Web Date: December 20, 2017
Trump administration delays bans of toxic solvents
Keywords: Chemical regulation, EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, TSCA, Toxic Substances Control Act, trichloroethylene
The Trump administration is delaying the Environmental Protection Agency’s plans to ban high-risk uses of three hazardous solvents.
Those plans took shape in the waning days of the Obama administration. That’s when EPA proposed the ban on methylene chloride and N-methylpyrrolidine (NMP) in paint strippers and trichloroethylene (TCE) in aerosol spray degreasers, spot-cleaning agents in dry cleaning, and vapor degreasing. These uses put people at risk for cancer and neurodevelopmental effects, the agency determined.
If finalized, the restrictions would mark the first time EPA has prohibited uses of a commercial chemical in more than a quarter-century. In addition, they would be the first such regulations since Congress amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 2016 to boost EPA’s authority to control high-risk uses of chemicals.
However, the Trump administration on Dec. 14 quietly said it will indefinitely postpone finalizing the planned ban of TCE uses and, at some unspecified time in the future, recast the proposed regulations for methylene chloride and NMP. Such changes could include withdrawing the proposals on methylene chloride and NMP, leaving the two chemicals unregulated.
“EPA is once again kowtowing to the chemical industry,” which has pushed back against the agency’s health conclusions for the three solvents and wants EPA to reassess the compounds, says Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at Environmental Defense Fund, an activist group. He calls the Trump administration’s move an attempt to undermine Congress’s bipartisan reforms to TSCA, which authorize the agency to regulate high-risk uses of chemicals.
Postponement of EPA’s plans for the three solvents is part of a document issued semiannually by the White House that lays out an administration’s agenda for creating or withdrawing regulations.
“EPA’s plan balances its statutory requirements to issue regulations and its commitment to providing regulatory certainty through improvements to existing regulations that were flawed, outdated, ineffective, or unnecessarily burdensome,” EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt says in a statement about the agenda.
- Chemical & Engineering News
- ISSN 0009-2347
- Copyright © American Chemical Society
Leave A Comment
Leave A Comment
Leave A Comment
I suppose my insight is really that I am uncertain as to whether or not these substances should be banned or more tightly regulated by EPA. But, I know that the general public should certainly use chemicals of uncertain/disputed toxicity with more caution, following common sense and using their best judgement to limit exposure to potentially toxic substances.
With regards to the environmental concerns, Mr. Hofmann is right that we should have substantial rationals before eliminating chemicals from use. Overall, these chemicals are relatively minor in the grand scheme of environmental issues. Surely more utility would be garnered by investing our time and effort into clean energy and other more rewarding ventures than quibbling over relatively insignificant damages to the environment.
Leave A Comment
Leave A Comment
Leave A Comment
Of course one needs to be aware that volatile solvents with high Kauri- butanol values will do harm if not properly used. One cannot expect a methylene chloride based paint stripper to only strip part of the paint.
Leave A Comment
Leave A Comment
Leave A Comment
Methylenechloride is first hydrolysed to methanol, hence links in to the same mechanism. Methylene di-chloride directly hydrolyzes to formaldehyde.
In toxicology literature there is a lot of noise on the toxicity of methanol, where the reference to formaldehyde seems to be avoided, possibly to defend the widespread use of methanol. Instead, in many cases formic acid is named as the poisonous substance formed from methanol. Yes, in the end all formyl moieties and intermediates will end up as formiates/formic acid, but the damage is done by the reactive formaldehyde intermediate. My conclusion is that all lone carbons in any manmade covalent compound should be considered suspect, since they all may end up in methanol, formaldehyde. Most potent drugs contain these moieties, e.g. N-methyl groups or formyl groups. Apparently, in Pharmaceutical development, the potency of formaldehyde is well known. Many of these drugs are known carcinogens, most probably for this reason.
To a lesser extent, chlorinated C2 compounds will end up in toxic chemicals, like ethyleneglycol that is well known to cause renal damage, as indicated in the comment of Mark Maxwell. Ethyleneglycol is oxidised enzymatically to oxalic acid that precipitates with calcium ions.
Since producers of chemicals have no short-term commercial reason to investigate toxicology, a clear role of an independent "judge" like the EPA is needed.
Leave A Comment
Leave A Comment
Leave A Comment
Leave A Comment