EPA science advisors are unable to agree on whether the agency appropriately chose to base its analysis of the risks of the common solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) on the chemical’s adverse immune system effects rather than its historical -- and more conservative -- focus on fetal heart defects.
November 15, 2026
Maria Hegstad
Maria Hegstad is managing editor of Inside EPA’s Risk Policy Report, where she has been writing about all things chemicals, risk assessment policy and toxicology since 2008. Before joining Inside EPA, Maria reported for local newspapers in Manassas, VA, and D.C., covering courts and local government. Maria is a proud native of the “other” Washington, raised in Tacoma. She earned her BA from the College of William & Mary and her MSJ from Medill.
Archived Articles
EPA is moving ahead with a planned peer review of its just-released draft evaluation of the common solvent perclorothylene (perc or PCE), which finds multiple uses that present unreasonable risk to workers, consumers and the environment, though it is unclear if advisors will have a quorum to be available to review it.
Date:
EPA’s first-time decision earlier this year to identify 20 chemicals as low priority for risk evaluation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) faces a looming litigation test as the 60-day deadline for environmentalists or other entities to sue approaches on April 26.
Date:
EPA has postponed the upcoming meeting of science advisors scheduled to peer review its draft evaluation of asbestos because some of the advisors are no longer available, a change in course just weeks after officials denied requests from environmentalists and its advisors to delay the meeting because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Date:
A federal judge has ordered a first-time citizen suit under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to proceed in a virtual bench trial later this year due to the coronavirus pandemic despite objections from the plaintiffs who had won the right to a de novo proceeding where they will be able to present new evidence to the court.
Date:
EPA has formally rejected environmentalists’ calls to take immediate emergency actions on three chemicals that the agency has found pose acute risks in its draft risk evaluations, arguing in part it would be “premature” to act before EPA works through the evaluation and management process laid out in section 6 of the revised toxic law.
Date:
EPA’s science advisors are raising concerns over the narrow scope of the agency’s draft evaluation of asbestos, prompting changes to the charge questions they will consider when they assess the draft during a peer review meeting later this month so they can formally discuss their concerns.
Date:
A key House Democrat and an asbestos awareness group are stepping up efforts to advance stalled bipartisan legislation seeking to ban asbestos, arguing EPA’s recently released draft evaluation of the minerals under the revised toxics law is too narrowly focused and ignores multiple aspects of asbestos risk as well an appellate court ruling.
Date:
EPA is moving ahead with a planned scientific review of its just-released draft evaluation of asbestos, which found the substance poses unreasonable risk to workers, consumers and others, despite calls from science advisors and other critics who had urged the agency to delay the review until after the coronavirus pandemic.
Date:
EPA’s draft evaluation of trichloroethylene (TCE) is driving new calls from its science advisors and a top former OSHA official to strengthen its analyses of occupational exposures to chemicals in the first 10 evaluations, suggesting the agency more fully address protections beyond personal protective equipment (PPE).
Date: