The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), enacted in 2014, proved to be a monumental victory for legislators and environmental groups seeking to ban or limit dangerous chemicals in the United States. Formulated under the law, asbestos made the list as one of the top ten most deadly substances.<\/p>\n
This month the U.S. Court of Appeals overturned a 2017 amendment to TSCA because it failed to recognize past uses of asbestos in its plan for risk management.<\/p>\n
Several environmental lobbyists including the Environmental Working Group (EWG) filed suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fearing the amendment weakened the legislation that was intended to control and eradicate the prevalence of deadly asbestos that kills an estimated 15,000 Americans every year.<\/p>\n
EWG Legislative Attorney Melanie Benesh blames the current administration, \u201cThe Trump administration has not only bent but also broken federal chemical law to benefit industry.\u201d<\/p>\n
Once the most lethal chemicals were prioritized by TSCA legislation, the EPA says the next step was \u201crisk evaluation\u201d which prompted the 2017 amendment. The ruling summary describes the steps as \u201cscope, hazard assessment, exposure assessment, risk characterization, and finally a risk determination.\u201d<\/p>\n
At issue for the environmental groups was the omission of prior uses of dangerous substances, which the ruling called \u201clegacy uses.\u201d<\/p>\n
The amendment states that the TCSA statute is ambiguous about any substance that is not associated with ongoing manufacture or use and therefore the agency\u2019s interpretation is as follows:<\/p>\n
\u201cEPA interprets the mandates under section 6(a)-(b) to conduct risk evaluations and any corresponding risk management to focus on uses for which manufacturing, processing, or distribution in commerce is intended, known to be occurring, or reasonably foreseen to occur (i.e., is prospective or on-going), rather than reaching back to evaluate the risks associated with legacy uses, associated disposal, and legacy disposal.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Ruling Ignores Existence of Asbestos Throughout the U.S.<\/h2>\n
Opponents say this language fails to acknowledge the profuse use and presence of asbestos<\/a> in construction materials used in homes and commercial buildings in the United States for decades prior to the 1970s. It does not address the need for safe disposal of harmful products no longer in production.<\/p>\n
\u201cTSCA\u2019s definition of \u2018conditions of use\u2019 clearly includes uses and future disposal of chemicals even if those chemicals were only historically manufactured for those uses,\u201d wrote Judge Michelle Friedland, one of a three-judge panel for the 9th Circuit Court. \u201cEPA\u2019s exclusion of legacy uses and associated disposals from the definition of \u2018conditions of use\u2019 is therefore unlawful.\u201d<\/p>\n
Benesh responded to the decision, \u201cThe court understood Congress\u2019s intent to address the ongoing threat these and other contaminants present to public health, and it acted accordingly.\u201d<\/p>\n
Asbestos Deaths Well Known<\/h2>\n
Asbestos exposure has long been linked to severe health issues including asbestosis and the fatal cancer mesothelioma<\/a> that originates in the lungs.<\/p>\n