Regulatory Policy Implications of 1,4-Dioxane - Environmental Investigation and Remediation - page 454

Comment: Solvent stabilizers were important for protecting worker health and safety
against exposure to phosgene gas, which forms when unstabilized methyl chloroform
reacts with aluminum and decomposes. The objectives solved by industrial chemists
were worker protection and uninterrupted, high-quality production on vapor degreasing
process lines in manufacturing operations, whose economic value was critical to the
industry. From the perspective of the industry, solvent stabilization was justii ed and
provided tremendous benei ts to enable cost-effective and highly productive manufactur-
ing operations. Nevertheless, producers of 1,4-dioxane-stabilized grades of methyl
chloroform did not systematically scrutinize the risk of groundwater contamination
when developing and promoting their product. Similarly, scrutiny of worker exposure to
1,4-dioxane vapors in degreasing operations lagged behind exposure assessments of the
solvents used in vapor degreasers.
6. Identify and reduce institutional obstacles to learning and action.
Comment: In some cases, state drinking water regulatory agencies are separate from those
state agencies that deal with groundwater cleanup, leading to an organizational disconnect
between the institutional knowledge of each agency. Consequently, cleanup agencies some-
times did not adequately convey their knowledge of 1,4-dioxane occurrence to drinking
water regulators so that they could recommend 1,4-dioxane testing to water utilities.
Regulatory caseworkers managing solvent cleanup sites may not have fully appreciated the
extreme mobility of 1,4-dioxane, which could have led to directing the responsible party to
test municipal or domestic wells beyond the leading edge of the solvent plume. Conversely,
in some instances where drinking water testing revealed contaminants in drinking water,
there has not been a corresponding action by groundwater cleanup agencies to investigate
and mitigate the potential sources. These instances are probably the exception, but they
also exist between agencies that regulate food and consumer products, workplace safety,
air quality, pesticides, and other areas.
7. Avoid “paralysis by analysis” by acting to reduce potential harm when there are reason-
able grounds for concern.
Comment: The long timeframe required to investigate the potential presence of a chemical in
the environment before it is considered for regulation could be described as “paralysis by
analysis” when one considers that private well owners and municipal well customers have been
found to be consuming 1,4-dioxane-contaminated drinking water for extended periods of time.
The absence of reliable information on the environmental impacts and health effects of 1,4-dioxane
has not been the sole impediment to effective strategies to prevent further impacts or to address those
impacts that have already occurred. In those instances in which information became available on the
environmental consequences of emerging contaminants, there has been an apparent absence of politi-
cal will to take action so as to reduce hazards in the face of conl icting costs and benei ts (EEA, 2000).
The political will to act can be stymied when regulatory agency managers face substantial uncer-
tainty about the potential environmental hazard under consideration. In the arena of emerging
contaminants, those corporations with economic exposure to the ongoing or past use of potentially
harmful chemicals have devised well-i nanced efforts to cast doubt about the hazards, including “well-
crafted public relations campaigns that masquerade as independent scientii c information from unim-
peachable authorities” (Davis, 2007; see also Michaels, 2008). Peer-reviewed research that threatens
potentially responsible parties with substantial costs has often been vilii ed by such campaigns as
“junk science,” while industry-commissioned research is sanctii ed as “sound science” (Michaels,
2005). Examples include the campaigns to discredit the nearly unanimous scientii c consensus on
climate change and the health effects of nicotine and second-hand tobacco smoke; less blatant exam-
ples include efforts to inl uence the outcome of the standard-setting process for perchlorate. Some
efforts to inl uence regulatory outcomes have been undertaken both by industry groups and by
environmental groups, leaving regulatory managers to face substantial uncertainty as to the validity of