As EPA prepares to revise its rule governing fee requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the agency is also considering proposals from industry and other stakeholders for additional waivers and flexibilities that go beyond the three categorical exemptions that the agency has made the primary focus of the rulemaking.
EPA is clarifying that its plan to exempt “byproducts” from its Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) fee rule extends to formaldehyde that is produced as a byproduct, an action that could significantly narrow the universe of firms that the agency had preliminarily identified as having to contribute fees to cover the cost of its formaldehyde evaluation.
The Chemical Safety Board (CSB) has had to pause “several” open investigations into industrial incidents due to concerns over potential COVID-19 exposures and a lack of investigators, though top officials say they are seeking to hire new investigators.
EPA is moving ahead with a planned peer review of its just-released draft evaluation of the common solvent perclorothylene (perc or PCE), which finds multiple uses that present unreasonable risk to workers, consumers and the environment, though it is unclear if advisors will have a quorum to be available to review it.
EPA’s first-time decision earlier this year to identify 20 chemicals as low priority for risk evaluation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) faces a looming litigation test as the 60-day deadline for environmentalists or other entities to sue approaches on April 26.
EPA has postponed the upcoming meeting of science advisors scheduled to peer review its draft evaluation of asbestos because some of the advisors are no longer available, a change in course just weeks after officials denied requests from environmentalists and its advisors to delay the meeting because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
EPA has formally rejected environmentalists’ calls to take immediate emergency actions on three chemicals that the agency has found pose acute risks in its draft risk evaluations, arguing in part it would be “premature” to act before EPA works through the evaluation and management process laid out in section 6 of the revised toxic law.
EPA’s science advisors are raising concerns over the narrow scope of the agency’s draft evaluation of asbestos, prompting changes to the charge questions they will consider when they assess the draft during a peer review meeting later this month so they can formally discuss their concerns.
A key House Democrat and an asbestos awareness group are stepping up efforts to advance stalled bipartisan legislation seeking to ban asbestos, arguing EPA’s recently released draft evaluation of the minerals under the revised toxics law is too narrowly focused and ignores multiple aspects of asbestos risk as well an appellate court ruling.
EPA is moving ahead with a planned scientific review of its just-released draft evaluation of asbestos, which found the substance poses unreasonable risk to workers, consumers and others, despite calls from science advisors and other critics who had urged the agency to delay the review until after the coronavirus pandemic.