Attorneys for both the chemical sector and environmentalists say the incoming Trump administration could shift evaluation and regulation of workplace chemical exposures under the reformed TSCA from EPA to OSHA -- a move one source says would deal a “crippling blow” to the toxics program.
A federal district judge has rejected a chemical manufacturer’s request to intervene in litigation setting deadlines for EPA to complete 20 overdue TSCA risk evaluations, ending the firm’s bid to block an imminent settlement that would require its final formaldehyde review by the end of December -- a timeline that industry has warned will improperly tie the incoming Trump administration to a flawed review and potentially force strict workplace limits.
Two industry groups are seeking to bolster allegations from the chemical sector that EPA’s TSCA rule for the solvent methylene chloride is unlawful, arguing that the agency’s claim of broad discretion to limit or ban chemical uses in order to protect workers is at odds with the Constitution and ignores Congress’s intended role for OSHA.
The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) is renewing its calls for EPA to target hydrogen fluoride (HF) -- a highly toxic catalyst involved in several releases or near-misses in industrial accidents in recent years -- for possible regulation under TSCA, as the agency weighs candidates for its next “prioritization” cycle.
A three-judge 5th Circuit panel is letting stand automakers’ amicus brief opposing EPA’s landmark TSCA rule for chrysotile asbestos that EPA and public-health advocates attacked as improperly adding a host of new legal questions to the case, teeing up what could be complex arguments over which of the group’s claims are properly before the court.
Chemical-sector groups are urging EPA and the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to ease the strict workplace exposure standard that the agency proposed in its TSCA rule for trichloroethylene (TCE), by either easing the final regulation or allowing for greater flexibility on enforcement.
Trade groups and a chemical company suing EPA over its redone rule governing TSCA risk evaluations are divided on what bar the agency must clear to defend its new policy, teeing up a question that will shape how appellate judges decide whether the agency has properly justified its approach to measuring workplace risk, among other key issues.
Trade groups are asking a federal appeals court to hold that the reformed TSCA gave OSHA, not EPA, primary responsibility to regulate any “unreasonable risks” to workers from toxic substances, seeking to scrap the agency’s approach to chemical-specific rules that has focused primarily -- sometimes exclusively -- on workplace dangers.
Industry trade groups and individual companies are asking the 5th Circuit to scrap EPA’s rule governing methylene chloride for a litany of reasons, saying the agency ignored research on the chemical’s dangers, improperly refused to consider their workers’ use of protective gear and misapplied science to craft a strict workplace exposure limit, among other claims.
Unions and worker-safety advocates are asking the D.C. Circuit to hold that TSCA forbids the agency from considering workers’ use of personal protective equipment (PPE) when evaluating chemicals’ risks, saying its rule on the subject shows a “fundamental misunderstanding” of OSHA’s requirements for employers to provide protective gear.