{"id":7704,"date":"2018-04-17T14:14:37","date_gmt":"2018-04-17T19:14:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=7704"},"modified":"2018-04-17T14:17:34","modified_gmt":"2018-04-17T19:17:34","slug":"edf-joins-opening-brief-in-legal-challenge-to-epas-prioritization-and-risk-evaluation-rules","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2018\/04\/17\/edf-joins-opening-brief-in-legal-challenge-to-epas-prioritization-and-risk-evaluation-rules\/","title":{"rendered":"EDF joins Opening Brief in legal challenge to EPA\u2019s Prioritization and Risk Evaluation Rules"},"content":{"rendered":"

Late yesterday, EDF joined fourteen other Petitioners in filing an Opening Brief<\/a> in our case<\/a> challenging EPA\u2019s Prioritization Rule<\/a> and Risk Evaluation Rule<\/a>.\u00a0 The Brief was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.<\/p>\n

Our Brief argues that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)<\/a>, as amended by the Lautenberg Act<\/a>, requires EPA to comprehensively evaluate a chemical\u2019s hazards and exposures arising from all of its \u201cconditions of use,\u201d a term defined under TSCA as encompassing the chemical\u2019s entire lifecycle from manufacturing and processing to use and disposal.\u00a0 EPA is then to make a holistic determination of whether the chemical presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment, including to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations.\u00a0 EPA\u2019s Rules violate this requirement because EPA asserts unfettered discretion to exclude known or reasonably foreseen exposures and conditions of use from consideration, thereby ignoring potentially important contributors to a chemical\u2019s overall risk.\u00a0 As a result, the Rules threaten to leave the public\u2014especially vulnerable groups like children, pregnant women, and workers\u2014as well as the environment inadequately protected from the potential risks posed by the thousands of chemicals to which we are exposed every day.<\/p>\n

EPA\u2019s response brief in the case is due to the Court on July 5, 2018.\u00a0 As this litigation proceeds, you can find more information \u2013 including all significant legal documents \u2013 on EDF\u2019s website<\/a>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Late yesterday, EDF joined fourteen other Petitioners in filing an Opening Brief in our case challenging EPA\u2019s Prioritization Rule and Risk Evaluation Rule.\u00a0 The Brief was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Our Brief argues that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended by the Lautenberg Act, requires EPA …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[44,114108],"tags":[68,56107,39193,91722],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-7704","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-policy","category-tsca","tag-epa","tag-lautenberg-act","tag-prioritization","tag-risk-evaluation"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t