3 hours ago
2
A new rule proposed by the Trump administration would dramatically weaken safety reviews for some of the nation’s most toxic chemicals that are already on the market, public health advocates and an EPA employee warn.
Many of the chemicals that would receive less scrutiny are among the nation’s most dangerous substances, including PFAS, formaldehyde, asbestos and dioxins. Each poses serious health risks in consumer goods, or for workers handling the substances, advocates say.
If implemented, the new rule would shorten the time it takes to review chemicals, and alter the methodology used to assess their dangers. It would also prohibit states from banning or restricting dangerous chemicals, and could invalidate hundreds of state-level protections.
“This is a gift to industry wrapped on golden wrapping paper with a big bow on it,” said Kyla Bennett, a former EPA scientist now with the Public Employees For Environmental Responsibility non-profit.
Federal law requires the Environmental Protection Agency to continuously review the safety of toxic chemicals on the market, and that requirement has been an industry target in recent years.
Under Joe Biden, the EPA completed dozens of evaluations and put in place restrictions on the most toxic chemicals. The Trump EPA has reopened those evaluations, a current EPA employee who did not use their name for fear of retaliation. The administration probably aims to reassess the chemicals using the new rule, which would reduce the level of scrutiny and potentially justify lifting restrictions.
In a statement, the EPA said the rule would not change the “basic methodological approach used to conduct the risk evaluations”, though it would streamline and speed up the process.
The new rule “would better protect human health and the environment by amending provisions that may impede the timely completion of risk evaluations, and therefore unnecessarily delay any risk management action that may be necessary to address unreasonable risk”, a spokesperson wrote.
The new rule proposes to eliminate review of some routes of exposure to a chemical from scrutiny. The EPA now puts in place restrictions if it can be “reasonably foreseen” that the public or workers may be exposed to toxic substances in the air, water, orally or dermally. The EPA employee said the Trump administration probably plans to exploit the gray area in that language – it seems poised to change the rule so the agency reasonably foresees fewer exposure routes.
The EPA is also planning to create what Bennett called a “giant loophole” by not restricting the use of some dangerous chemicals as long as those who work with the substances use proper personal protective gear.
The EPA employee said voluminous research shows that workers often choose not to wear the gear, or fail to use it properly. Moreover, if the agency finds there is no risk to workers because it assumes proper use of protective equipment, then it cannot put in place enforceable personal protection equipment requirements. The employee said this “circular argument” increases the likelihood that gear will not be used in situations in which workers are at risk.
“What the EPA is doing in this rule is saying, ‘Trust industry – they’ll protect their workers,’” Bennett said. “Since when does industry protect their workers?”
Industry has a long history of not protecting its workers from toxic exposures. DuPont in the 1960s knew its employees who handled PFAS were being sickened by the chemicals, and internal science showed it caused a range of dangerous health problems, but the company never told the employees.
The proposed rule also includes a requirement that risk assessments meet the Gold Standard Science framework that the Trump administration developed. The EPA employee said the standard includes stipulations that are effectively impossible to meet, so it seems to be “reverse engineered” to invalidate risk evaluations.
For example, the Gold Standard requires that all data used to develop a risk assessment be made public. But much of the research is covered by confidential business information laws or medical privacy laws, so it cannot be made public, the employee said.
“It would pull the rug out from the program and for almost every chemical it would say ‘insufficient information’,” they said. “We wouldn’t be able to regulate.”
In a press release, the American Chemistry Council trade group that represents many chemical makers, applauded the proposed changes. The EPA is “refining its processes in a way that is both protective and practical,” said Kimberly Wise White, an ACC lobbyist.
The rule making process can take about three years and will almost certainly be subjected to legal challenges. The law states that the EPA’s risk evaluations should be done within 3.5 years, but in reality they often take more than five years, and 18 are already open.
The agency’s political appointees are moving more staff into the toxics office, the employee said, probably because it is attempting to prioritize successfully rewriting the rule and redoing the risk evaluations to be more favorable to industry.
Many of the employees that are being re-assigned to do risk evaluations have no experience, so they are less likely to push back on political appointees’ pressure, the employee said.
Even if a Democratic administration that prioritizes stronger chemical safety reviews takes over the agency following the 2028 election, it would have to start a new rule-making process which would take another three years. Industry is satisfied with a tug of war between administrations because it delays regulation, the employee said.
“From a business perspective, every quarter and every year that they slow down the process means they can keep making a profit off of it,” the employee added.
