Our impact
For more almost 60 years, we have been building innovative solutions to the biggest environmental challenges — from the soil to the sky.
About us
Guided by science and economics, and committed to climate justice, we work in the places, on the projects and with the people that can make the biggest difference.
Get involved
If we act now — together — there’s still time to build a future where people, the economy and the Earth can all thrive. Every one of us has a role to play. Choose yours.
News and stories
Stay informed and get inspired with our in-depth reporting about the people and ideas making a difference, insight from our experts and the latest environmental progress.
  • Chemical Concerns – Insights on Air Pollution, Public Health, and Chemical Safety

    EDF comments flag serious flaws in EPA’s draft risk evaluation for 1-Bromopropane

    Posted: in Health policy, Health science, Regulation, TSCA reform

    Written By

    EDF Blogs

    Share

    This week, EPA held its Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) meeting to peer review its draft risk assessment on 1-bromopropaneone of the first 10 chemicals being evaluated under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

    EDF provided both oral comments and written comments to the SACC, raising the following issues:

    1. EPA inappropriately and illegally excludes all exposures to the general population from releases to air, water and land based on the unsupported assumption that other statutes adequately address the exposures;
    2. EPA has failed to evaluate the risk to consumers of developing cancer from acute 1-BP exposure;
    3. EPA errs in deeming a 1 in 10,000 cancer risk level reasonable for workers;
    4. EPA lacks access to full studies and relies only on summaries, prepared by industry, of limited aquatic toxicity testing to conclude 1-BP presents no unreasonable risks to the entire environment; and
    5. EPA overstates OSHA requirements and erroneously assumes that workers always use appropriate personal protective equipment. Yet in 2018 alone, OSHA cited 2,892 violations of the respiratory protection standard identified in 1,281 separate inspections, and such violations were the fourth most common type of violation.

    Recently EPA has publicly stated that a number of the topics above are policy decisions outside the SACC’s charge (particularly, 1, 3 and 5). In our comments, EDF strongly disagreed, noting that all three decisions have major direct scientific consequences, and clearly lead EPA to underestimate the chemical’s risk – to the environment, the general population, workers, and vulnerable subpopulations.

    For our full set of oral and written comments, see here.