{"id":8284,"date":"2018-11-16T09:40:42","date_gmt":"2018-11-16T14:40:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=8284"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:02:13","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:02:13","slug":"the-trump-epa-is-poised-to-grant-the-chemical-industry-yet-another-of-its-wishes-under-tsca","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2018\/11\/16\/the-trump-epa-is-poised-to-grant-the-chemical-industry-yet-another-of-its-wishes-under-tsca\/","title":{"rendered":"The Trump EPA is poised to grant the chemical industry yet another of its wishes under TSCA"},"content":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D.,\u00a0<\/em>is a Lead Senior Scientist.<\/p>\n

The chemical industry has long sought to have the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rubber-stamp as \u201csafe\u201d as many of its chemicals as possible without imposing any burden on the industry to develop the information needed to actually demonstrate safety.\u00a0 It has repeatedly pushed for EPA to set aside large numbers of chemicals in commerce and ensure they don\u2019t have to undergo evaluations of their potential or actual risk.<\/p>\n

During the debate over reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), various industry associations advocated for an approach that would have required EPA to quickly review all chemicals in commerce using whatever information was available (which is virtually none for the great majority of such chemicals), and set aside as \u201clow-priority\u201d any that EPA could not demonstrate were harmful.[pullquote]It appears EPA is trying to install a new parallel process, outside of TSCA\u2019s statutory boundaries, that EPA will use to set aside thousands of chemicals from any further review indefinitely and with no recourse for the public.<\/em><\/strong>[\/pullquote]When that didn\u2019t fly (more on this below), industry commenters demanded that, in promulgating its Prioritization Rule, EPA designate long lists of chemicals as low-priority without any review.\u00a0 One of the few positives of that final rule was that it rejected those calls as well.<\/p>\n

But lest you think the issue is settled, think again.\u00a0 Leave it to the Trump EPA to find an even more devious way of granting the industry\u2019s wish.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

EPA\u2019s ill-conceived proposal to \u201cbin\u201d the entire TSCA Inventory<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

EPA\u2019s latest move comes in its proposal called \u201cbinning the TSCA Inventory.\u201d\u00a0 It constitutes the second half of a White Paper EPA released in September titled \u201cA Working Approach for Identifying Potential Candidate Chemicals for Prioritization<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0 Last night, EDF filed extensive comments<\/a> on this document.\u00a0 Among our many other concerns, we voiced strong opposition to EPA\u2019s proposal for binning the entire TSCA Inventory, which numbers in the tens of thousands of chemicals.\u00a0 Here\u2019s why.<\/p>\n

EPA\u2019s White Paper is clear as to EPA\u2019s purpose in binning the Inventory (emphases added):\u00a0 \u201c[I]ts purpose is not to identify a list of high-priority candidates.\u00a0 Nor is its purpose to signal that the EPA has concerns with particular chemicals or categories of chemical substances<\/em>\u201d but rather \u201cto identify a portion of the Active Inventory that can be set aside as not containing candidates for high-priority designation<\/em>.\u201d\u00a0 Sound familiar?<\/p>\n

The problem with this is that the 2016 amendments to TSCA already<\/em> established a process for EPA to use to set aside chemicals not warranting further risk evaluation: \u00a0the authority and mandate for EPA to designate certain chemicals as \u201clow-priority substances.\u201d\u00a0 This was a highly controversial aspect of TSCA reform:\u00a0 Many stakeholders and members of Congress were concerned that it could be abused to shove large numbers of chemicals into that bin based on only limited information and a cursory review by EPA, thereby indefinitely or even permanently putting them off-limits to the process called for under TSCA to actually evaluate their potential risks.<\/p>\n

To guard against this, Congress carefully circumscribed the process for low-priority designations EPA was to use.\u00a0 Among the key safeguards:<\/p>\n