Share this e-Alert:

Polsinelli Environmental
         

  

June 2015

  

Proposed TSCA Legislation Ramps Up Safety Requirements for Manufacturers, EPA

  

 
 

  

     

  

 
 
 

For more information on this alert, please contact:

  

Marissa L. Curran

Author

314.622.6174

Email | Bio

  

Additional Environmental Leaders:

  

Christopher E. Erker

Practice Area Chair

314.622.6679

Email | Bio

  

Jane E. Fedder

Practice Area Vice Chair

314.552.6867

Email | Bio

  

Learn more about our Environmental Professionals, click here.

  

For current Intelligence or to learn more about our Environmental practice, click here.

  

  


View Polsinelli documents on JD Supra  

SUBSCRIBE

LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Polsinelli Podcast

 

   

  

While consumers typically believe that anything they can buy in the store has been government tested for safety, that's not always the case. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has been in effect and essentially unchanged since 1976. The TSCA as it stands today allows chemicals to be used in consumer products without being proven safe, and it is seen by many as an outdated and ineffective regulatory scheme. In March 2015, draft bi-partisan chemical safety legislation aimed at amending the TSCA to better protect the public passed a Senate vote, and earlier this month, a slightly tweaked draft cleared its House subcommittee. The draft legislation is referred to as the Udall-Vitter bill.

If passed into law, the reforms to the TSCA would:

  • Require safety reviews for all chemicals in commerce (including on those "grandfathered" under the current federal law) depending solely on risk to human health and the environment;
  • Require the EPA to review and approve the approximately 1,000 new chemicals that enter the market each year before they are manufactured;
  • Require the EPA to take into consideration the latest science to determine impacts on human health and the environment;
  • Require chemical companies to contribute to the cost of regulation;
  • Eliminate current "least burdensome" requirement for regulating a chemical;
  • Lower the bar for when the EPA can designate a chemical "high priority;"
  • Impose strict liability on chemical importers;
  • Require the EPA to look to "scientifically reliable alternatives" before conducting any new animal tests;
  • Require the EPA to leave cost aside in determining the safety of chemicals in the marketplace;
  • Preserve private right of action for negligence;
  • Require the EPA to consider impact of chemicals on vulnerable populations (elderly, children, pregnant women, chemical workers); and
  • Sets 15 deadlines for EPA action as well as limits on Confidential Business Information (CBI) claims.

The bill also takes into account the rights of the states. It includes several provisions that are state-friendly, including: (1) allowing states to restrict a chemical until and unless the EPA takes up the same chemical and addresses the same issues; (2) allowing a waiver process for states to set different regulations than the EPA; (3) grandfathering-in state chemical regulations enacted before 8/1/15; and (4) protecting state requirements for air and water quality and waste treatment and disposal. However, once the EPA makes a final decision on a chemical, the decision will apply in all states.

TSCA Section 8, which requires chemical manufacturers and processors to maintain records and report data has not yet been amended, but likely will be as the bill moves to full House committee.

As far as industry input, the bill allows industry to petition the EPA to designate certain chemicals for assessment and determination. In that case, the company making the request would foot 100% of the costs of the assessment. Chemicals petitioned by industry cannot exceed 25-30% of the EPA's "high priority" list, which is supposed to allow the EPA to effectively manage its resources. Although the bill promises to impose additional safeguards while still allowing for industry innovation, the tightened regulations will not be considering economics. Therefore, if the legislation is passed, it may be best for manufacturers to be proactive about petitioning for any chemicals with which they routinely deal.

For More Information

In the meantime, Polsinelli will watch for any updates on the draft bill, and report out any new information. For questions on the proposed reforms, please contact the author or your Polsinelli attorney.

  

 
 

  

     

  

 

 

  

     

  

 
 

Atlanta  Chattanooga  Chicago  Dallas  Denver  Kansas City  Los Angeles  Nashville  New York
Overland Park  Phoenix  Raleigh  St. Joseph  St. Louis  San Francisco  Springfield  Washington, D.C.  Wilmington
polsinelli.com

 
 

  

     

  

 
 

  

ABOUT POLSINELLI

real challenges. real answers.SM  
Polsinelli is an Am Law 100 firm with more than 750 attorneys in 18 offices, serving corporations, institutions, entrepreneurs and individuals nationally. Ranked in the top five percent of law firms for client service and top five percent of firms for innovating new and valuable services*, the firm has risen more than 100 spots in Am Law's annual firm ranking over the past six years. Polsinelli attorneys provide practical legal counsel infused with business insight, and focus on health care, financial services, real estate, life sciences and technology, and business litigation. Polsinelli attorneys have depth of experience in 100 service areas and 70 industries. The firm can be found online at www.polsinelli.com. Polsinelli PC. In California, Polsinelli LLP.

* BTI Client Service A-Team 2015 and BTI Brand Elite 2015

  

  

 
 

  

     

  

 
 

Polsinelli provides this material for informational purposes only. The material provided herein is general and is not intended to be legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

Copyright © 2015 Polsinelli PC.

 
             
Polsinelli Environmental and Natural Resources Environmental and Natural Resources