December 22, 2020
Michelle Nolan OPP Docket Pesticide Reevaluation Division (7508P) Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T) Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20460-0001 Washington, DC 20460-0001
Attention: EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0154
RE: Pesticide Registration Review: Proposed Interim Decisions for Several Pesticides (1,3-Dichloropropene)
Dear Ms. Nolan:
On October 23, 2020, EPA published a notice of availability of a proposed interim registration review decision for 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D).1 EPA also published responses to comments on its draft human health risk assessment for 1,3-D.2 The Attorneys General of California, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Vermont have reviewed the proposed interim decision and responses to comments, including to the comments submitted by those Attorneys General on April 6, 2020, and submit these supplemental comments to renew our concerns with EPA’s plan to downgrade 1,3-D’s cancer classification from “likely to be carcinogenic to humans” to “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential.”
EPA relies on unsupported justifications to exclude a wealth of relevant evidence that shows— as EPA concluded in past reviews over decades—that 1,3-D is likely carcinogenic to humans. More specifically, and as examples, EPA improperly:
• Omits the foundational National Toxicology Program studies and several critical genotoxicity studies on the flawed basis that they used a formulation of 1,3-D that contained small amounts of epichlorohydrin; • Disregards key evidence of 1,3-D’s carcinogenicity in rodent studies based on Dow’s kinetically-derived maximum-tolerated dose hypothesis; and • Concludes that 1,3-D was not genotoxic based on insufficient analysis; the 2019 Cancer Assessment Review Committee report excludes positive genotoxicity studies that used dimethyl sulfoxide, though not the one negative study.
EPA’s responses to our comments3 on its draft human health risk assessment largely rehash EPA’s original findings. For the reasons stated here and in our original comments, we are
1 EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0154-0115. 2 EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0154-0117. 3 EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0154-0114.
December 22, 2020 Page 2
unpersuaded by EPA’s responses and remain concerned about EPA’s proposal to downgrade 1,3- D’s cancer rating.
EPA must follow the best science. Rather than contravene decades of consistent findings by EPA, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, and the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, EPA should revise its risk assessment to classify 1,3- D as likely to be carcinogenic to humans and quantify the cancer risk from exposure to 1,3-D. EPA should not proceed to re-register 1,3-D before it corrects this dangerous error, the consequences of which could disproportionately fall on the most vulnerable agricultural communities.
Sincerely,
ROBERT D. SWANSON STEVE NOVICK Deputy Attorney General Special Assistant Attorney General For XAVIER BECERRA For ELLEN ROSENBLUM California Attorney General Oregon Attorney General
PETER N. SURDO NICHOLAS F. PERSAMPIERI Special Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorney General For KEITH ELLISON For THOMAS J. DONOVAN Minnesota Attorney General Vermont Attorney General
ROBERT F. LUNDIN KATHLEEN KONOPKA Special Assistant Attorney General Deputy Attorney General For HECTOR H. BALDERAS For KARL RACINE New Mexico Attorney General District of Columbia Attorney General
LAURA MIRMAN-HESLIN MATTHEW J. DUNN Assistant Attorney General Chief, Environmental For LETICIA JAMES Enforcement/Asbestos Litigation New York Attorney General Division JASON E. JAMES Assistant Attorney General For KWAME RAOUL Illinois Attorney General