{"id":12126,"date":"2023-11-15T10:27:36","date_gmt":"2023-11-15T15:27:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=12126"},"modified":"2023-12-21T10:45:28","modified_gmt":"2023-12-21T15:45:28","slug":"epas-new-chemical-regulations-backtracking-on-pbts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2023\/11\/15\/epas-new-chemical-regulations-backtracking-on-pbts\/","title":{"rendered":"EPA’s new chemical regulations: Backtracking on PBTs"},"content":{"rendered":"

NOTE: <\/strong>This is the fifth in a series about EPA\u2019s regulation of new chemicals. See below under Go Deeper<\/strong> for links to the other blogs in the series.<\/p>\n

What Happened?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed new regulations for its safety reviews of new chemicals under our nation\u2019s primary chemicals law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). One of the proposed provisions would govern which persistent, bioaccumulative,1<\/a><\/sup> toxic chemicals (PBTs) should undergo a full safety review.<\/p>\n

Why It Matters<\/strong><\/h3>\n

This proposed approach would exclude certain PBTs from a full new chemical safety review. This is a concerning step backward in addressing the risks from these chemicals.<\/p>\n

PBT chemicals do not break down readily from natural processes and raise special concern because of their ability to build up in both the environment and in people and other organisms. Even small releases of these long-lived and bioaccumulative toxic chemicals can pose long-term risks to human health and the environment. Notable PBTs\u2014such as DDT, which affects reproduction, and methyl mercury, which is a powerful neurotoxin\u2014impacted whole ecosystems across the United States, including the Great Lakes.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Our Take<\/strong><\/h3>\n

No PBT should be exempt from a full new chemical safety review.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In 1999, EPA recognized the special nature of new chemicals that are PBTs when the agency issued its PBT policy for TSCA new chemicals. The policy established a comprehensive framework for reviewing and potentially regulating this class of toxic new chemicals based on their persistence and bioaccumulative potential. This policy did not set a criterion for magnitude of exposure\u2014reflecting the long-standing concern that even very small releases of PBTs can be harmful to human health and the environment.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, EPA is backtracking on its 1999 policy by introducing a new criterion: a new chemical must be not only persistent and bioaccumulative but must also have \u201canticipated environmental releases and potentially unreasonable exposures to humans or environmental organisms.\u201d Despite the greater potential risks of PBTs, this change makes it more difficult for these chemicals to undergo the standard full new chemical review.<\/p>\n

Excluding certain PBTs based on undefined criteria such as \u201cunreasonable exposure\u201d only serves to undermine the review process for these chemicals. What exactly constitutes unreasonable exposure?\u00a0 EPA provides no clear answer. Yet, EPA would make this determination before conducting the necessary analysis.<\/p>\n

Moreover, EPA justifies this change by stating that it aligns with its long-standing policy. However, the term \u201cunreasonable exposure\u201d is conspicuously absent\u2014both literally and in spirit\u2014from the 1999 PBT policy.<\/p>\n

EPA should take an approach to PBTs in line with the agency\u2019s 1999 PBT policy, rather than introducing ambiguous terms and excluding certain PBTs from full regulatory scrutiny.<\/p>\n

Go Deeper<\/h3>\n

Read our previous blogs on PBTs<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Follow these links to read the other blogs in the series:<\/p>\n