Vehicle manufacturers say EPA’s Trump-era evaluation of industrial and commercial uses of chrysotile asbestos overestimated exposures, cherry-picked data and used flawed science to find that that nearly all such applications pose “unreasonable risk” to workers, backing chemical-sector groups’ calls to scrap both the rule based on the review and the analysis itself.
Trade groups are pushing EPA to craft a “consistent approach” for setting de minimis exemptions in its TSCA risk management rulemakings, while also renewing pressure on the agency for more transparency on workplace exposure limits for the solvent 1-bromopropane (1-BP) in particular -- limits some say should have been crafted by OSHA instead.
EPA’s response to comments on its final risk evaluation of the flame retardant tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP) lays out arguments against requests from industry and environmental groups alike to significantly broaden the review or rework its conclusions, defending both the TSCA office’s analysis of TCEP and its approach to setting workplace exposure limits.
Chemical manufacturers say EPA’s landmark rule phasing out chrysotile asbestos uses -- largely over workplace dangers -- “usurps” OSHA’s statutory power to protect workers, amid broader arguments seeking to cabin EPA’s power to regulate existing chemicals under the reformed TSCA.
Unions representing industrial workers and firefighters, as well as a broad coalition of environmentalists and public-health advocates, are urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to conclude that EPA’s landmark TSCA rule for chrysotile asbestos is unlawfully weak, arguing that the agency unjustifiably declined to regulate or even evaluate risks from several uses of the mineral.
A chemical firm trying to intervene in litigation over the deadlines for 22 overdue EPA risk evaluations of toxic substances says the agency and environmentalists are raising “straw man” arguments against its participation in the case in order to prevent it from extending the proposed 2024 settlement deadline for formaldehyde.
EPA has completed its first new TSCA evaluation of an existing chemical since the Trump administration, finding that 10 of 21 uses for the flame retardant tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP) contribute to “unreasonable risk” for workers and users of many products -- a conclusion that triggers a two-year statutory deadline for the agency to regulate those risks.
A formaldehyde manufacturer is asking to intervene in environmentalists’ suit against EPA seeking deadlines for 20 overdue TSCA risk evaluations months after the two sides proposed a deal that would require a final formaldehyde analysis by Dec. 31, saying that schedule “is unreasonably short” and ignores some peer reviewers’ criticism of the draft evaluation.
Industry groups say EPA’s draft TSCA evaluation of the solvent 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA) ignored key data on workplace exposures and ecotoxicity that they submitted under a 2022 testing mandate, leading to what they claim are “unfounded” determinations that it poses unreasonable risk.
EPA is proposing to find that just three uses of the phthalate known as DINP pose unreasonable risks that could warrant regulation as part of a newly released draft TSCA evaluation, including two workplace applications that the agency is conceding may have already been abandoned by employers.