Individuals across the United States encounter hundreds of chemical substances every day and often simultaneously – in common household and hygiene products, in our food and drinking water, and in our air. Some of these chemicals present serious risks to our health and the environment and a heightened risk of harm for children, pregnant women, the elderly, and individuals with compromised immune systems. To this day, we are largely unprotected from all manner of chemical exposures, including chemicals widely known to be lethal and for which there is no safe level.
In 2016, Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed into law the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act to address this problem head on by revising the weak Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and directing EPA to establish a comprehensive framework for evaluating chemicals and regulating those that pose unreasonable health and environmental risks. Before President Obama's second term ended, his EPA proposed rules to implement the statute in accordance with the new law. However, shortly after President Donald Trump took office in January 2017, EPA reversed its approach to TSCA implementation and finalized controversial and legally indefensible regulations that allow unreasonable health and environmental risks to continue unabated.
Today, I joined nine CPR Member Scholars in a letter to key members of Congress, calling on them to exercise their oversight authority over EPA and its implementation of TSCA. In the letter, we write:
To genuinely protect people from adverse health effects due to toxic chemical exposures, EPA must take people as they find them. In other words, the agency must consider all exposures and then determine the risk of additional exposure before deciding what action, if any, is necessary to reduce or eliminate that risk. But EPA ignored this principle in its final risk evaluation rule. Instead, the agency announced that it will exclude certain ongoing uses and disposals of chemical substances from its risk evaluations, resting its decision on an erroneous and unlawful interpretation of the term "conditions of use." EPA has since relied on this legally flawed interpretation to limit the scope of the risk evaluations for the first ten chemicals it has identified for review.
As members of House and Senate committees with oversight over EPA and TSCA implementation, and as sponsors, co-sponsors, and supporters of the 2016 TSCA amendments, you are instrumental to ensuring that EPA's implementation of TSCA reflects congressional intent to safeguard the public's health and the environment from unreasonable chemical risks. Petitions have recently been filed challenging EPA's final prioritization and risk evaluation rules. We ask you to urge EPA to take immediate corrective action by returning to the correct interpretation set forth in the proposed risk evaluation rule and by correcting the scoping documents for the first ten chemicals under review. The interpretation from EPA's proposal is firmly grounded in the language of the amendments to TSCA and its legislative history and better serves the statute's purpose of protecting our health and environment from the unreasonable risks posed by toxic chemicals.
Read the full letter on the CPR website.
Showing 2,833 results
Katie Tracy | October 19, 2017
Individuals across the United States encounter hundreds of chemical substances every day and often simultaneously – in common household and hygiene products, in our food and drinking water, and in our air. Some of these chemicals present serious risks to our health and the environment and a heightened risk of harm for children, pregnant women, […]
Hannah Wiseman | October 17, 2017
Professor Hari Osofsky of Pennsylvania State University co-authored this article with Center for Progressive Reform Member Scholar and Florida State University College of Law Professor Hannah Wiseman. It originally appeared in The Conversation on October 13, 2017. On Oct. 10, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt formally announced a repeal of the Clean Power Plan, regulation intended to curb greenhouse […]
Matthew Freeman | October 16, 2017
CPR's Member Scholars and staff have continued to appear in the nation's op-ed pages to expose the ongoing assault on our safeguards by President Trump and Congress. Among recent examples: Dan Farber's July 5 article in The Hill highlighted the many flaws in legislation introduced by Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) designed […]
Daniel Farber | October 10, 2017
An earlier version of this post appeared on Legal Planet. Few things were more foreseeable than the Trump administration’s repeal of the Clean Power Plan (CPP). The administration was never going to leave in place a regulation that disfavored coal and promoted the use of renewable energy in electricity generation. The only real questions were […]
Daniel Farber | October 4, 2017
What happens in Washington gets a lot of attention. You probably also follow what’s going on in your own state. But it’s very hard to know what’s happening in states across the country. In an effort to get a better sense of that, I’ve explored state activity on climate change and energy in a series […]
Alejandro Camacho | October 3, 2017
On September 28, I joined senators and Senate staff for a Capitol Hill briefing hosted by Sen. Tammy Duckworth. Our discussion focused on the report I co-authored with my colleagues at the Center for Land, Environment, and Natural Resources, entitled Conservation Limited: Assessing State Laws and Resources for Endangered Species Protection, which investigates states’ capacity to […]
Victor Flatt | September 29, 2017
This op-ed originally ran in the Houston Chronicle. Every day during the Hurricane Harvey disaster, our hearts would sink as we kept hearing the word “unprecedented” again and again. Harvey wasn’t supposed to strengthen so fast; it shouldn’t have stalled where it did. Every day as we hoped the worst was over, Harvey would pummel us […]
James Goodwin | September 28, 2017
UPDATE: President Trump is no longer scheduled to speak on deregulation on October 2, but the planned deregulatory “summit” with various cabinet-level agencies is still slated to occur. Government-sanctioned cruelty makes for shocking images, as the events of the past few weeks demonstrate. People in wheelchairs forcibly dragged from congressional hearing rooms for protesting legislative […]
James Goodwin | September 27, 2017
Tomorrow, CPR Member Scholar Rena Steinzor is scheduled to appear before the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law of the House Judiciary Committee to testify at a hearing focused on the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The CRA is a controversial law that has been aggressively used this past year by the majority in […]