A new analysis reveals that the Trump administration's plan to rescind 2024 regulations for toxic ethylene oxide (EtO) pollution aims to limit the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) authority to strengthen public health protections. Recent research indicates EtO is about 60 times more carcinogenic than previously thought when the last regulations were developed in 2006.
Background on EtO and 2024 Regulations
EtO is a flammable, colorless gas used to sterilize about 20 billion medical devices annually, including pacemakers and syringes, as well as some foods. When inhaled, it is a potent carcinogen linked to leukemia and other health issues. In 2024, the Biden EPA passed a rule reflecting updated science, requiring the nation's EtO emitters to collectively cut emissions by about 90%.
Harvard Analysis Details Legal Strategy
A new Harvard analysis outlines the administration's case, which would limit the EPA's ability to strengthen regulations when hazardous air pollutants are found more dangerous than previously thought. If successful, the 2024 regulations would be rescinded, resulting in nearly 8 tons of carcinogenic gas continuing to be released, largely in low-income neighborhoods. It would also permanently make it more difficult for the EPA to protect people from toxic air pollutants.
Erik Olson, senior adviser with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) action fund, described the move as part of a broader strategy to roll back controls on toxic chemicals and carcinogens. “This sends up a signal flare to everyone that we’ve got a real threat, and that the administration plans to gut cancer protections,” Olson said.
Impact on Public Health and Communities
Rescinding the new rule would leave about 2.3 million people exposed to EtO. The 2024 Biden EPA rule would have reduced emissions at 89 facilities by requiring continuous monitoring and controlling fugitive emissions—pollution that escapes from piping or other unintended sources within factories.
Giancarlo Vargas, co-author of the Harvard report and attorney with the Harvard Environmental and Energy Law Program, noted that the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to conduct a residual risk review within eight years after a chemical is designated hazardous. The agency first set emission standards for EtO in 1994 and completed its residual review in 2006. The latest research shows the chemical is 60 times more carcinogenic than levels used in that review, prompting the Biden EPA to perform a discretionary review to strengthen limits.
Legal and Regulatory Implications
The Clean Air Act does not explicitly address whether the EPA can conduct additional discretionary reviews beyond the initial health impact check. The Biden administration interpreted the law as allowing such reviews, but the Trump administration argues that silence means the EPA lacks authority to do so again. Vargas described this as a “big change” that would limit the EPA's ability to consider public health risks when updating hazardous air pollutant standards.
Erika Kranz, a supervisor at the Harvard Environmental and Energy Law Program, said the action is part of a broader pattern of authority-limiting interpretations by the EPA, including the recent controversial endangerment finding. The stakes are high because the new interpretation would be locked in for the future.
Industry and Administration Actions
The Trump administration's proposed rescission would save companies $47 million annually, according to the Harvard report. The Trump EPA has stopped calculating costs associated with cancer increases, leaving the societal burden unclear.
Meanwhile, the NRDC is suing to stop the Trump administration from exempting EtO and other chemicals from hazardous air pollutant regulations using a never-before-used provision for national security or technology unavailability. The move exempted about half of all commercial medical sterilizers from EtO standards without providing evidence to support the decision.
“President Trump’s exemptions of chemical plants from regulations of hazardous air pollutants not only sacrifices the health of communities, but they are also illegal and undemocratic,” said Jen Sass, NRDC attorney.
