Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.
[See UPDATE in brackets below.]
The Trump Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has just released drafts of two more chemical risk evaluations it has conducted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). One is for the likely human carcinogen and neurotoxicant 1,4-dioxane, which contaminates public water systems serving more than 7 million Americans in 27 states at levels exceeding the level EPA has traditionally (until now) aimed to meet for general population exposures. The other is for the flame retardant hexabromocyclododecane, or HBCD, a persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemical – toxic to human development and highly acutely and chronically toxic to aquatic organisms – that has been banned or heavily restricted in most of the rest of the developed world.
As might have been expected of the Trump EPA, the draft risk evaluations wholly exonerate HBCD and largely do so for 1,4-dioxane. Especially in the latter case, EPA achieves its improbable finding through quite a sleight of hand: EPA simply excludes most exposures to the chemical from the scope of its risk evaluation.[pullquote]Trump EPA political appointees have repeatedly argued that the agency needs to be doing a better job at “risk communication.” I guess we now know what that means.[/pullquote]
Once finalized, EPA’s determinations that these chemicals “do not present an unreasonable risk” will mean it has no obligation or authority to impose any restrictions on their manufacture, processing, distribution, use, recycling or disposal.
We will be looking at these documents more closely in the very limited time EPA has provided for the public to review and comment on them. But I want to draw attention right off the bat to a telling aspect of how the Trump EPA has presented its risk determination for 1,4-dioxane.
Read More »
