPA has yet to provide any legal justification for its approach \u2013 how it believes the approach comports with TSCA \u2013 let alone demonstrate how it provides for protection of health and the environment despite deviating from what Congress intended EPA do under the law.<\/p>\n

[pullquote]How on earth can EPA assert with a straight face that it is promulgating SNURs that precede its \u201cnot likely\u201d determinations?<\/em><\/strong>[\/pullquote]While we will have much more to say on the new framework, in the remainder of this post I want to focus on EPA\u2019s characterization of its reliance on the SNUR-only approach.\u00a0 EPA now says it has expanded that approach to two different scenarios:\u00a0 One is \u201cSNURs that Precede<\/em> \u201cNot Likely\u201d Determinations\u201d and the other is \u201cSNURs that Follow<\/em> \u201cNot Likely\u201d Determinations.\u201d<\/p>\n

We have examined the accuracy of EPA\u2019s claim that the first type of SNUR precedes<\/em> EPA\u2019s \u201cNot Likely\u201d determination for a given new chemical.\u00a0 The timing is critical here: \u00a0If there is a significant lag between EPA\u2019s \u201cNot Likely\u201d determination and the issuance of a SNUR, all kinds of problems arise, which we have discussed previously<\/a>.\u00a0 To name two:<\/p>\n