In an article published on August 8, 2019, news provider Chemical Watch reported on critical comments received by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) peer review panel for the draft risk evaluation of 1,4-dioxane (CAS 204-661-8). Published in June 2019, the draft risk evaluation is being criticized by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) for not using an oral cancer slope factor published during a 2013 assessment of the chemical by the U.S. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Instead the draft TSCA evaluation uses one that is five times less stringent and, as described by the NJDEP, “does not appear to be scientifically supportable.” Comments have also been submitted that criticize the evaluation’s mode of action for the cancer hazard, including an industry study completed by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) indicating that the chemical has a non-mutagenic mode of action. The industry study, however, has not been made public and was not provided during the panel’s peer review process. This has raised concerns among stakeholders regarding the transparency of the evaluation. Comments on the draft summary are being accepted online until August 30, 2019.

Read more

Andrew Turley (August 8, 2019). “TSCA 1,4-dioxane evaluation draws criticism for cancer hazard approach.” Chemical Watch

Kelly Franklin (June 28, 2019). “EPA releases draft TSCA evaluations for 1,4-dioxane, HBCD.” Chemical Watch

Richard Denison (July 30, 2019). “ACC and 1,4-dioxane: Its “late hit” tactics are just more of the same.” Environmental Defense Fund

Richard Denison (September 3, 2019). “Should EPA grant industry’s hypocritical request to now address 1,4-dioxane’s risks as a byproduct, it must meet a number of conditions.Environmental Defense Fund


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (June, 2019). “Draft Risk Evaluation for 1,4-Dioxane.”