EPA today issued a final rule to revise the framework for how it conducts risk evaluations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This rule is important for establishing how risks of harm from chemical exposures to workers, consumers, children and fenceline communities are assessed under TSCA. The final rule includes important improvements in several key areas, including requirements to consider all conditions of use and relevant exposure pathways for each chemical assessed, and improved occupational exposure assumptions and procedures for manufacturer-requested risk evaluations.
However, EPA’s provisions concerning the use of systematic review in risk evaluations are not consistent with the best available science. “We are disappointed that EPA walked back from Congress’s intent and the original framework rule that required risk evaluations to include a systematic review and a pre-established, chemical-specific protocol to comprehensively identify, evaluate and integrate all reasonably available information in a manner that is objective, unbiased, transparent, and consistent,” says Rashmi Joglekar, PRHE’s Associate Director of Science, Policy & Engagement.
In addition, EPA failed to make critical improvements concerning the identification of potentially exposed or susceptible populations and failed to specify requirements to conduct an aggregate exposure assessment and cumulative risk assessment. EPA also failed to require methods for dose-response assessment of non-cancer health effects that are aligned with the best available science.
Improvements to EPA’s procedures in these areas are critical to ensure that risks to susceptible populations are not underestimated.
“Fenceline communities and other susceptible populations will continue to face unreasonable risk if EPA decision making does not fully account for real-world exposures and health impacts,” says Tracey J. Woodruff, PhD, Professor and Director of PRHE and the UCSF EaRTH Center. “TSCA requires EPA to rely on the best available science. EPA must make improvements in these critical areas for all risk evaluations currently in-progress.”
About the author
Daniel Axelrad worked at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for 33 years in the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (1987-1993) and the Office of Policy (1993-2020). His areas of expertise include science policy, children’s environmental health, benefit-cost analysis and risk assessment. He has a bachelor’s degree in economics from Occidental College and a master’s in public policy from Harvard University.
