Climate change solutions
We deliver game-changing environmental solutions that have a real impact for people around the globe.
In case you missed it, an out-of-touch, industry-first proposal from Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives threatens to significantly weaken the Toxic Substances Control Act, a popular chemical safety law that helps keep dangerous chemicals out of our homes, workplaces and schools. A similar proposal from the U.S. Senate would also roll back these essential public health protections.
Why does this matter? The Toxic Substances Control Act gives EPA the authority and responsibility to review chemicals more effectively – before and after they enter the market. The law underwent a critical reform 10 years ago because it was not sufficiently protecting millions of Americans. Now, the Toxic Substances Control Act is working, and it’s keeping the most dangerous chemicals out of our lives.
Here are some ways our bedrock chemical safety law is working to protect us, and what’s at stake if Republicans in Congress weaken it. Over the next few weeks, we’ll dive deeper on how industry-first Republican proposals in Congress would put profits over health, and how the Toxic Substances Control Act keeps us safe – and is worth fighting for.
Note: this is the fifth in a series about how the House Republicans’ proposal would undermine EPA’s ability to protect public health and the environment from toxic chemicals.
Evaluating risks with health and safety in mind
The Toxic Substances Control Act requires EPA to evaluate chemicals based on the risks they pose to people and the environment – without weighing other factors like cost, or how feasible the industry considers controls on the chemical, such as limiting its use in a consumer product. Factors other than risk are considered when EPA determines how to eliminate the unreasonable risk. This approach puts public health at the center of EPA’s decision-making, rather than industry interests.
And under the current law, once EPA identifies an unreasonable risk from a chemical, the agency has clear authority to act to mitigate these risks. Before the Toxic Substances Control Act was reformed a decade ago, the agency lacked this authority. Now, the law gives EPA the tools and authority to prevent these unreasonable risks from harming the public or environment.
“Reasonably feasible” for whom?
But the proposal from House Republicans undermines this public health approach, instead requiring EPA to base its evaluation of the risks on cost-effectiveness and feasibility. When making decisions about how to control the unreasonable risks for a chemical already on the market, EPA would be required to choose measures that would “minimize, to the extent reasonably feasible, such risk of injury to health or the environment.”
By centering concerns about industry’s feasibility from the outset during the risk evaluation process, the proposal ensures that industry’s economic preferences shape the outcome before protective options are even considered. This approach will likely create a dangerous disconnect between what industry deems feasible and what protections are needed to keep people safe.
Here’s what this could look like in practice. A chemical company may tell EPA that it’s only “reasonably feasible” to control a chemical’s risk by a small amount – say, 5% of what EPA considers health-protective. Under this proposal, EPA would have no choice but to take this industry claim at face value, leaving people at risk. With the “reasonably feasible” excuse, EPA would not be able to ban or meaningfully restrict the most toxic chemicals.
For decades, the industry has argued that meaningful protections – like swapping in a safer alternative or installing controls that limit exposure – aren’t economically feasible for them, regardless of how severely workers and people living nearby could be harmed by exposure. Embedding feasibility for the industry as a constraint in risk management virtually guarantees that the most protective options will be systematically underweighted.
Blocking state action
Restricting EPA’s protections to only what the industry deems feasible will inevitably lead to weaker protections at the federal level. But the proposal takes a dangerous step beyond this and blocks states from enacting stronger standards that fill the gap in federal protections.
Under this proposal, when EPA takes action on a chemical already on the market, states would be preempted from requiring stronger restrictions – no matter how weak and unprotective the EPA regulation. The Republican proposal would lock in federal regulations that are feasible for the chemical industry but leave families at risk. Under this weakened version of the law, the states will not be able to do anything to protect their citizens.
Incentivizing EPA to propose weaker protections
If EPA proposes a restriction that industry argues is not technically or economically feasible, the restriction – even if it is only labeling – would be considered to “substantially prevent the specific” use, effectively banning that use. This creates a Catch-22 for the agency: knowing that stronger proposed protections would trigger long, drawn-out battles with the industry over what’s feasible, EPA will be incentivized to propose weaker controls on a chemical, even in instances when the science clearly calls for something stronger.
Instead of framing the question as what’s needed to keep workers and families safe from chemical exposure, the agency would be encouraged to consider how much of a struggle it’ll be to require a company to control a chemical’s risk. Allowing feasibility concerns into the risk evaluation process opens the door to the chemical industry overriding risk-based protections at the expense of people’s health.
Go deeper: Dive into our analysis of the House Republicans’ proposal to gut the Toxic Substances Control Act, and read more about a similarly harmful proposal from Senate Republicans. ICYMI, our other pieces in this series are here:
Keeping workers safe under the Toxic Substances Control Act
What’s new: New research from EDF offers an approach for identifying potential cumulative risks and existing health vulnerabilities in communities on the frontlines of toxic air pollution. The paper, “Identification of Potential Cumulative Chemical Exposures in Overburdened Communities for Chemical Policy Applications,” published in the journal Environmental Justice, adds to a growing body of research underscoring the importance of considering environmental injustice and climate vulnerability when making regulatory and policy decisions.
The research finds that some volatile organic compounds, like benzene and naphthalene, and some metals, like nickel, chromium and arsenic, are often released together from facilities – as often as 72% of the time. These chemicals all cause neurological effects, and many of them cause the same kind of cancers and developmental harms.
Researchers also find that facilities that release more than one chemical pollute more overall – on average, they pollute 285,000 pounds, according to EDF analysis of emissions over a six-year period. This means that communities near these facilities are at risk not just from exposure to multiple chemicals, but from greater exposures overall.
Why it matters: Regulators, researchers and policymakers are faced with many decisions when determining how to prioritize toxic chemicals for assessment and regulation. This research makes the case for decisionmakers to go beyond typical considerations for prioritization and to look at the bigger picture of how people are at risk from exposure to multiple toxic chemicals.
Our new research offers a playbook for how regulators could consider two essential factors: cumulative risk – exposure to multiple chemicals that cause the same health effects – and overall community vulnerability, based on its baseline health vulnerabilities and other risk factors.
This approach can aid state and federal agencies in their chemical risk assessments based on a chemical’s potential for driving cumulative risks. It offers guidance on scoping for cumulative risk assessments and identifying opportunities for co-benefits to the most at-risk communities.
Our take: People aren’t exposed to one chemical at a time, and communities facing multiple exposures to chemicals that cause the same harms are at the greatest risk. Regulators and policymakers should consider this reality so that our chemical safety laws are truly health-protective – especially for the most vulnerable.
Read the paper here.
In case you missed it, an out-of-touch, industry-first proposal from Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives threatens to significantly weaken the Toxic Substances Control Act, a popular chemical safety law that helps keep dangerous chemicals out of our homes, workplaces and schools. A similar proposal from the U.S. Senate would also roll back these essential public health protections.
Why does this matter? The Toxic Substances Control Act gives EPA the authority and responsibility to review chemicals more effectively – before and after they enter the market. The law underwent a critical reform 10 years ago because it was not sufficiently protecting millions of Americans. Now, the Toxic Substances Control Act is working, and it’s keeping the most dangerous chemicals out of our lives.
Here are some ways our bedrock chemical safety law is working to protect us, and what’s at stake if Republicans in Congress weaken it. Over the next few weeks, we’ll dive deeper on how industry-first Republican proposals in Congress would put profits over health, and how the Toxic Substances Control Act keeps us safe – and is worth fighting for.
Note: this is the fourth in a series about how the House Republicans’ proposal would undermine EPA’s ability to protect public health and the environment from toxic chemicals.
The Toxic Substances Control Act keeps workers safe
The Toxic Substances Control Act gives EPA the authority to comprehensively evaluate the risks of a chemical and requires the agency to do so without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, like engineering controls or personal protective equipment. Consistent with the requirement to use the best available science, risks to workers should be assessed without assumptions that on-site worker protections are in place. That assumption would prevent EPA from having a comprehensive, science-based understanding of the risks facing workers.
Worker protections should be considered later in the process, at the risk management stage – not when EPA is determining whether a chemical presents an unreasonable risk, as the law requires. Risk mitigation should involve a hierarchy of controls, not a false assumption that the best way to protect workers is to hand them respirators.
No two workplaces are exactly alike
The law also directs EPA to base its risk evaluations on the best available science and on actual exposures, not assumptions about existing protections. This approach recognizes the basic reality that every workplace is different: risk mitigation activities, such as a particular engineering control, that work in one facility may not work in another, and the fact that some employers have mitigation measures in place does not mean that all – or even most – of them do.
This is especially important because even if a chemical is regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, EPA cannot simply assume the unreasonable risks to workers are mitigated. OSHA itself acknowledges that many of its occupational permissible exposure levels are outdated and often inadequate, and the agency recommends relying on other standards and guidance to keep workers meaningfully protected.
Going beyond what OSHA can do
The Toxic Substances Control Act has always played a role in worker protections against toxic chemicals. EPA’s role goes beyond what OSHA can do in several ways. The law requires that EPA evaluate risk without consideration of cost or other non-risk factors, including feasibility, when determining whether a chemical presents unreasonable risk. It gives EPA authority to set exposure limits for both new and existing chemicals, going beyond OSHA’s focus on existing chemicals. And it calls on EPA to regulate a chemical “to the extent necessary so that the chemical substance no longer presents such a risk,” equipping the agency with a broad set of tools to protect people. This includes, but is not limited to, the authority to restrict or prohibit specific uses, limit how much of a chemical can be manufactured or imported, require warning labels and safety instructions, mandate testing to fill data gaps and regulate disposal.
The House Republicans’ proposal would fundamentally undermine EPA’s ability to protect workers
Instead of requiring EPA to regulate a chemical to the extent that it no longer presents an unreasonable risk, the proposal calls for EPA to minimize the risk “to the extent reasonably feasible.” Under this new standard, a company could reduce a worker’s exposure to a highly toxic chemical by only a small amount and still claim it has met the law’s requirements. This change would allow harmful worker exposures to continue when more effective regulations are deemed too costly or burdensome for industry.
It would also put outsize importance on personal protective equipment, like respirators or gloves – the least effective way to protect workers. This must be the last line of defense, not the primary method of protecting people. Prioritizing outdated exposure limits and defaulting to personal protective equipment is another way this proposal puts industry profits over people’s health, forcing workers to take on the risk of toxic chemical exposures so that companies can avoid the costs of more effective and safer practices.
The proposal would also require EPA to assume workers are already protected by and fully compliant with weak, inadequate OSHA occupational permissible exposure levels. That is not a science-based approach to risk evaluation. It is a way of writing worker risk out of the analysis before it begins.
Go deeper: Dive into our analysis of the House Republicans’ proposal to gut the Toxic Substances Control Act, and read more about a similarly harmful proposal from Senate Republicans. ICYMI, our other pieces in this series are here:
In case you missed it, an out-of-touch, industry-first proposal from Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives threatens to significantly weaken the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a popular chemical safety law that helps keep dangerous chemicals out of our homes, workplaces and schools. A similar proposal from the U.S. Senate would also roll back these essential public health protections.
Why does this matter? The Toxic Substances Control Act gives EPA the authority and responsibility to review chemicals more effectively – before and after they enter the market. The law underwent a critical reform 10 years ago because it was not sufficiently protecting millions of Americans. Now, the Toxic Substances Control Act is working, and it’s keeping the most dangerous chemicals out of our lives.
Here are some ways our bedrock chemical safety law is working to protect us, and what’s at stake if Republicans in Congress weaken it. Over the next few weeks, we’ll continue to dive deeper on how industry-first Republican proposals in Congress would put profits over health, and how the Toxic Substances Control Act keeps us safe – and is worth fighting for.
Note: this is the third in a series explaining why TSCA works, and how the House Republicans’ proposal could undermine EPA’s ability to protect public health and the environment from toxic chemicals.
The Toxic Substances Control Act is successfully keeping toxic chemicals out of our lives
Thanks to the 2016 improvements to the Toxic Substances Control Act, many harmful chemicals have been kept out of our communities, homes and everyday products. The law requires EPA to make an affirmative determination about the safety of a new chemical, and companies may not begin manufacturing the chemical until this happens. By requiring chemicals to clear a basic safety bar, the law incentivizes innovation toward the development of safer chemicals.
This was a critical change from the pre-2016 version of the law, when a 90-day “shot clock” enabled some new chemicals to enter the market before EPA had reviewed the chemical or made any safety determination. Many chemicals that pose a risk to public health and the environment, like PFAS, made it onto the market this way.
An important way the Toxic Substances Control Act keeps harmful chemicals out of our homes is by requiring EPA to consider whether a chemical can be used in a “reasonably foreseen” way that differs from a company’s stated intent for the chemical. For example, a company may intend for a chemical to be used as an industrial degreaser, but EPA may have data to indicate that similar chemicals have also been used as consumer cleaners. The law gives EPA the authority to restrict use of the chemical to industrial settings with safety controls in place if the agency determines the chemical wouldn’t be safe to use at home.
The law also ensures that new chemicals are not used in different ways that could harm public health or the environment. A company may submit a new chemical notice for EPA’s review and identify a limited purpose for the chemical. If EPA has information indicating that the new chemical can be used in other ways that may pose harm, the agency may issue a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) to require an additional risk evaluation from EPA before the chemical can be used in the new or expanded way. If necessary, EPA can restrict or prohibit risky uses – before they begin. Without SNURs, companies could expand production, increase worker exposures or introduce a chemical into consumer products without thorough review.
While these common-sense standards under the Toxic Substances Control Act protect public health, the current proposal does quite the opposite. The discussion draft would weaken independent oversight of the chemical industry and prioritize quick approvals over protecting public health. Here are a few key ways the proposal could make it harder for EPA to protect us.
Return of the shot clock
This proposal brings back a de facto shot clock for new chemical reviews, this time with a twist: it would require the administrator of the agency – without the authority to delegate the responsibility – to personally issue an explanation of the delay. This would impose an immense amount of political pressure on EPA staff to rush through reviews, potentially resulting in less rigorous assessments.
A coin flip for safety
The proposal raises the burden of proof EPA must demonstrate to prove a chemical’s harm to an unreasonable level. Rather than centering assessments on safety of a chemical, EPA would be required to demonstrate that a chemical’s unreasonable risk is “more than likely than not” to occur. So in practice, if EPA finds that a chemical causes cancer 50% of the time – a coin flip, not rising to the level of “more likely than not” – that chemical would get approved.
This shift also opens a new lane for the industry to challenge EPA’s assessments. The chemical industry already disputes EPA’s risk assessments and the restrictions it identifies to mitigate the risks. Now the chemical industry could simply state that the unreasonable risk EPA identifies is actually only 49% – not technically “more likely than not.”
Accepting unreasonable risk?
Under this proposal, EPA would no longer be required to mitigate the risks associated with the manufacture, processing, use or disposal of the chemical. EPA may claim that because of insufficient resources, it cannot issue restrictions to mitigate these risks. Without the requirement to mitigate unreasonable risks, a company can make or import and sell a chemical without restraints, regardless of the potential harm it poses to workers, consumers or communities.
A limited, watered-down review process with the industry calling the shots
The proposal puts the chemical industry in the driver’s seat for new chemical reviews, creates exemptions for the industry and delivers it more power to override independent science. It would weaken health protections for families and workers by limiting EPA to industry-provided data. This provides the industry with the opportunity to pressure EPA staff, and it could impact the integrity of the review and lead to weaker protections for the public. It also restricts the data EPA can consider in its chemical reviews, blocking the agency from considering known or reasonably anticipated uses that fall outside of what the company identifies.
Go deeper: Dive into our analysis of the House Republicans’ proposal to gut the Toxic Substances Control Act, and read more about a similarly harmful proposal from Senate Republicans. ICYMI, our other pieces in this series are here:
A new survey from The Pew Charitable Trusts indicates that most Americans don’t want less oversight and transparency around the chemicals in their lives – they want more of it. More than 70% of adults in the U.S. are concerned about exposure to toxic chemicals, and five in six want government and businesses to do more to ensure chemical safety.
But a dangerous proposal from Senate Republicans is full of loopholes and exemptions to benefit the chemical industry at the expense of our health. These proposed rollbacks to the Toxic Substances Control Act – the bedrock U.S. chemical safety law covering the chemicals in everything from furniture to electronics to baby toys, as well as chemicals in our air, water and soil – would make it harder for EPA to keep toxic chemicals linked to cancer, developmental delays and infertility off the market and out of our lives.
Here are some of the ways the new Senate Republican discussion draft would significantly weaken the Toxic Substances Control Act and threaten public health.
Weakens EPA’s ability to regulate potentially harmful new chemicals
The proposal takes aim at the new chemicals program, altering fundamental definitions that would change the standards of review that EPA must meet. Many of these language changes would weaken EPA’s ability to regulate potentially harmful chemicals, making it harder for EPA to demonstrate that a chemical poses an unreasonable risk.
The proposal changes the requirement from EPA establishing that a chemical “will not present any unreasonable risk” to finding that a chemical “is more likely than not to present an unreasonable risk.” Rather than considering the harms to people most at risk, like children, pregnant women and people living near chemical plants, EPA would only consider the exposures facing the average person. It would also limit what EPA can consider when making determinations about a chemical’s risk, excluding the multiple ways we’re exposed to chemicals as well as narrowing the types of harms EPA can consider.
As with similar language changes in the House proposal, this shift would effectively turn EPA’s safety review into a rubber stamp for any chemical the industry wants to bring to market.
A dangerous exemption for the chemical industry
One major way this proposal delivers on the chemical industry’s wish list comes in the form of a broad exemption from the requirement that EPA consider the range of ways a chemical may be used. Currently, EPA must consider how a company says it intends to use a chemical, for example in an industrial setting, as well as other ways the chemical can also be used, such as in a consumer product. If the company asks for an exemption, EPA would be forced to only consider the limited ways a company currently plans to use the chemical, and the chemical would go through an abbreviated review with little transparency. In practice, that could result in a chemical approved for a specific industrial use ending up in a consumer product used in our homes or cars, for example – without having gone through appropriate risk assessments for that use. With this exemption, the majority of all new chemical applications can take advantage of this shortcut and fly through a weak approval process.
If a company doesn’t seek the exemption and undergoes the full review, the proposal would still preclude EPA from considering reasonably foreseen uses. It would no longer be enough for EPA to make the call that another use of a chemical is likely – they’d have to prove it, a likely unattainable bar the agency would not be able to clear.
Hazardous loopholes
Alarmingly, the proposal opens the door to “comparative risk assessments.” In practice, this means if EPA finds significant risk with a chemical, a chemical that is even marginally less harmful than one on the market – say, 5% less toxic, but still incredibly dangerous for people to be exposed to – could sail through approvals. The approval of the new chemical wouldn’t force the existing toxic chemical off the market, and it would impede innovation of safer alternatives. This kind of loophole is how GenX, a toxic chemical thought to be a slightly safer alternative to PFOA, got onto market and subsequently contaminated drinking water for hundreds of thousands of North Carolina residents.
This provision would also allow so-called advanced or chemical recycling – essentially the burning of plastic waste – to cruise through approvals, despite the significant toxicity of what gets produced. That provision alone would clear the runway for this harmful process to be approved under the Toxic Substances Control Act, but here the proposal doubles down and introduces another loophole to allow these harmful products to be considered “equivalent” to chemicals already on the market. For example, if a company wanted to burn waste plastic in the hopes of producing a small amount of naphtha, it would give them a pass to enter the market without undergoing a safety review. They’d be rubberstamped as naphtha, even though the little amount they’ve produced is contaminated with the waste plastic’s toxic additives and harmful byproducts like dioxins – and quite different than naphtha.
Return of the shot clock
The proposal effectively brings back a dangerous relic from pre-2016, before the Toxic Substances Control Act was strengthened with bipartisan support: the shot clock for new chemical reviews. The shot clock permitted companies to manufacture new chemicals after the expiration of a 90-day review period, regardless of whether EPA had reviewed the chemical or made any risk determination. The 90-day “shot clock” resulted in unsafe chemicals like PFAS entering commerce and the environment.
In 2016, by eliminating that default approval and requiring affirmative risk determinations, Congress prioritized the protection of public health and the environment over the 90-day review period. Under the amended law, the only effect of the new chemical review period extending beyond 90 days is that EPA is required to refund applicable fees charged to the submitter for the review of the new chemical.
The proposal would allow industry once again to run out the clock, making it impossible for EPA to fully evaluate and restrict the chemical’s unreasonable risks.
An outsize seat at the table for industry
The proposal puts the chemical industry in the driver’s seat for new chemical reviews, creating exemptions for the industry and delivering the industry more power to override independent science and health protections for families and workers by controlling how and what EPA reviews. At the same time, the proposal ties EPA’s hands in many ways, making it harder for the agency to assess chemical risks, determine whether those risks are unreasonable and restrict them, and adding unnecessary hoops for EPA to jump through.
Americans want chemical safety, transparency and accountability
While changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act are being considered by both chambers of Congress, one thing remains clear: Americans want more transparency, oversight and accountability around the chemicals in their lives, not less.
In case you missed it, an out-of-touch, industry-first proposal from Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives threatens to significantly weaken the Toxic Substances Control Act, a popular chemical safety law that helps keep dangerous chemicals out of our homes, workplaces and schools. A similar proposal from the U.S. Senate would also roll back these essential public health protections.
Why does this matter? The Toxic Substances Control Act gives EPA the authority and responsibility to review chemicals more effectively – before and after they enter the market. The law underwent a critical reform 10 years ago because it was not sufficiently protecting millions of Americans. Now, the Toxic Substances Control Act is working, and it’s keeping the most dangerous chemicals out of our lives.
Here are some ways our bedrock chemical safety law is working to protect us, and what’s at stake if Republicans in Congress weaken it. Over the next few weeks, we’ll dive deeper on how industry-first Republican proposals in Congress would put profits over health, and how the Toxic Substances Control Act keeps us safe – and is worth fighting for.
The Toxic Substances Control Act gives EPA the authority to regulate dangerous chemicals to the extent that they no longer pose an unreasonable risk to people or the environment.
Thanks to the 2016 improvements to the Toxic Substances Control Act, many harmful chemicals – including several that cause cancer – are finally being removed from our communities, homes and everyday products. The Toxic Substances Control Act sets a clear public health mandate: EPA must consider real world exposures to chemicals – including the multiple ways people are exposed to them – to determine whether a chemical poses an unreasonable risk to health or the environment. The law explicitly requires EPA to consider risks to workers, children and other people most at risk, and it must make this determination based on science, without considering costs or other non-risk factors.
Once EPA determines that a chemical poses an unreasonable risk, the Toxic Substances Control Act requires EPA to regulate that chemical “to the extent necessary so that the chemical substance no longer presents such risk.” And thanks to the 2016 improvements to the law, EPA finally has the tools to take action on some of the most toxic chemicals out there: asbestos, trichloroethylene (TCE) and methylene chloride, all chemicals that have devastated families across the country.
But the House Republicans’ proposal to weaken the Toxic Substances Control Act would strip away EPA’s ability to protect Americans from the worst chemicals already on the market.
The proposed rollbacks would sharply restrict the risks EPA may consider in risk evaluations for chemicals already on the market, and it would take away EPA’s tools for mitigating the unreasonable risk people may face.
The draft legislation does this in a few key ways. First, it lowballs or outright excludes risks to people most likely to be harmed by these chemicals: children, pregnant women, and people who live near or work with these chemicals. It severely narrows EPA’s scientific review, excluding aggregate exposures – the combined exposures someone faces from a chemical – and calling for the exposure pathway to be “more likely than not” to occur for it even to be considered. This is a fundamentally unscientific way to consider our exposure to toxic chemicals.
EPA would also be required to assume workers are protected by OSHA standards – even though OSHA says they are outdated and often not protective – and assume full compliance. This would devolve to an assumption that every person who handles these chemicals is wearing personal protective equipment 100% of the time. Personal protective equipment is the least effective way of protecting workers, and using equipment based on outdated standards leaves workers at risk. And the proposal would expand procedural obstacles – court challenges from the industry on EPA’s scientific assessments, deadline extensions – that could delay implementation of EPA’s protections.
The proposal calls on EPA to minimize risk… but not really
Rather than directing EPA to manage the risk of chemicals so they no longer pose an unreasonable risk to people or the environment, the Republicans’ proposal requires EPA to “minimize [risk], to the extent reasonably feasible.” This murky “reasonably feasible” standard essentially precludes an outright ban of even the most harmful chemicals, allowing restrictions that could only reduce risk by marginal amounts.
The proposal calls for cost-effectiveness for any industry action, pushing EPA to prioritize the industry’s bottom line over protecting people’s health when determining how to regulate a chemical. It also introduces new evidentiary burdens by requiring EPA to demonstrate that alternatives are technically and economically feasible for the specific chemical or condition of use. In practice, if the industry says the reasonable guardrails EPA proposes for a chemical aren’t feasible, then the chemical wouldn’t be approved. This will discourage EPA from considering health-protective controls.
One more loophole
An alarming loophole included in this part of the proposal would create sweeping exemptions and delays for replacement parts for complex durable and consumer goods, like appliances and televisions. The chemicals used in replacement parts would be broadly exempt from regulations unless EPA can show – with substantial evidence – that the part itself independently contributes significantly to unreasonable risk for the chemical. This creates a massive loophole for chemicals used in legacy products and significantly delays even the simplest protection when EPA finds unreasonable risk.
It all adds up to a proposal that would put industry profits ahead of Americans’ health.
Go deeper: Read more about how the House Republicans’ proposal to gut the Toxic Substances Control Act would put our health at risk.
