I. Introduction
“Chemistry Is Everywhere” – American Chemical Society
Chemistry is all around us and always will be. And it’s a good thing too, for life could not exist without it. Just as water (H2O) and oxygen (O2), two forms of chemistry we all know so well, exemplify how chemistry nurtures life, other less heralded chemistries create a world of possibilities for the living. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is possible without chemistry. Every product, from life-saving medicines, to protective equipment for first-responders, to our homes, vehicles, consumer appliances, and digital gadgets, all rely on chemistry. And the nearly infinite combinations of chemicals help drive endless technological innovation bounded only by those limits we impose on ourselves.
As if on cue, the Biden Administration and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have taken “targeted” aim at chemistry through amendments to the procedures by which EPA evaluates chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). To be sure, evaluating chemicals so that they can be used without undue risk to people or the environment is in everyone’s best interest. But instead of heeding Congress’s mandate to fulfill its obligations under TSCA “in a reasonable and prudent manner,” the regulatory changes that EPA has proposed are anything but.
Indeed, EPA proposes to effectively pin the red letter of “unreasonable risk” to every chemical that undergoes a risk evaluation. This is so because EPA will evaluate every chemical use, assume no one is abiding by other federal regulations, jettison robust peer review of the risk evaluations, and eliminate key science-based definitions that guide the risk evaluation process – all under the guise of adhering to Congressional intent – until the Agency finds just one use that EPA determines presents an unreasonable risk. At which point, EPA will condemn the “whole” chemical. By abandoning precise risk communication that differentiates the risk of a chemical depending on how it’s used, EPA muddies the water and undermines transparency in environmental regulation. Not only that, but EPA’s amendments pay lip-service to the strict timelines that Congress imposed to complete risk evaluations.
We know where this will lead. The U.S. based chemical industry, a critical part of the U.S. manufacturing base that the Biden Administration has committed to nurture, will head offshore to China and elsewhere. EPA got one thing right. These amendments are “targeted,” but in the wrong way, and to our detriment.
Comments on Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Proposed Rule
I. Introduction
“Chemistry Is Everywhere” – American Chemical Society
Chemistry is all around us and always will be. And it’s a good thing too, for life could not exist without it. Just as water (H2O) and oxygen (O2), two forms of chemistry we all know so well, exemplify how chemistry nurtures life, other less heralded chemistries create a world of possibilities for the living. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is possible without chemistry. Every product, from life-saving medicines, to protective equipment for first-responders, to our homes, vehicles, consumer appliances, and digital gadgets, all rely on chemistry. And the nearly infinite combinations of chemicals help drive endless technological innovation bounded only by those limits we impose on ourselves.
As if on cue, the Biden Administration and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have taken “targeted” aim at chemistry through amendments to the procedures by which EPA evaluates chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). To be sure, evaluating chemicals so that they can be used without undue risk to people or the environment is in everyone’s best interest. But instead of heeding Congress’s mandate to fulfill its obligations under TSCA “in a reasonable and prudent manner,” the regulatory changes that EPA has proposed are anything but.
Indeed, EPA proposes to effectively pin the red letter of “unreasonable risk” to every chemical that undergoes a risk evaluation. This is so because EPA will evaluate every chemical use, assume no one is abiding by other federal regulations, jettison robust peer review of the risk evaluations, and eliminate key science-based definitions that guide the risk evaluation process – all under the guise of adhering to Congressional intent – until the Agency finds just one use that EPA determines presents an unreasonable risk. At which point, EPA will condemn the “whole” chemical. By abandoning precise risk communication that differentiates the risk of a chemical depending on how it’s used, EPA muddies the water and undermines transparency in environmental regulation. Not only that, but EPA’s amendments pay lip-service to the strict timelines that Congress imposed to complete risk evaluations.
We know where this will lead. The U.S. based chemical industry, a critical part of the U.S. manufacturing base that the Biden Administration has committed to nurture, will head offshore to China and elsewhere. EPA got one thing right. These amendments are “targeted,” but in the wrong way, and to our detriment.