Event – Points !

Environmental Laws US

Environmental Protection Agency

The T oxic S ubstances C ontrol A ct of U.S.C. §2601 et seq. (1976) Provides the EPA with authority to: Require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. Certain substances are generally excluded from TSCA, including, food, drugs, cosmetics and pesticides.

chemicals/pubs/principles.html Toxic Substances Control Act 1976 List not Regulation 62,000 grandfathered (i.e. “existing”) chemicals Since 1976 only 200 tested; only 5 (of the “existing”) are regulated Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s), Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s), Dioxin, Asbestos (compromised in court), Chromium (VI = Cr +6 ) Burden of Proof requires EPA to certify “unsafeness” High Bars to Banning – Three hurdles including consideration of the cost of banning/regulation => identifying least costly remedy See “Chasing Molecules” page 126 1) Chemicals present unreasonable health or environmental risk (so designated within 90 days) 2) Human exposure is significant 3) Existing information is insufficient to address health impacts

June, 2015Dec., 2015

Summary ? Laws Like Prop 65 Aren’t Going Anywhere: Several states have voiced concerns that regulations like Prop 65, California’s law that requires companies to list chemical ingredientshave voiced that could cause cancer, birth defects or reproductive issues, could be undermined by new federal laws. This is not likely. States are going to have a greater ability to regulate chemicals in ways that they see fit. Both bills allow states to co-enforce federal regulations through identical state laws, while preserving laws like Prop 65 from preemption. They also protect state laws regarding waste disposal, and water and air quality. But if regulations are contested, it’ll ultimately be up to the courts to decide how much preemption there really is. It Could Take Longer to Get New Chemicals Approved: Under the House version, the EPA review process for new chemicals is similar to the process in place now: Manufacturers provide information about a new chemical and the EPA could take no action at all, and after a certain period of time, you are allowed to import or manufacture that chemical. Under the Senate version, if you want to manufacture a new chemical, it will require affirmative evidence that the chemical is safe, and there will be a mandatory review by the EPA. The Way Chemicals Are Assessed Will Change: Currently, the EPA has to consider the cost to manufacturers of mitigating the use of a chemical before it can impose restrictions. Under both versions of the reform bill, costs will no longer factor into the EPA’s assessments and it will instead focus on health and safety. Companies Can’t Hide Behind CBI: Right now if the EPA requests information about chemical ingredients, a company can claim that it’s Confidential Business Information (CBI) and that could be the end of it. This will likely change. The EPA is going to require more justification of CBI. Compliance Costs Could go Up: Increased regulations could definitely add costs to operations in a number of ways. First, there’s the increased potential for EPA fees. Companies can expect to spend more time and money generating reports on chemical safety. There is an Upside: On a more positive note, the new regulations could streamline the rules and make the compliance process more efficient.

Issues Major congressional lobbying ($ 55 million last year; $ 245 million over past 4 years) by Amer. Chemistry Council and Dow, DuPont, BASF, 3M, Honeywell and Koch industries. “Monsanto Bailout” clause in section 7C inserted into H.R at the last minute (5/26/15) would absolve Monsanto of any liability claims regarding PCB’s.

Your Thoughts and Ideas