{"id":8729,"date":"2019-04-26T13:10:46","date_gmt":"2019-04-26T18:10:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=8729"},"modified":"2019-04-26T13:11:23","modified_gmt":"2019-04-26T18:11:23","slug":"d-c-circuit-affirms-publics-right-to-know-about-chemicals-in-use-under-reformed-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2019\/04\/26\/d-c-circuit-affirms-publics-right-to-know-about-chemicals-in-use-under-reformed-law\/","title":{"rendered":"D.C. Circuit Affirms Public\u2019s Right to Know about Chemicals in Use under Reformed Law"},"content":{"rendered":"

Court strongly rebukes Trump EPA\u2019s unlawful attempts to scale back transparency requirements<\/em><\/p>\n

(April 26, 2019 \u2013 Washington, D.C.) Today, the\u00a0U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit<\/a>\u00a0delivered a strong rebuke to the Trump Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA) implementation of the nation\u2019s chemical safety law, protecting key aspects of the public\u2019s right to know about the toxic chemicals in our homes, schools, and workplaces.<\/p>\n

The Court agreed with EDF that EPA had failed to require companies to show that the identities of their chemicals cannot be reverse-engineered in order to claim them confidential under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).<\/p>\n

The Court remanded the rule back to EPA to require that companies make this showing to claim confidentiality.\u00a0 The Court also affirmed that other key TSCA requirements apply to confidentiality claims despite EPA\u2019s failure to include them in its regulations.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis decision is a significant win for public disclosure and a strong affirmation by the Court of the public\u2019s right to know about the chemicals to which we all are or may be exposed.\u00a0The Court ruled that EPA must require companies to provide real substantiation for their claims for confidentiality \u2013 and that EPA had failed to do so in the rule we challenged,\u201d said\u00a0Robert Stockman<\/a>, Senior Attorney at Environmental Defense Fund.\u00a0 \u201cEPA will now have to require significantly more evidence from companies before they can conceal the identities of chemicals they make and sell.\u00a0 As a result, fewer such claims will be allowed and workers, consumers and the public will gain access to more information about those chemicals.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the case,\u00a0EDF v. EPA (D.C. Cir. 17-1201)<\/a><\/em>, EDF aimed to ensure that EPA upholds the requirements set forth in the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to maximize transparency and public knowledge about which chemicals are currently in use by narrowing the grounds for asserting confidentiality claims and requiring more scrutiny of them. \u00a0The Court affirmed that these requirements apply despite EPA\u2019s failure to incorporate them into its regulation.<\/p>\n

\u201cA key goal of the reformed chemical safety law is to make more information public about the chemicals we\u2019re exposed to at home, in our workplaces and schools, and through our environment.\u201d said\u00a0Dr. Richard Denison<\/a>, Lead Senior Scientist at Environmental Defense Fund. \u201cWhile the Trump EPA has taken every opportunity to skirt its responsibility and conceal information that the public has a right to know, the Court\u2019s decision today affirms that the law trumps those efforts.\u201d<\/p>\n

On some issues, the Court gave deference to EPA in interpreting the law as it did:\u00a0 EPA\u2019s decision to delay assigning \u201cunique identifiers\u201d to certain chemicals with confidential chemical identities; and its decision to exempt chemicals made only for export from the law\u2019s Inventory notification requirement.\u00a0 Finally, the Court unfortunately ruled that EPA could in its discretion allow any manufacturer or processor to make a claim for the confidentiality of a chemical, regardless of whether that company had previously made such a claim.\u00a0 While EDF does not agree with the Court\u2019s characterization of our position, the Court cited the\u00a0Chevron<\/em>\u00a0standard that provides agencies with considerable deference.<\/p>\n

For more background on the decision, see the bullets below.\u00a0 For more information on this and other lawsuits challenging EPA\u2019s implementation of TSCA, see:\u00a0https:\/\/www.edf.org\/health\/tsca-case-resources<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Additional background on today\u2019s decision:<\/u><\/p>\n