EPA’s first major action under new TSCA highlights the law’s limitations and points to continuing role for states in protecting the public from toxic exposures.
Safety advocates say, if done right, this has potential to improve process safety management of highly hazardous chemicals nationwide.
Farmworker and health groups submitted a petition to EPA urging the agency to immediately suspend the use of chlorpyrifos, a neurotoxic pesticide implicated in acute farmworker poisonings.
Users of asbestos in the chlor-alkali industry do not want EPA to list asbestos as one of its priority chemicals. They claim it can be used safely. The industry’s record of controlling hazards does not support their assertion.
As the EPA begins implementing the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, the chemical industry is already busy pushing the agency to limit scrutiny of various widely used but highly toxic chemicals.
As EPA begins work under the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, more striking divisions are emerging between what environmental health advocates and what chemical manufacturing and industry groups want from the law.
The newly passed Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to protect those most vulnerable to chemical exposures. Exactly who it will protect and how the EPA will interpret this requirement remains to be seen.
While the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century was signed into law with considerable fanfare, the job of improving U.S. chemicals policy in is far from complete. During two EPA stakeholder meetings this month, we heard a familiar script fom the chemical industry.
Introduction of a new TSCA reform bill is expected some time this spring. In the meantime, The Pump Handle takes a look at what’s at stake in TSCA reform and why the outcome matters to those who care about protecting and improving occupational and public health.
If you’re in the market for a paint remover and head to your local hardware store, most of the products you’re likely to find will contain methylene chloride. These products carry hazard warnings that say “Danger!” and “Poison” along with cautionary statements about the chemical’s nervous system effects and the possibility that exposure can cause blindness, birth defects, cancer and respiratory harm. But there’s little – if anything – to suggest such products are so hazardous that they were responsible for at least 14 deaths in the United States between 2000 and 2011. These products are banned in the EU. Are there alternatives and why are they still for sale in the U.S.?