carcinogens

EPA’s trichloroethylene (TCE) risk assessment: Will it succeed in protecting workers?

egrossman — Mon, 14 Jul 2014 06:00:41 +0000

EPA’s trichloroethylene (TCE) risk assessment: Will it succeed in protecting workers?

What do these places have in common: Camp Lejeune in North Carolina; Mountain View, California, where Google headquarters are located; Endicott, NY – the birthplace of IBM; and 389 Superfund sites in at least 48 states plus Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands? All are contaminated by trichloroethylene (TCE), a volatile organic compound classified as a carcinogen that’s been widely used as a solvent and degreaser in large-scale industrial processes, small commercial shops and in some products used by individual consumers. On June 25^th, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its final risk assessment for TCE, the first such report to be completed for any of the 83 “work plan” chemicals EPA identified in 2012 as sufficiently hazardous to warrant priority assessment. It is the first chemical risk assessment EPA has completed under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) – the federal law that regulates chemicals in commerce – since it evaluated asbestos in 1986.

EPA’s TSCA risk assessments focus on uses of the chemicals that fall under EPA’s jurisdiction (EPA doesn’t regulate food contact chemicals or those in cosmetics, for example) that have what the agency considers significant potential for human and/or environmental exposure. EPA explains that “If an assessment indicates significant risk, EPA will evaluate and pursue appropriate risk reduction actions.” What those actions may be is not specified. So an EPA risk assessment doesn’t lead directly to specific restrictions, but completion of a TSCA risk assessment is a prerequisite for further EPA action if high hazard is found.

“EPA calls on Congress to enact legislation that strengthens our current federal toxics law,” said Jim Jones, EPA assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, in a press release. “Until that time,” said Jones, “we are using the best available science to assess and address chemical risks of TCE that now show that it may harm human health and the environment.” TCE is one of the country’s most common groundwater contaminants and has been detected in ambient air in every state. EPA has noted that virtually all TCE in the environment comes from anthropogenic sources. Given the chemical’s toxicity, the agency has set as a safety goal for TCE in drinking water, zero parts per billion.

The EPA risk assessment does not focus on the widespread environmental exposures to TCE, however, but on health risks to workers in small commercial operations that use TCE-containing products (including dry cleaners where TCE is used as a stain remover) and to consumers using TCE-based degreasers and fixatives in art and other craft, hobby and DIY projects. Nothing regulatory has been announced but the EPA will hold a public workshop on July 29 and 30 to discuss alternatives to these uses of TCE and other “risk reduction approaches.”

“In the meantime, EPA recommends that people take precautions that can reduce exposures, such as using the product outside or in an extremely well-ventilated area and wearing protective equipment to reduce exposure,” wrote the agency in its June 25th press release.

A volatile and hazardous substance

TCE exposure, primarily through inhalation, has long been linked to cancer of the kidney, liver and immune or lymphatic system. It has also been linked to adverse impacts on development and on immune, neurological and reproductive system health. Exposure, occupational and environmental, has also been linked to low birth-weights and fetal cardiac defects, among other adverse health effects. In the 1980s and earlier, TCE was often used at such volume industrially – including by the electronics industry in circuit board and semiconductor production – that it was stored in underground tanks. Leaks and other unintended releases at many of these tanks sent TCE into surrounding soil and groundwater resulting in ongoing contamination that has lasted for decades. TCE is also used as a chemical intermediate in producing numerous other chemical products including some refrigeration gases, insecticides, flame retardants and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), as well as products that include disinfectants, perfumes, dyes, soaps and pharmaceuticals. Exact current US production figures are not available due to confidential business information claims but the EPA assessment says that 224.7 million pounds were reported to the EPA in 2012 and about 255 million pounds are used here in 2011 when global consumption was 945 million pounds.

TCE is not bioaccumulative and not thought to have high toxicity to aquatic organisms, but it can easily move through soil and groundwater and thus last for years underground. Epidemiologists and public health officials have documented clusters of birth defects and cancers that may be associated with these exposures. Breathing TCE in confined indoor spaces is considered among the most harmful types of exposure.

Because it is so volatile, TCE vapor can rise up from soil under foundations and infiltrate buildings – including homes – as it has done in communities across the US (a process known as vapor intrusion), exposing occupants to toxic but often undetectable fumes. Whole communities have been affected by such vapor intrusion. Endicott, NY sits atop a 300-plus-acre plume of TCE-contaminated groundwater – a situation dating back decades. NIOSH research has found significantly elevated rates of certain cancers including leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and kidney cancer among workers there exposed to TCE. A 2005 New York State Department of Health study also found high rates of certain birth defects and cancer, including kidney and testicular cancer, among people living in this area. TCE vapor intrusion also recently cropped up at Google’s Mountain View, California campus that is located where electronics industry plants and military aerospace operations spilled TCE into the soil.

Given these hazards, promoting ways to reduce use of TCE-containing products and to eliminate TCE exposure would seem to be a sensible response.

Industry objections

But within hours after EPA released its assessment on June 25^th, Senators David Vitter (R-LA), Mike Crapo (R-ID) and James Inhofe (R-OK) – all members of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee – sent a letter to EPA Assistant Administrator Jim Jones, questioning the EPA’s method of conducting risk assessments, the EPA’s scientific standards and suggesting that lead scientists on the assessment had committed “scientific misconduct” and “fraud,” and that EPA “mismanagement” had compromised studies used in the assessment.

“As there continue to be significant challenges with your Agency's ability to produce credible sound science in a transparent manner, we will continue to investigate OCSPP [Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention], its scientific findings, and the processes used for promoting individuals to senior-level positions, who ultimately have decision-making authority on chemical risk assessments,” wrote the senators who – with other Republican colleagues in the House and Senate – have previously questioned EPA’s assessment of formaldehyde, inorganic arsenic and endocrine disruptors. Vitter’s defense of formaldehyde has taken a similar tack

In the past year, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), whose members include companies that manufacture TCE (Dow Chemical and Axiall), has also written to the EPA, outlining its criticisms of the agency’s approach to its TCE TSCA risk assessment. Among these, spelled out in a March 2013 letter from ACC’s Director of Regulatory Affairs to EPA, is that EPA’s assessment should “explicitly address the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to regulate occupational exposures” and coordinate with OSHA to avoid any conflict or confusion.

The Halogenated Solvents Industry Association (HSIA), a trade association whose members also include TCE manufacturers, wrote in its comments to EPA on the draft assessment: “…it would be a clear overreach of EPA’s authority for it to assert the power to regulate to protect workers in occupational settings when this responsibility has been delegated by Congress to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration…” The HSIA also takes issue with the entire premise of the EPA assessment, saying that EPA has not met the standard of showing there is “unreasonable risk” to health from the TCE exposures under consideration and therefore would be lacking authority to act as it is doing under TSCA.

The HSIA also questioned EPA’s authority to consider products that might be used in art projects – spray fixatives for example – saying that no further action is warranted given the warning labels issued under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) and by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. That EPA is also considering the risks of TCE to “bystanders” who might be exposed by the use of the products covered in the assessment, HSIA found to be without merit, saying this wouldn’t apply to products used occupationally.

Ongoing effort to cast doubt

Center for Progressive Reform senior policy analyst Matt Schudtz sees the Senate EPW Republicans’ and industry response to the TCE assessment as part of an ongoing pattern of action to stall and question EPA and other federal agency science on widely used but toxic chemicals. The EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of formaldehyde has come under similar attack as have the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) assessments of formaldehyde and styrene in its Report on Carcinogens. He characterized the June 25th letter from Sens. Vitter, Crapo and Inhofe to EPA as a “short term” effort in a “long game” aimed at casting doubt on now well-established science on these chemicals, including TCE.

As the salvo of criticism of EPA’s chemical risk assessments and accusations against EPA continue, those losing out are workers and other individuals who continue to be exposed and the thousands of “by-standers” exposed to TCE environmentally as its large-scale use persists.

Elizabeth Grossman is the author of Chasing Molecules: Poisonous Products, Human Health, and the Promise of Green Chemistry, High Tech Trash: Digital Devices, Hidden Toxics, and Human Health, and other books. Her work has appeared in a variety of publications including Scientific American, Yale e360, Environmental Health Perspectives, Ensia, The Washington Post, Salon and The Nation.

egrossman Mon, 07/14/2014 - 02:00

Worth reading: Antibiotic resistance, income inequality, and industry muscle

lborkowski — Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:27:52 +0000

Worth reading: Antibiotic resistance, income inequality, and industry muscle

A few of the recent pieces I've liked:

Two Nature news features on antibiotic-resistant bacteria, by Maryn McKenna and Beth Mole, respectively: Antibiotic resistance: The last resort and MRSA: Farming up trouble

David Leonhardt in the New York Times: In Climbing Income Ladder, Location Matters

Jim Morris at the Center for Public Integrity: Industry muscle targets federal 'Report on Carcinogens'

Stephanie Lee in the San Francisco Chronicle/ Reporting on Health: Poverty, health struggles in scenic Mendocino

Charles Kenny & Justin Sandefur in Foreign Policy: Can Silicon Valley Save the World? ("Defeating global poverty is the latest start-up trend. But is there really an app for that?")

lborkowski Wed, 07/31/2013 - 09:27

Preventing breast cancer: the cancer free economy

lborkowski — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 12:46:00 +0000

Preventing breast cancer: the cancer free economy

By Polly Hoppin, Dick Clapp, Molly Jacobs, Margaret Quinn and David Kriebel

We all know a woman who has been diagnosed with breast cancer, whether she’s our mother, sister, close friend or neighbor. It’s the most common invasive cancer in women in this country, and we need to get more serious about preventing it. Last month a respected group released a report on breast cancer prevention with a clear and urgent message: “identifying and mitigating the environmental causes of breast cancer is the key to reducing the number of new cases.” The report of the Interagency Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Coordinating Committee (IBCERCC) was widely covered in the press and concluded that a “substantial number of new cases” of breast cancer could be prevented through coordinated targeted research and action on environmental and lifestyle factors that cause breast cancer.

The IBCERCC called for an urgent acceleration in environmental research on cancer prevention – identifying which chemicals and physical factors cause breast cancer. We agree, and we urge one more step in breast cancer prevention research: figuring out how to wean our economy from dependence on cancer-causing chemicals. Many Americans assume that it is not legal to release carcinogens into our environment and food or to put them in the products we buy. As we know, this is not the case. And when we use carcinogens in our workplaces and put them in our consumer products, we are building our economy with chemicals that can cause cancer.

Both types of environmental cancer research can be done now. Many environmental carcinogens have already been identified and there are already some great examples of government and private industry innovations that replace carcinogens in our economy.

Carcinogen Reduction Success Stories
In Massachusetts the Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA) of 1989 established the Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI) at the University of Massachusetts Lowell to work with companies using certain toxic chemicals to develop plans to reduce or eliminate them. Toxic substances are identified from authoritative sources such as the EPA Superfund chemicals list. The law does not require companies to implement the plans – simply to prepare them and file them with the state. There are no fines for failure to follow the plans, and no lengthy and litigious battles over the “safe” amount of a chemical. To prepare the TURA plans, the companies and TURI conduct collaborative research to develop feasible, safer alternatives.

Now, after more than twenty years of experience with TURA, it is possible to evaluate how it has worked. If we look at the results for carcinogens only (the law targets many types of toxic substances), we see that releases of carcinogens into Massachusetts air and water have declined by 93% since the program began. The volume of carcinogens used has fallen by 31% since 1990, and reporting companies have remained in business (see Figure A). The use of one probable carcinogen, perchloroethylene (the major chemical used in dry cleaning), has been reduced by 85% among the companies reporting under the state law. In addition, a number of dry cleaners in communities around the state are cost-effectively switching to “wet-cleaning” methods that rely on water instead of a toxic solvent. California has introduced similar measures and is making similar progress in reducing this and other toxic chemicals.

In the private sector, Seventh Generation has made a major commitment to identifying and adopting safer and non-carcinogenic personal care and cleaning products. In 2009, Seventh Generation moved to eliminate 1,4-dioxane from its hand-cleaning product because it was then listed as a possible human carcinogen with links to breast cancer. Other U.S. companies have followed Seventh Generation’s lead in this and other product changes. Another major U.S. company, Johnson & Johnson, has committed to removing a known carcinogen, formaldehyde, from its personal care products by the end of 2015. These initiatives show that businesses can remove carcinogenic chemicals from production and use and still thrive. Often, public relations drives companies to adopt less-toxic alternatives. Consumer concern about carcinogens is an important driver for transforming to a cancer free economy.

The IBCERCC joined other authoritative groups such as the Institute of Medicine and the President’s Cancer Panel in emphasizing the importance of environmental health research for cancer prevention. These groups have consistently concluded that this research would likely pay off in effective (and cost saving) methods of preventing this terrible disease. Our work with partners like the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Seventh Generation, and others has shown us the importance of an almost entirely overlooked area of cancer research: strategies to identify and remove carcinogens from consumer products, workplaces and the life cycle of the materials that flow through our economy and ultimately into our bodies. This is research on the solutions to environmental exposures to carcinogens – research leading us towards a cancer free economy.

Polly Hoppin, Dick Clapp, Molly Jacobs, Margaret Quinn and David Kriebel work for the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production.

lborkowski Mon, 03/25/2013 - 08:46

"This is not to say that all chemicals are evil"

dblum — Fri, 07 May 2010 12:09:04 +0000

"This is not to say that all chemicals are evil"

The title of this post is taken from today's opinion piece by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, which focuses on carcinogens in our daily life and our failure to regulate exposure to dangerous compounds.

Kristof's point is that we should do a better job of protecting ourselves and our environment from industrial compounds. No argument there. He goes on to say that a "proliferation of chemicals in water, foods, air and household products" is suspected as a factor in rising cancer rates. Yes, argument here.

Because, geez, water is a chemical compound (hydrogen and oxygen). And the atmosphere has always been a wonderfully mixed up soup of gases, mostly nitrogen (78.08 percent) and oxygen (20.95 percent), with a sprinkle of argon (.93 percent) and a dash of carbon dioxide, neon, helium, methane, krypton, nitrous oxide, hydrogen and ozone. (Ozone, by the way, is just another way of saying three oxygen atoms bonded together). And everything we eat or drink- although we don't usually consider it - is made of nothing but, yes, chemicals. Take table sugar or sucrose. Nothing but a collection of very familiar chemicals: C₁₂H₂₂O₁₁ (12 carbon atoms, 22 hydrogen and 11 oxygen).

After proposing a link between too much chemistry and not just cancer but diabetes, obesity and autism, Kristof goes on to note "This is not to say that chemicals are evil...". Darn right they're not. We're made of them ourselves; scientists have tallied up some 41 chemical elements in body's construction, the largest proportion (87 percent) being hydrogen and oxygen. In other words, we're mostly made of H₂O, also known as water.

So let's give chemicals a break, okay? They're not the problem. The problems come from the way we mix them up, the way we fail to appreciate how dangerously experimental some of these compounds are, the casual way we stir them into our daily lives, and - here I agree with Kristof - our failure to fully fund research into the consequences of these compounds or to regulate them with any enthusiasm.

But we won't begin to fix any of this if we don't get the basics right. And now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to drown my frustrations in a glass of C₂H₅OH, preferably of the sauvignon blanc variety.

dblum Fri, 05/07/2010 - 08:09