{"id":8177,"date":"2018-09-28T14:41:26","date_gmt":"2018-09-28T19:41:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=8177"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:02:13","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:02:13","slug":"have-we-learned-anything-in-the-last-4-decades-when-it-comes-to-allowing-chemicals-like-pcbs-onto-the-market","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2018\/09\/28\/have-we-learned-anything-in-the-last-4-decades-when-it-comes-to-allowing-chemicals-like-pcbs-onto-the-market\/","title":{"rendered":"Have we learned anything in the last 4 decades when it comes to allowing chemicals like PCBs onto the market?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D.,\u00a0<\/em>is a Lead Senior Scientist.\u00a0\u00a0Stephanie Schwarz, J.D.<\/em>, is a Legal Fellow.<\/p>\n

The Science section of today\u2019s New York Times<\/em> reports \u201cKiller Whales Face Dire PCBs Threat<\/a>\u201d \u2013 more than four decades after Congress largely banned PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls).<\/p>\n

Concentrations of the chemicals in the blubber of orcas living in waters off the coasts of industrialized countries remain high, and new research indicates the contamination presents an existential threat to the survival of these populations.<\/p>\n

Reading the article brought to mind concerns we have raised in recent comments to EPA on proposed rules it has issued for new chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).\u00a0 <\/p>\n

PCBs and TSCA<\/strong><\/p>\n

When Congress passed the original TSCA in 1976<\/a>, it banned the manufacture, processing, and distribution of PCBs \u201cother than in a totally enclosed manner.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 It also authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow manufacture, processing, and distribution of PCBs \u201cin a manner other than in a totally enclosed manner\u201d if EPA found that the activity would \u201cnot present an unreasonable risk to health or the environment.\u201d<\/p>\n

EPA\u2019s implementation<\/a> of these requirements and allowances resulted in a phase-out of manufacture of PCBs<\/a>, with some uses EPA deemed not to be totally enclosed allowed to continue<\/a>.<\/p>\n

PCBs are emblematic of a large group of chemicals of high concern.\u00a0 Congress imposed restrictions on PCBs because PCBs had been found to be PBTs \u2013 persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic \u2013 exceedingly slow to break down in the environment and capable of building up in the food chain to the point of harming the health of humans or other organisms due to their toxicity.<\/p>\n

EPA\u2019s PBT policy for new chemicals<\/strong><\/p>\n

Concern over the potential for new chemicals to be introduced into commerce that might be or degrade into PBTs led EPA in 1999 to adopt a new policy <\/a>and establish a \u201cCategory for Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic New Chemical Substances,\u201d under which it would more closely scrutinize, require testing of, and impose market restrictions on new chemicals expected or suspected to be PBTs.\u00a0 The restrictions could range up to a \u201cban pending testing\u201d for chemicals deemed to be very<\/em> persistent and very<\/em> bioaccumulative.\u00a0 EPA stated:\u00a0 \u201cBecause of the increased concern, more stringent control action would be a likely outcome, up to a ban on commercial production until data are submitted which allow the Agency to determine that the level of risk can be appropriately addressed by less restrictive\u00a0 measures.\u201d<\/p>\n

In recent months, EPA has issued five \u201cbatches\u201d of proposed significant new use rules (SNURs) for new chemicals<\/a> for which it earlier negotiated consent orders under section 5 of TSCA.\u00a0 Those orders were issued because EPA had determined either that these new chemicals \u201cmay present an unreasonable risk\u201d or that EPA lacked sufficient information to conduct a reasoned evaluation of the chemicals\u2019 risks.\u00a0 In some cases, EPA also found that there will be significant production and there will or may be substantial human exposure to the chemical.<\/p>\n

EDF has carefully reviewed these proposed SNURs, and to date has submitted comments on the first four batches (the fifth one is still open for public comment).\u00a0 EDF strongly supports the issuance of SNURs for these chemicals to ensure that EPA is notified in advance of companies seeking to deviate from certain conditions when manufacturing, processing, distributing, using, or disposing of the chemicals, so that EPA can conduct a review of the potential risks.<\/p>\n

EPA deviates from its own policy<\/strong><\/p>\n

However, as we conducted our review of the proposed SNURs, we were struck by just how many of these chemicals EPA indicated may be PBTs.\u00a0 As we dug deeper, we found that for many of these potential PBTs, the evidence indicated they also are likely to meet EPA\u2019s criteria for being both very<\/em> persistent and very<\/em> bioaccumulative.\u00a0 Specifically:<\/p>\n