EPA draft assessment downplays flame retardant risks, advocates allege

Science review panel includes founder of firm whose studies EPA cited

The Environmental Protection Agency’s draft risk assessment for TBBPA, a brominated flame retardant applied to circuit boards and consumer goods across the US economy, concludes that the chemical presents no “unreasonable risk” to consumers or children despite its widespread use. Public health advocates allege the assessment is the latest example of the Trump-era EPA tailoring its science to align with industry positions.

TBBPA is applied to electronics such as computers, phones, microwaves, toasters and televisions, and to a broad range of other products including toothbrushes, children’s clothing, carpeting, leather goods, automobiles, airplanes, furniture and other textiles and plastics. The chemical easily breaks free from those products and accumulates in household dust. At least 552 million pounds of TBBPA were produced globally in 2016, and the chemical is found in an estimated 70 percent of electronics worldwide, according to reporting by the Guardian.

Independent researchers have linked TBBPA to hormone disruption, brain damage, immune system toxicity and developmental harms to children’s reproductive and nervous systems. The International Agency for Research on Cancer labels the chemical a probable carcinogen, and European agencies have reached similar conclusions.

Maria Doa, a former EPA scientist now with the Environmental Defense Fund, said the agency’s political leadership altered its scientific methods to reach a predetermined outcome. “The political people at the EPA changed the science to get the outcome they want,” Doa said. “This isn’t the first time. They’ve been doing that pretty consistently under Trump.”

In its draft, the EPA stated that “TBBPA is unlikely to be used in fabrics and textiles” and cited a finding from the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group that represents top flame retardant producers. Lakendra Barajas, an Earthjustice senior attorney, said the ACC provided no evidence to support that claim. She noted that a separate EPA assessment had found TBBPA still widely used in textiles, including 96 types of children’s clothing, and that Washington state records show the chemical present in products such as children’s pajamas and strollers.

“There’s a lot of underestimation of the risk, and they’re ignoring different exposure pathways,” Barajas said, “and we’re definitely seeing them cite industry sources.”

Earthjustice, in its formal comment on the risk assessment, identified additional scenarios the EPA allegedly underestimated, including exposure through the broader environment, recycled plastic, contaminated food and occupational settings. The advocacy group also documented the EPA’s heavy reliance on industry science to determine overall exposure, including a 2015 study from Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (Tera), which receives some industry funding and has a history of challenging regulations on toxic chemicals.

Doa said the EPA used Tera’s study to support its finding that TBBPA levels in consumer goods and dust do not pose a risk even to infants, despite the study having been originally produced for the US Consumer Product Safety Commission. The EPA also relied on American Chemistry Council research examining how much TBBPA accumulates in dust. That testing was conducted over a 30-day window, which the EPA itself acknowledged was insufficient, Doa said.

“I think the EPA underestimated the exposure based in part on this,” Doa added. “They rely heavily on the ACC and that is a huge problem.”

The Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals, the body charged with independently reviewing the EPA’s science, is now composed largely of industry-aligned scientists appointed by the Trump administration. Among the new appointees is Michael Dourson, the Tera founder whose firm produced the industry-aligned studies the assessment draws on — a structure critics say raises conflict-of-interest concerns because Dourson is effectively reviewing his firm’s work.

Even so, the committee initially found that the EPA might have underestimated the risk in some instances, according to Penny Fenner-Crisp, a former EPA water division manager who worked with Dourson. Fenner-Crisp submitted comments on the assessment on behalf of the Environmental Protection Network, raising procedural concerns about the limited window for public input and what she characterized as a rushed process vulnerable to legal challenge.

“The integrity of the process is key as the regulatory decisions that will ultimately be made must be based upon solid and credible scientific evidence to assure that public health and the environment will be appropriately protected,” Fenner-Crisp wrote. “The American population deserves nothing less.”

Arlene Blum, director of the Green Science Policy Institute, which researches flame retardants and works with industries to remove them from products, said TBBPA in plastics and consumer goods should be restricted.

“It can get into humans and contribute to cancer and behavioral harm,” Blum said. “Infants and toddlers who crawl in the dust and put their hands in their mouths are especially vulnerable.”

The EPA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.