{"id":8668,"date":"2019-04-03T08:25:51","date_gmt":"2019-04-03T13:25:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=8668"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:02:17","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:02:17","slug":"part-3-busting-more-industry-perpetrated-myths-about-new-chemicals-and-worker-protection-under-tsca","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2019\/04\/03\/part-3-busting-more-industry-perpetrated-myths-about-new-chemicals-and-worker-protection-under-tsca\/","title":{"rendered":"PART 3: Busting more industry-perpetrated myths about new chemicals and worker protection under TSCA"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

Part 1<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Part 2<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Part 3<\/p>\n

I have been blogging in the last few weeks<\/a> about myths the chemical industry is perpetrating about the adequacy and legality of the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA) recent reviews of the risks that chemicals just entering the market may present to workers.\u00a0 In this post, I address another such myth that, unfortunately, EPA has swallowed hook, line, and sinker<\/a>.\u00a0 This myth was laid out by one of the industry witnesses at the March 13 House Energy & Commerce Committee hearing on EPA\u2019s failures to protect workers from chemical risks<\/a>.[pullquote]One wonders when EPA will start doing what Congress told it to do, first in 1976 and then again, with renewed vigor in 2016:\u00a0 Protect workers under TSCA<\/em> \u2013 using TSCA\u2019s authorities to meet TSCA\u2019s health standard, not OSHA\u2019s.<\/strong>[\/pullquote]<\/p>\n

I\u2019ll get to this third myth in a moment.\u00a0 But let me first try to crystallize what is at stake in this debate.\u00a0 While the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has always given EPA authority to regulate workplace risks, the 2016 amendments to TSCA strengthened<\/em> EPA\u2019s authority and mandate to protect workers.\u00a0 TSCA now expressly identifies workers as a \u201cpotentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation.\u201d\u00a0 See the definition of that term in paragraph 12 here<\/a>.\u00a0 TSCA then requires EPA to identify and assess potential risks to such subpopulations when reviewing both new and existing chemicals.\u00a0 Finally, it requires EPA to use its TSCA authorities<\/em> to impose restrictions on any chemical found to present an \u201cunreasonable risk\u201d \u2013 which is TSCA\u2019s health standard<\/em> \u2013 to any such subpopulation.<\/p>\n

In a word, TSCA requires EPA to protect workers under TSCA<\/em> \u2013 using TSCA\u2019s authorities to meet TSCA\u2019s health standard, not OSHA\u2019s.<\/p>\n

Both before and after the 2016 TSCA amendments, the chemical industry has sought to compel or convince EPA not to regulate workplaces under TSCA, and instead to defer to OSHA.\u00a0 Industry wants this because OSHA\u2019s authority and capacity are severely limited and its legal requirements for regulating toxic substances (\u201chealth standards\u201d in OSHA parlance) allow vastly greater risks to workers than do TSCA\u2019s (see my previous post<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Sadly, under the Trump EPA, industry is getting its wish<\/a>.\u00a0 At industry\u2019s urging, EPA is acting in a manner that is wholly contrary to TSCA \u2013 and is less health-protective than even under TSCA before the 2016 reforms.<\/p>\n

Now let\u2019s get back to more myth-busting.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Myth #3:\u00a0 Safety Data Sheets and personal protective equipment have been shown to ensure workers are protected from any exposures to the new chemicals EPA is approving under TSCA.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Both industry witnesses espoused this myth at the recent hearing.\u00a0 The second of those witnesses, Tom Grumbles, identified himself only as a past president of the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) and related groups, failing to disclose his long career working for chemical companies<\/a>.\u00a0 I\u2019ll examine the claims made in his testimony in this post.<\/p>\n

Grumbles asserted \u2013 without providing any evidence or citations \u2013 that \u201cin his experience\u201d Safety Data Sheets (SDS) and their personal protective equipment (PPE) recommendations are essentially universally employed and universally effective. \u00a0In a previous post in this series<\/a>, I already demonstrated why OSHA regulations requiring SDSs and those purported to require the use of PPE fall far short of actually requiring that workers be protected.\u00a0 To summarize:<\/p>\n