probable human carcinogen<\/a>\u201d in 2008 \u2014 to gauge the likelihood that the new compound might cause cancer. The results were alarming: One out of every 118 people exposed would be expected to develop cancer. In comparison, the EPA usually considers\u00a0one cancer in every 100,000 people exposed the upper limit of acceptability.<\/p>\nBut rather than using benzyl chloride to predict the carcinogenicity of the new chemical, without explanation the assessment relied on another analogue to gauge the new chemical\u2019s cancer risk, as the whistleblowers point out in their complaint. That chemical had not been subject to a repeated-dose carcinogenicity study, which the agency requires for assessing the likelihood that a chemical will cause cancer.<\/p>\n
If the EPA did not want to base its assessment of the new chemical on benzyl chloride, the analogue that had already been found to be a probable carcinogen, it could have asked the company to perform its own cancer studies on the new chemical. Or it could have searched for another appropriate analogue that had been assessed for its cancer-causing potential. Or, if it didn\u2019t obtain adequate evidence of its safety, the agency could have prohibited the company from using the chemical. Instead, the latest version of the assessment deemed this chemical, too, \u201cnot likely to present an unreasonable health risk.\u201d<\/p>\n
Fundamentally Inaccurate<\/h2>\n
In March 2020, Gallagher, the human health assessor, found that another chemical presented risks to workers. Experiments showed that one analogous chemical caused rats to have tremors and behave aggressively. Another analogue caused reproductive effects in male rats and mice. Information about both hazards were included in a version of the assessment that was finalized on April 8, 2020.<\/p>\n
But a month later, a manager in the New Chemicals Division created a new assessment. In this version, the information about the hazards had been deleted. Instead, in a section of the document headed \u201cworkers,\u201d the document explained: \u201cRisks were not evaluated for workers via repeated dermal exposures because dermal exposures are not considered likely due to the corrosivity of the new chemical substance.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\u201cIt’s not just that we did the calculations. We did the calculations and found risks, and then they got rid of them.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/p>\n
According to the whistleblowers, this statement is false. \u201cIt is intentionally misleading for EPA to put into a report that we did not calculate risk when we did,\u201d said Martin Phillips, a chemist and human health assessor who works in the EPA\u2019s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. \u201cIt’s lying about what we did. It’s not just that we did the calculations. We did the calculations and found risks, and then they got rid of them and said that we didn\u2019t calculate them. It\u2019s fundamentally inaccurate.\u201d<\/p>\n
According to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the organization that\u2019s representing the whistleblowers, the statements may be a violation of the law. \u201cI hope that the inspector general evaluates whether these false statement are violations of the criminal statute,\u201d said Kyla Bennett, director of science policy for PEER. \u201cEPA is not allowed to make knowingly materially false statements.\u201d<\/p>\n
To further complicate the assessment, a quick check of the pH of the chemical done by Gallagher revealed that it was neither acidic nor basic enough to cause skin damage. In other words, the chemical wasn\u2019t corrosive after all. Gallagher repeatedly raised the issue with her colleagues after she made the discovery, but the assessment was not corrected. It was finalized on May 29, 2020.<\/p>\n
In\u00a0the emailed response to questions from The Intercept, the EPA’s Carroll wrote, “EPA is committed to ensuring the highest level of scientific integrity across the agency and takes seriously all allegations of violations of scientific integrity.\u00a0Additionally, EPA is committed to fostering a healthy work environment that promotes respect between all levels of staff, supports work-life balance, provides for an open exchange of differing scientific and policy views, and achieves our mission of protecting human health and the environment. Where scientists identify a difference in scientific opinion, EPA has a transparent process that allows for expression, elevation, and resolution.”<\/p>\n
The email went on to say,\u00a0“The agency will fully cooperate with any and all future investigation by the Office of Inspector General.” The EPA inspector general is currently investigating numerous complaints previously filed by the whistleblowers.<\/p>\n
An Ongoing Problem<\/h2>\n
For at least two years, the whistleblowers have repeatedly argued against the use of corrosivity to dismiss other health hazards \u2014 a strategy they say is in keeping with other EPA efforts to make dangerous chemicals seems safer than they are. Since The Intercept began reporting<\/a> on their complaints more than a year ago, the EPA has taken several important steps<\/a> to improve the regulation of new chemicals.<\/p>\nBut according to the whistleblowers, the dismissal of serious health concerns with the mention of corrosivity continues. Just two weeks ago, Kyoungju Choi, a toxicologist in the New Chemicals Division, was asked to assess a compound. She noted that an analogue had developmental\u00a0and reproductive effects on rats. But per the instructions of a\u00a0senior staff member in her division, she was offered\u00a0the option of\u00a0dismissing these hazards because the chemical is corrosive.<\/p>\n
\u201cThen there would\u00a0have been no other hazards,\u201d said Choi. Although she felt pressure to dismiss the health concerns, Choi opted instead to lay them out in the document. While the assessment is still in draft form, she is hopeful that her warning will survive the EPA\u2019s fraught assessment process and go on to protect workers and their children from harm.<\/p>\n
The post EPA Whistleblowers Provide New Evidence of Ongoing Failure to Assess Dangerous Chemicals<\/a> appeared first on The Intercept<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Managers in the EPA\u2019s New Chemicals Division have refused to assess the risk of cancer and other harms of chemicals deemed to be “corrosive.”<\/p>\n
The post EPA Whistleblowers Provide New Evidence of Ongoing Failure to Assess Dangerous Chemicals<\/a> appeared first on The Intercept<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":106,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/765668"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/106"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=765668"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/765668\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":768869,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/765668\/revisions\/768869"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=765668"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=765668"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=765668"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}