Reversing New Chemicals Program a Priority
| Author | Richard A. Denison |
| Position | Lead senior scientist for Environmental Defense Fund's Health Program |
| Pages | 55-55 |
MAY/JUNE 2021 | 55
Reprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum®, May/June 2021.
Copyright © 2021, Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org.
THE DEBATE
Reversing New
Chemicals
Program a Priority
By Richard A. Denison
As with so much else these
past four years, implementa-
tion of the 2016 reforms to
the Toxic Substances Con-
trol Act was not normal.
Despite bipartisan support for
TSCA’s overhaul and the chemical in-
dustry’s acknowledgment that it need-
ed a stronger federal system to restore
public condence in its products, this
progress evaporated virtually overnight
with the ascendance of the most anti-
environmental and anti-public health
administration in our lifetimes.
Nowhere was this more apparent
than in the Trump EPA’s systematic
undermining of the new TSCA’s en-
hancements of safety reviews for the
hundreds of new chemicals entering
commerce each year. e chemical
industry, its army of law rms, and its
political plants inside EPA went for
broke.
EPA’s initial lawful, health-protec-
tive implementation led, as expected,
to many more new chemicals being
subjected to orders and required test-
ing — which the law requires when a
new chemical is found to present con-
cerns or lack adequate safety informa-
tion. But industry used its clout with
then Administrator Scott Pruitt to
implement policy changes that outed
the law and rendered such orders and
testing rare.
In 2019, EPA’s “Working Ap-
proach” restricted safety reviews to
companies’ intended uses of new
chemicals. at review excluded rea-
sonably foreseen uses TSCA explicitly
requires be concurrently evaluated.
While the agency has sometimes re-
quired companies to notify EPA before
starting a reasonably foreseen use, any
ensuing review was separate from the
rst review and hence did not consider
the combined impact. Moreover, EPA
so narrowly dened what it would
consider reasonably foreseen that the
agency must eectively prove such a
use is highly likely to occur.
ese changes serve to break up the
review of a new chemical into small
pieces, increasing the likelihood it
will be deemed safe — but frustrating
Congress’s intent that EPA conduct
comprehensive reviews that anticipate
the multiple ways chemicals can be
used and cause exposure. e changes
allowed EPA to approve — without
any conditions or testing — nearly
three quarters of the 600-plus chemi-
cals subsequently reviewed.
EPA instituted other measures to
gut protections for workers, who are
on the front lines of new chemical
exposures. In 2017, the industry’s New
Chemicals Coalition demanded that
EPA stop imposing workplace restric-
tions on new chemicals even when
signicant worker risks were identi-
ed, and instead simply forward the
concern to the resource- and authority-
strapped Occupational Safety and
Health Administration.
I thought it unlikely this extreme
position would gain traction at EPA.
After all, TSCA expressly identies
workers as facing greater risk than the
public, requiring the agency to ensure
they are protected from chemical risks.
Instead, the Trump EPA more than
granted industry’s wish: it dismissed
any worker risk the agency identi-
ed by asserting workers will protect
themselves by donning personal pro-
tective equipment, despite no require-
ment their employers even provide
such equipment. No pesky referral to
OSHA either.
is approach — which EPA also
adopted in all 10 of its risk evaluations
of existing chemicals — became ram-
pant for new substances. Of the 400-
plus new chemicals cleared for unfet-
tered market access under the Trump
EPA’s policies, the agency found nearly
80 percent posed risks to workers –
but cleared them anyway by asserting
PPE use. Our close examination of
several dozen such decisions revealed
that the risks EPA dismissed — which
should have triggered issuance of an
order — exceeded its own benchmarks
by 32-fold, on average.
Meanwhile, EPA approval of “low-
volume exemptions” proliferated,
providing companies with a path of
even less resistance for getting new
chemicals approved. By agreeing to a
production limit, companies get an ex-
pedited 30-day review. Since the new
policies came in, EPA granted nearly
600 LVEs; only 4 were denied, with
48 withdrawn. LVEs have been used in
particular for PFAS, highly persistent
and often toxic chemicals that contam-
inate most Americans’ blood. Over the
past year, EPA received several dozen
LVEs for PFAS. While claiming it was
acting aggressively to rein in PFAS, the
agency approved two thirds of these,
with decisions on the remainder pend-
ing.
Finally, despite some eorts to
comply with its own regulations
regarding public access to informa-
tion on new chemicals, EPA scaled
back transparency in key respects.
e agency stopped informing the
public when its initial review of a
new chemical raised concerns. EPA
recently stopped providing public ac-
cess to new chemical orders it has is-
sued. Most recently, our FOIA request
turned up extensive evidence of collu-
sion on new chemicals between EPA
political appointees and industry.
Clearly the Biden EPA is inherit-
ing a hot mess. It should immediately
rescind the illegal Working Approach;
issue binding orders whenever worker
risks are identied; halt approval of
new PFAS and abuse of the LVE pro-
cess; and commit to full transparency
by providing timely access to robust
information on new chemicals and
agency decisions concerning them.
TSCA reform yielded long-needed
improvements in this core component
of our nation’s chemical safety system.
EPA must make reversing the dismal
failures of the past four years a top
priority.
Richard A. Denison is lead senior scientist for
Environmental Defense Fund’s Health Program.
Web site is at http://blogs.edf.org/health/.
To continue reading
Request your trial