{"id":9010,"date":"2019-08-08T11:56:52","date_gmt":"2019-08-08T16:56:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=9010"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:02:20","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:02:20","slug":"trump-epa-caves-again-to-industry-demands-on-new-chemicals-and-workers-pay-the-price","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2019\/08\/08\/trump-epa-caves-again-to-industry-demands-on-new-chemicals-and-workers-pay-the-price\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump EPA caves again to industry demands on new chemicals, and workers pay the price"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

Isocyanates are nasty chemicals, including when they are left over as residuals after manufacturing other chemicals.\u00a0 Here are the kinds of risks they pose, according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Isocyanates are powerful irritants to the mucous membranes of the eyes and gastrointestinal and respiratory tracts. \u00a0Direct skin contact can also cause marked inflammation. \u00a0Isocyanates can also sensitize workers, making them subject to severe asthma attacks if they are exposed again. There is evidence that both respiratory and dermal exposures can lead to sensitization. \u00a0Death from severe asthma in some sensitized subjects has been reported.<\/p>\n

In prior reviews of new chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act, EPA has repeatedly indicated<\/a> that \u201c[i]socyanate exposure has been identified as the leading attributable cause of work-related asthma, and prevalence in the exposed workforce has been estimated at 1-20 percent.\u201d<\/p>\n

Both NIOSH and EPA have raised even greater concern over activities involving spray application of chemicals containing isocyanates.\u00a0 In 2006, NIOSH issued a rare alert<\/a> calling for workers to undergo medical surveillance and wear high-efficiency respirators and gloves when engaged in such activities.<\/p>\n

Even in the recent past, when reviewing new chemicals containing isocyanate residuals, EPA has typically (1) issued a consent order subjecting the company submitting the chemical for review to multiple conditions in order to limit workplace inhalation exposures to the residuals, and (2) followed up with a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) that extends those conditions to other companies, requiring them to notify EPA prior to engaging in any activity that exceeds those workplace limits.\u00a0 And the only case<\/a> since TSCA was amended in 2016 where EPA found a new chemical \u201cpresents an unreasonable risk\u201d \u2013 as opposed to the more common, lower-bar finding that it \u201cmay<\/em> present an unreasonable risk\u201d \u2013 involved residual isocyanates present after manufacture of two new chemicals.<\/p>\n

In such cases EPA has imposed some combination of three types of conditions on manufacture of such chemicals:\u00a0 prohibitions on activities that could generate inhalable forms of the chemical and result in inhalation exposures; strict requirements for the use of high-efficiency respirators and gloves; and a strict limit on the amount of isocyanate residuals allowed to be present in the new chemical, typically in the range of 0.1% to 0.2%.<\/p>\n

So it is quite disturbing to see how EPA has dealt with the most recent such new chemical for which EPA has issued its final decision \u2013 which requires that companies employ NONE of these protections.\u00a0 <\/p>\n

The notifying company\u2019s identity and its chemical\u2019s specific identity and use are all claimed confidential.\u00a0 The chemical’s generic name is listed only as \u201cIsocyanate terminated polyurethane resin,\u201d and its generic use only as \u201cAdhesive for open, non-descriptive use.\u201d<\/p>\n

On June 30 of this year, EPA published its determination<\/a> that the chemical \u201cis not likely to present an unreasonable risk,\u201d clearing it to enter commerce for its intended use without any conditions.\u00a0 EPA\u2019s final determination was the opposite of what its professional staff recommended when initially reviewing the chemical; staff recommended that EPA issue a section 5(e) Consent Order because the chemical \u201cmay present an unreasonable risk of injury to health and to the environment\u201d and presents considerable exposure potential.<\/p>\n

The final decision is also difficult to reconcile with EPA\u2019s own findings:<\/p>\n