Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.
[For more on this topic, see our recent 3-part myth-busting series:
Part 1 Part 2 Part 3]
We have blogged before (see here and here) about the steps initiated in mid-2018 by the Trump EPA to weaken new chemical reviews under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) – rendering them even less health-protective than under TSCA prior to the 2016 reforms enacted in the Lautenberg Act.
As these debilitating policy changes – still never publicly described or released, and apparently still not written down even for use within EPA – have taken hold, we have seen dozens of flawed new chemical decisions emerge. We blogged extensively about the first such decision made under the new regimen in late July 2018. Since then, about 60 more final determinations reflecting the new policies have been posted on EPA’s website. These decisions pertain mostly to premanufacture notifications (PMNs), along with a few for significant new use notices (SNUNs). At least 80% of these chemicals were cleared to enter commerce without being subject to any conditions whatsoever. EPA accomplished this by issuing a final determination that each cleared chemical, or significant new use of a chemical, is “not likely to present an unreasonable risk.” For these determinations, EPA is required under TSCA to post a statement of its finding, which it does in another table on its website.
We have been closely examining these “not likely” determination documents. Some deeply disturbing patterns are emerging. This post will describe one of them.[pullquote]A new addition to the long and growing list of illegal actions EPA has taken to render the new chemicals program weaker than under the old TSCA.[/pullquote]
Most striking is that for a significant majority of these chemicals, EPA either identified significant risks to workers or indicated it had insufficient information to determine the level of risk to workers. Under the 2016 reforms to TSCA, either finding – that there are or may be risks or that there is insufficient information to determine the level of risk – requires EPA to issue an order specifying conditions sufficient to eliminate the risk. Yet EPA did no such thing; instead, it cleared the chemicals for unfettered market access. Read More »