SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
toxic substances control act
EPA Announces 'Long-Overdue' Asbestos Ban
"Today's EPA rule to ban the use of chrysotile asbestos is a groundbreaking, landmark protection," said AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler. "Unions have been sounding the alarm on this dangerous substance for decades."
Mar 18, 2024
Labor and environmental advocates on Monday applauded the Environmental Protection Agency for finalizing a ban on the last remaining type of asbestos used in the United States eight years after Congress amended the nation's chemical safety law to accelerate the phaseout of the carcinogenic substance.
The EPA announced a final rule to prohibit ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos, which is found in a wide range of products including asbestos diaphragms, sheet gaskets, brake blocks, and aftermarket automotive brakes and linings. In a rare display of election-year bipartisanship, Congress voted nearly unanimously in 2016 to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to update and strengthen the nation's chemical safety laws.
"Today's rule is a positive first step to give all Americans a future free of exposure to asbestos—a carcinogen that has killed far too many."
Asbestos exposure can cause mesothelioma as well as laryngeal, lung, and ovarian cancer. Banned in more than 50 countries, the substance is linked to more than 40,000 U.S. deaths each year.
"The science is clear—asbestos is a known carcinogen that has severe impacts on public health," said EPA Administrator Michael Regan. "President [Joe] Biden understands that this concern has spanned generations and impacted the lives of countless people. That's why EPA is so proud to finalize this long-needed ban on ongoing uses of asbestos."
The Congressional Progressive Caucus said on social media that "this new asbestos ban is long-overdue and will save thousands of lives."
U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said in a statement that "today's rule is a positive first step to give all Americans a future free of exposure to asbestos—a carcinogen that has killed far too many."
"An immediate ban on the import of chrysotile asbestos for the chlor-alkali industry is a long-overdue step forward for public health," he added.
Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO union, hailed the EPA's "groundbreaking, landmark protection," adding that "unions have been sounding the alarm on this dangerous substance for decades."
Green groups echoed labor unions in welcoming the EPA move. Environmental Working Group senior vice president Scott Faber said that "it's been more than 50 years since EPA first sought to ban some uses of asbestos and we're closer than ever to finishing the job."
"For too long, polluters have been allowed to make, use, and release toxins like asbestos and PFAS without regard for our health," Faber added, referring to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly called forever chemicals. "Thanks to the leadership of the Biden EPA, those days are finally over."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Lawsuit Accuses EPA of Hiding Critical Data About Harms of 'Forever Chemicals'
"By sitting on this critical information, EPA is advancing the private interests of a corporate violator and shirking its public health responsibilities," said one plaintiff's attorney.
Feb 15, 2024
A federal lawsuit filed Thursday by a pair of environmental advocacy groups accuses the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of "wrongfully withholding test data and other vital information" regarding the presence of so-called "forever chemicals" in millions of fluorinated plastic containers.
The lawsuit—filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and the Center for Environmental Health (CEH)—argues that the EPA is violating Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) disclosure requirements by improperly classifying health and safety data as trade secrets.
Referring to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances—commonly known as forever chemicals because they do not biodegrade and accumulate in the human body—the suit also accuses the EPA of "denying the public access to the results of testing showing the levels of PFAS in fluorinated plastic containers and their contents along with the identities of the products in which these toxic materials are present."
PEER and CEH said that after they filed a Freedom of Information Act request "for documents shedding light on the health risks associated with PFAS in fluorinated containers," the EPA granted trade secret protection sought by Inhance Technologies, LLC.
Fluorination involves the high-temperature application of fluorine gas to plastic containers to make them more resistant to discoloration and permeation by solvents.
As PEER explained:
PFAS chemicals are formed during the fluorination of high-density polyethylene plastic containers by Inhance Technologies, LLC of Houston, Texas. Inhance is the sole U.S. company conducting this type of fluorination. Studies by EPA, independent researchers, and Inhance itself show that PFAS leaches from the walls of containers into their contents, thus exposing millions of people to PFAS without their knowledge...
Inhance fluorinates 200 million containers a year which are used to package diverse products ranging from fuels to foodstuffs, cosmetics, and cleaning products which consumers and workers use on a daily basis.
"EPA has found that these containers constitute a public health threat, a long-awaited determination that also should encompass the public's right to know," CEH counsel Bob Sussman, who is also a former senior EPA official, said in a statement announcing the new lawsuit.
Used in a broad range of products from clothing to nonstick cookware to firefighting foam, PFAS is linked to cancers of the kidneys and testicles, low infant weight, suppressed immune function, and other adverse health effects. It is found in the blood of 99% of Americans and a similar percentage of people around the world.
"Given the unquestionably major public health stakes, EPA should be stepping up and maximizing access to health and safety data, but the agency is disclosing vital information only grudgingly and with lingering secrecy even though disclosure is mandated by TSCA," Sussman lamented.
Colleen Teubner, PEER's litigation and policy attorney, asserted that "the cloak of confidential business information cannot be used to hide health and safety studies as EPA is currently doing."
"By sitting on this critical information, EPA is advancing the private interests of a corporate violator and shirking its public health responsibilities," she added.
The new lawsuit follows a December 2022 court filing by PEER and CEH seeking to stop Inhance from generating forever chemicals during the manufacture of plastic containers.
Thousands of PFAS-related lawsuits have been launched in U.S. courts over recent decades.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Thanks to Bipartisanship, a "Witches' Brew of Unregulated Chemicals" Still Threatens Consumers
After four decades, lawmakers agreed to updates to Toxic Substances Control Act, but review and regulation of thousands of chemicals on market will still be lacking
Jun 08, 2016
U.S. lawmakers have just passed legislation to finally update how toxic chemicals are regulated, but, according to watchdog groups, the changes to "the worst environmental law on the books" still leave consumers at risk.
The House voted to update the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) last month, and the Senate passed the measure Tuesday in a voice vote.
As Reuterssums up,
The bill would update the Toxic Substances Control Act amid complaints that its 40-year-old provisions hobble the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from effectively regulating chemicals, including those ranging from asbestos and flame retardants to everyday household products.
It got thumbs up from groups like National Association of Chemical Distributors, the National Association of Manufacturers, and "industry champion" and lead Republican author of the act, Sen. David Vitter (La.).
In addition to that backing, though, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said ahead of his chamber's vote, "I've never seen a more diverse crowd in total agreement than we are with TSCA." The Associated Press also reports that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle "spoke enthusiastically about the legislation."
Indeed, it's been widely described as compromise. Inhofe, for example, told Politico, "You had people who liked it because it was a major environmental achievement and then people who liked it for just the opposite reason."
When it passed the House on May 24, co-sponsor John Shimkus (R-Ill.) said it was "a vast improvement over current law."
On that point, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) agrees. But making a few adjustments to what it describes as a severely flawed law still means it falls quite short, the advocacy group argues. EWG senior vice president for government affairs Scott Faber explains some of its specific shortcomings:
The law that Congress now sends to President Barack Obama's desk will give EPA the direction and resources to review and regulate, at most, a few hundred chemicals over the next decade -- out of thousands used in the market. The new bill will do nothing to require the FDA to review and regulate the chemicals routinely used in food and cosmetics. While pesticide residues on produce have been reviewed, thousands of other pesticides have escaped meaningful government oversight. The net result is that consumers will continue to be exposed to a witches' brew of unregulated chemicals that have been linked to serious health problems, including cancer.
Faber further argues that
The legislation is certainly better than the Toxic Substances Control of Act of 1976, which is viewed by both industry and public health advocates as badly broken. In particular, the bill headed for the president's signature requires EPA to assess the safety of new chemicals before they enter the market and directs EPA to review old chemicals that have been used for decades without consideration of safety. The bill also gives EPA the power to collect data on chemical use and toxicity, and requires chemical companies to back up their trade secret claims. But these reforms say more about the weakness of the "worst environmental law on the books" than about the merit of the bill itself.
According to Karuna Jaggar, executive director of Breast Cancer Action, it's a "compromise bill [...] puts industry interests first and lets down women at risk of and living with breast cancer."
She notes that "the Senate version of the bill was written by the American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry's biggest lobbying group."
"One of the biggest problems," she continues,
is a provision, referred to as the "pause" provision, that would block a state's ability to protect their residents from toxic chemicals--even when federal action is years away. This provision would stop the ability of states to create and implement laws around a toxic chemical as soon as that chemical went under review by the federal government--a process that can take years! During that time, states cannot protect their residents from exposure to these chemicals of greatest concern.
And the chemical industry's support of the bill is not surprising, adds Carli Jensen, toxics campaign director at U.S. PIRG, as
It handcuffs state regulators, who have been the top cops on the toxic beat for decades. This proposal could best be characterized as one step forward and two steps back. Congress should have done better to protect public health.
Further, as Bloombergreports:
implementing the proposed law will be a herculean task for an agency with scarce resources, former officials and lawyers say. By the time EPA finishes work on the chemicals it has prioritized, the children of today's children will have been exposed to them -- probably for years.
According to a press statement from Sen. Vitter, "the White House confirmed that President Obama would sign the bill into law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular