FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Sharyn Stein, email@example.com, 202-572-3331
Richard Denison, firstname.lastname@example.org, 202 387-3500
EDF is presenting its critique of EPA’s Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP) at a meeting being held today by EPA to receive input on its initiatives.
“ChAMP just doesn’t have the reach of REACH, despite EPA’s efforts to claim otherwise,” said Dr. Richard A. Denison, EDF Senior Scientist. “It will yield far less data on far fewer chemicals. In its haste to catch up with other global initiatives, EPA intends to make decisions about risk using incomplete or poor quality information, especially with respect to how chemicals are used and how people and the environment are exposed to them.”
EDF noted that many of ChAMP’s shortcomings can be directly traced to structural deficiencies in the authority EPA has been provided under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the main U.S. statute that governs how tens of thousands of chemicals are produced, used and disposed of. “EPA’s ability to require data to be developed that are sufficient to conduct a robust assessment of a chemical’s risks is highly constrained under TSCA”,
“EPA’s authority to take action to control a chemical found to be dangerous is even more constrained,”
EDF’s analysis identified a number of additional shortcomings of ChAMP:
- A lack of transparency in describing what information EPA possesses and relies on to judge the likelihood of exposure to the chemicals it is assessing;
- Failure to initiate steps to fill the gaps in safety data EPA has identified, and to compel testing of chemicals whose manufacturers have not volunteered to develop the needed data;
- Significantly overstating the number of high-volume chemicals for which EPA has data necessary to conduct screening-level hazard and risk characterizations; and
- Reliance on information provided by manufacturers on how a chemical is used even when other available information indicates additional uses that could cause greater exposure.
“While there are serious shortcomings in many of EPA’s initiatives, there are also some positive aspects,” said