EPA’s August 9 and August 10 Public Meetings on Proposed Rules Concerning Chemical Risk Evaluation and Prioritization

On August 9 and August 10, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held two public meetings to obtain input prior to development of a proposed rule for chemical risk evaluation (August 9) and a proposed procedural rule regarding prioritization of chemicals for further risk evaluation (August 10) under the new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.’s (B&C^®) Oscar Hernandez, Ph.D. and Richard E. Engler, Ph.D. were in attendance, and offer the following highlights.

On August 9, many speakers across different stakeholder groups flagged issues in terms of how EPA should conduct the chemical risk evaluation process:

• EPA must determine compatibility of information from third parties, e.g., assessment documents from other groups including within EPA, with TSCA Section 26 standards;
• EPA needs to improve its exposure methodologies, and develop new ones; EPA needs to modify its exposure ranking to acknowledge that chemical intermediates are typically consumed in the manufacture of a product and do not represent a primary source of exposure, especially outside of the production facility;
• Transparency throughout the risk evaluation process is critical;
• EPA is required to use best available science and weight-of-evidence;
• Potentially exposed and susceptible subpopulations should include workers, pregnant women, infants, fence-line populations, and consider the lifestyles (especially diets) of native populations as appropriate under the conditions of use; and
• EPA should undertake a tiered approach to testing, to minimize vertebrate testing and cost, as new TSCA requires.

As for the content of the actual chemical risk evaluation rule, stakeholders made the following comments:

• The rule should include more content beyond procedures by incorporating definitions for key items such as “weight of scientific evidence” and other scientific standards, and codifying criteria for evidence evaluation;
• The final reports should explicitly identify low exposure/low risk uses considered in the development of the Risk Evaluation; and
• Whether legal scientific requirements under TSCA Sections 6 and 26 need to be reflected in the procedural rule, and not be relegated to guidance documents – there was some disagreement on the best course of action on this issue.

A link to the agenda for the August 9, 2016, public meeting is available here.  EPA’s risk evaluation meeting presentation is available here.

On August 10, comments made during the prioritization procedural rule meeting sessions were similar to those made at the August 9 meeting, with an emphasis on the application of Section 26 scientific standards.  A few speakers expressed reservations about the prioritization methodology that EPA currently uses and suggested some alternative approaches.

A link to the agenda for the August 10, 2016, public meeting is available here.  EPA’s prioritization procedural rule meeting presentation is available here.