Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.
EDF has learned from sources across the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that its political appointees are taking steps to systematically dismantle the agency’s ability to conduct broad risk reviews of chemicals and effectively address identified risks under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The assault is taking the form of methodically excising from the scopes of the agency’s chemical reviews any uses of, or exposures to, chemicals that fall under TSCA’s jurisdiction, if those uses or exposures also touch on the jurisdiction of another office at EPA or another Federal agency.[pullquote]The Pruitt EPA’s attempt to atomize the evaluation of chemical risks has one purpose: to make it far less likely that risks needing to be controlled will be identified. If each activity that leads to a chemical exposure is looked at in isolation, it will be far more likely that such activity will be deemed safe.[/pullquote]
Under the Lautenberg Act’s 2016 amendments to TSCA, Congress directed EPA to identify the first 10 chemicals to undergo risk evaluations; EPA did so in December 2016. After the transition to the new Administration, EPA scrambled to produce documents that set forth the “scopes” of those evaluations in order to meet the law’s deadline of June 2017; EPA acknowledged, however, that its scope documents were rushed and incomplete, and promised to update them in the form of so-called “problem formulations” that would be issued within six months. Those documents are now months late.
We now are learning why: Political appointees at EPA are engaged in an intra-agency process intended to dramatically narrow the scopes of those first 10 reviews. They are seeking to shed from those reviews any use of or exposure to a chemical that touches on another office’s jurisdiction, apparently regardless of whether or what action has been or can or will be taken by that office to identify, assess or address the relevant potential risks of that chemical. Reports indicate that leadership in some offices are welcoming this move, while others are resisting it. Read More