Trump EPA seeks to weaken scrutiny for some of US’s most toxic chemicals | Pfas
A new rule proposed by the Trump administration would significantly weaken safety reviews of some of the nation’s most toxic chemicals 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 to consumer goods or workers handling these substances, advocates say.
If implemented, the new rule would reduce the time required to review chemicals and change the methodology used to evaluate their hazards. 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 in gold wrapping paper with a big bow on it,” said Kyla Bennett, a former EPA scientist who now works for the nonprofit Public Employees For Environmental Responsibility.
Federal law requires the Environmental Protection Agency to continually review the safety of toxic chemicals on the market, and this requirement has been an industry target in recent years.
Under Joe Biden, the EPA has conducted dozens of assessments and implemented restrictions on the most toxic chemicals. Trump’s EPA reopened these assessments, a current EPA employee who did not use his name for fear of retaliation. The administration likely aims to reevaluate 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 risk assessments,” although it would streamline and speed up the process.
The new rule “would better protect human health and the environment by modifying provisions that could prevent the timely completion of risk assessments, and therefore unnecessarily delay any risk management action that may be necessary to address an unreasonable risk,” a spokesperson wrote.
The new rule proposes to eliminate from scrutiny consideration of certain routes of exposure to a chemical. The EPA now places restrictions if it can be “reasonably anticipated” that the public or workers may be exposed to toxic substances present in the air, in water, orally or through the skin. The EPA staffer said the Trump administration is likely considering exploiting the gray area in this language — it appears willing to change the rule so that the agency reasonably provides for fewer exposure pathways.
The EPA is also considering creating what Bennett called a “giant loophole” by not restricting the use of certain hazardous chemicals as long as those who work with those substances use appropriate personal protective equipment.
The EPA employee said plenty of research shows workers often choose not to wear the equipment or don’t use it properly. Additionally, if the agency believes there is no risk to workers because it assumes proper use of protective equipment, then it cannot put in place enforceable personal protective equipment requirements. The employee said this “circular argument” increases the likelihood that the equipment will not be used in situations where workers are in danger.
“What the EPA is doing with this rule is saying, ‘Trust the industry — it will protect its workers,’” Bennett said. “Since when has the industry protected its workers?
The industry has a long history of failing to protect its workers from toxic exposures. In the 1960s, DuPont knew that its employees who handled PFAS were being sickened by the chemicals, and internal scientific studies showed that it caused a range of dangerous health problems, but the company never informed employees.
The proposed rule also includes requiring that risk assessments follow the Gold Standard scientific framework developed by the Trump administration. The EPA employee said the standard includes stipulations that are effectively impossible to meet, and therefore appears to be “reverse engineering” intended to invalidate risk assessments.
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 can’t be made public, the employee said.
“This would pull the rug out from under the program and for almost all chemicals it would be called ‘insufficient information,'” they said. “We wouldn’t be able to regulate.”
In a news release, the trade group American Chemistry Council, which represents many chemical manufacturers, 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 rulemaking process can take about three years and will almost certainly be subject to legal challenges. The law states that EPA risk assessments must be completed within 3.5 years, but in reality they often take more than five years, and 18 of them are already open.
Agency policymakers are moving more staff to the toxics office, the employee said, likely because the agency is trying to prioritize successfully rewriting the rule and revamping risk assessments to be more industry-friendly.
Many employees reassigned to conduct risk assessments have no experience, so they are less likely to resist pressure from political appointees, the employee said.
Even if a Democratic administration that prioritizes more rigorous chemical safety reviews takes over the agency after the 2028 election, it would have to begin a new rulemaking process that would take another three years. The industry is content 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 continue to profit from it,” the employee added.
