![]() “There are tests for that, but my understanding is that the New Chemicals Division is not ensuring the right gloves are used for new chemicals.” In order to get the best protection, you need to ensure that the chemical does not readily break down the gloves so that they lose protectiveness,” said Gallagher. “PPE gives some protection, but it is often not complete, and some chemicals can sneak through gloves. But according to Sarah Gallagher, one of the whistleblowers and a human health assessor in the EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, that’s not a safe assumption. In some cases, according to the complaint, high-level EPA staff members have argued against the calculation or mention of chemicals’ systemic risks based on the idea that workers will be protected from their dangers because they will wear personal protective equipment. “They’re trying to say that if a chemical is corrosive, people will just avoid it, which is nonsense,” said William Irwin, an EPA toxicologist who is among the small group of scientists that has been calling attention to flaws in the agency’s assessment of new chemicals. Workers may also be forced to have repeated contact with chemicals to stay employed. Neither circumstance has any bearing on whether the chemical presents other risks. Perhaps the most significant problem is that people may not actually experience or notice any effect from an initial exposure - either because the chemical has been incorrectly deemed corrosive or because it is corrosive only at concentrations higher than the levels to which people are exposed. But according to the group of health assessors who have been providing The Intercept with insider accounts of corruption in the EPA’s chemical assessment process over the past year, this logic is flawed for many reasons. The theory behind the EPA’s decision not to calculate the risk of repeated exposure to certain corrosive chemicals - or to remove information about those risks - is that after the unpleasantness of the first exposure, people will avoid contact with the chemical in the future. In some cases described in a complaint that the whistleblowers shared with The Intercept and will soon submit to the EPA inspector general, the risks were calculated, found to be significant, and later deleted from official documents. Those harms include cancer, miscarriage, and neurotoxicity, according to the whistleblowers, who work as health assessors in the division. Managers in the New Chemicals Division have repeatedly and incorrectly used the idea that a chemical may cause irritation to the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract as an excuse to avoid assessing the risk of other harms it may cause. A group of whistleblowers has provided evidence that the Environmental Protection Agency has not adequately assessed the health risks posed by several new chemicals on the grounds that they are corrosive.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |