Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) is a Washington, D.C. law firm providing chemical and chemical product stakeholders unparalleled experience, judgment, and excellence in matters relating to TSCA, and other global chemical management programs.
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed on July 28, 2016, revisions to the regulations governing significant new uses of chemical substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) with revisions to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Hazard Communications Standard (HCS) occasioned by OSHA’s March 2012 final rule modifying the HCS to conform to the United Nations’ (U.N.) Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), changes to OSHA’s Respiratory Protection Standard, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) respirator certification requirements pertaining to respiratory protection of workers from exposure to chemicals.  EPA states that it is also proposing changes to regulations based on issues that it identified, as well as issues raised by public commenters, for significant new use rules (SNUR) previously proposed and issued under these regulations.  Additionally, EPA claims to propose a “minor” change to reporting requirements for premanufacture notices (PMN) and other TSCA Section 5 notices.  EPA states that it expects the changes “to have minimal impacts on the costs and burdens of complying, while updating the significant new use reporting requirements to assist in addressing any potential effects to human health and the environment.”  Comments are due September 26, 2016.

The revisions include:

  • Proposed Changes to 40 C.F.R. Section 721.63, Protection in the Workplace;
  • Proposed Changes to 40 C.F.R. Section 721.72, Hazard Communication Program;
  • Clarification of the Use of 40 C.F.R. Section 721.80, Industrial Commercial and Consumer Activities;
  • Proposed Changes to 40 C.F.R. Section 721.91, Computation of Estimated Surface Water Concentrations:  Instructions;
  • Proposed Changes to 40 C.F.R. Section 721.11, Determining Whether a Chemical Substance or a Specific Use Is Subject to This Part When the Chemical Substance Identity or Significant New Use Is Confidential;
  • Proposed Changes for Submission of SDS(s) with PMNs, SNUNs, Low Volume Exemptions (LVE), Low Release and Exposure Exemptions (LoREX), and Test Marketing Exemption (TME) Applications; and
  • Fixing Typographical Errors and Other Non-Substantive Changes.

Commentary

Although the notice downplays them, the proposal raises significant and complex issues.  There may well be good reasons for several of the proposed changes.  The minimal discussion provided in the notice and the lack of adequate public debate having occurred prior to its issuance raise troubling questions about the legal basis for, scope of, and complexity of the proposed changes, some of which may apply retroactively. The confusion the proposal can be expected to cause could have been avoided had adequate discussion preceded its publication, or at the least EPA could have raised these issues in the proposed rule’s preamble to focus stakeholders’ attention appropriately.

More information is available in our memorandum TSCA: Proposed Revisions to Significant New Use Rules Reflect Current Occupational Safety and Health Standards.


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lynn L. Bergeson

On July 26, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a notice in the Federal Register soliciting a second round of comments on the burdens and value of information it periodically collects addressing significant new use rules (SNUR) for existing chemicals.  Specifically, EPA submitted a request to renew the approval of an existing information collection request (ICR), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 5(a)(2) SNURs for Existing Chemicals, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  This notice provides chemical manufacturers and other interested parties a second opportunity to comment on certain questions, specifically:  whether the agency accurately estimated the burden of responding to SNURs that it issues for chemicals in commerce; whether the agency could minimize the burden; and whether the information it collects is necessary. 

The first ICR was issued on September 2, 2015, and comments were due November 2, 2015.  Only two comments were filed in response to the initial ICR, by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA), two trade associations.  ACC and SOCMA stated in their comments that EPA underestimated the burdens its SNURs impose on chemical manufacturers and their customers.

This renewed ICR states that EPA estimated that six companies would be affected by its new use rules for existing chemicals, creating an estimated total burden of 1,025 hours per year and a cost of $100,595.

Comments are due August 25, 2016.

Commentary

SNURs are deeply unpopular to some in the chemical community and welcomed outcomes of the premanufacture notice (PMN) or significant new use notification (SNUN) process to others.  Most would agree that the cost of compliance with a SNUR can be difficult to estimate with any degree of precision.  Some of us are also of the view that TSCA, as recently amended, may result in many more SNURs given the new “determination” requirements under TSCA Section 5(a).  The comment period opened by today’s Federal Register notice provides an excellent opportunity to provide comment to EPA and thus help to ensure that EPA has an accurate and current basis upon which to estimate the cost.


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

On July 25, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its intention to hold two public meetings on August 9, and August 10, 2016, to obtain input on the processes that will be used to prioritize and evaluate chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act:

  • August 9, 2016:  EPA states that this public meeting will inform its proposed rule on conducting risk evaluations to determine whether a chemical presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment; and
  • August 10, 2016:  EPA states that this public meeting will inform its proposed rule to establish a risk-based process for chemical prioritization.

The public meetings are scheduled for 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and will be held at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, Horizon Ballroom, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. EPA states that the input obtained during these meetings will be considered as the EPA develops its proposed procedural regulations for risk evaluation and chemical prioritization.  EPA is recommending that any interested participants register in advance.  

More information concerning EPA’s implementation of the amended TSCA is available in our memorandum EPA Publishes First Year Implementation Plan, as well as on the Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) website under Regulatory Developments: TSCA.

Commentary

It is critically important that stakeholders attend and participate in these meetings. While the timing is regrettable in light of vacation schedules, EPA is under intense pressure to issue rules later this year and EPA has no choice other than to keep the process moving.  EPA is to be commended for scheduling these opportunities as quickly as it has, and its efforts should be acknowledged by robust stakeholder engagement.


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

On July 22, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) posted on its website the first four Section 5(a)(3) determinations for premanufacture notices (PMN) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 114-182) (new TSCA). All four of the new chemicals were determined to satisfy the "not likely to present an unreasonable risk" determination at Section 5(a)(3)(C). It is notable that all four determinations relied on structure activity relationship (SAR) analyses and data on analogs.

In all four cases, EPA found low potential for health hazards and low potential for environmental hazards (low/low). EPA estimated that each substance has some degree of persistence (from limited persistence to very persistent) and that all four have a low potential for bioaccumulation. Based on our experience with the new chemicals program under TSCA prior to new TSCA, when EPA made a low/low hazard call and either a low potential for persistence or a low potential for bioaccumulation, EPA "dropped" the submissions from further review, avoiding the time and expense of performing exposure assessments on substances of low potential hazard.

Under new TSCA, to make a Section 5(a)(3)(C) determination, EPA must identify potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations (PESS) that are relevant under conditions of use. In these four Section 5(a)(3)(C) determinations, EPA identified known or reasonably foreseeable uses in addition to the uses identified in the PMNs. EPA identified the PESS under the intended use as workers for all four cases. We note that EPA identified consumers as a PESS if the substance notified in P-15-0281 was to be used as a lubricant or lubricant additive (the known or reasonably foreseen use that EPA identified). Even considering the PESS, EPA has concluded that a low hazard finding is sufficient to support a "not likely to present" finding under Section 5(a)(3)(C) and did not perform a formal exposure assessment. Since EPA has published the Section 5(a)(3)(C) findings, per Section 5(g), the submitters of these four PMNs may commence manufacturing without waiting for the remaining portion of the 90-day review period to expire.

PMN Generic name Use(s):
Intended
Known/foreseen
Persistence Bioaccumulation Health Hazard Environmental Hazard
P-16-0281 Fatty alcohols-dimers, trimers, polymers Reactive polyol
Lubricant and lubricant additive
Persistent Low Low Low
P-16-0292 Depolymerized waste plastics Intermediate for use in manufacture of polymers
Lubricant and lubricant additive
Very Persistent Low Low Low
P-16-0301 Propyl silsesquioxanes, hydrogen-terminated Intermediate
Lubricant and lubricant additive
Limited Persistence Low Low Low
P-16-0302 Organic modified propyl sisesquioxane Plastic additive
Finishing agent
Very Persistent Low Low Low

Commentary

EPA determined that all four new chemicals satisfy the "not likely to present an unreasonable risk" determination under Section 5(a)(3)(C). The conditions of use for these chemicals indicate industrial scenarios that would point to workers as the PESS. The potential exposure to workers was not estimated. Instead, the determination of not likely to present an unreasonable risk hinges on the low hazard potential for these chemicals. Three of the four chemicals were estimated to be persistent with two categorized as very persistent. The chemicals were estimated to have low potential for bioaccumulation. No information was provided about potential releases to water.

It is reassuring that the SAR was used to reach determinations about persistence, bioaccumulation, and hazard potential, including mention of category analysis. This suggests that EPA intends to maintain SAR as a basic component in its evaluation of new chemicals consistent with the provisions at Section 4(h) to reduce vertebrate animal testing and to maximize the use of existing hazard information.


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lynn L. Bergeson

On Friday, July 22, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) posted the first four Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 5(a) determinations made following review of pre-manufacture notifications (PMN) according to TSCA as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century law, Pub. L. No. 114-182 (Lautenberg).  EPA’s determination on all four chemical substances was “not likely to present and unreasonable risk,” under new TSCA Section 5(a)(C)(3).  The PMN Case Numbers, Chemical Identities, a summary of the determination, the decision dates, as well as the links to the determinations themselves are below.  The review start date for all of these determinations was the date of Lautenberg’s enactment, June 22, 2016.  Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) is reviewing these determinations and will provide an analysis.

  • P-16-0281:  Generic: Fatty Alcohols-Dimers, Trimers, Polymers.  EPA determined that “[t]he chemical substance is not likely to present an unreasonable risk based on low health hazard concern and low environmental toxicity.”  The decision was issued on July 15, 2016.
  • P-16-0292:  Generic: Depolymerized Waste Plastics.  EPA determined that “[t] he chemical substance is not likely to present an unreasonable risk based on low human health hazard and low environmental hazard.  Although EPA estimated that the new chemical substance would be very persistent, this did not indicate a likelihood that the chemical substance would present an unreasonable risk, given that the chemical substance has low potential for bioaccumulation, low human health hazard, and low environmental hazard.”  The decision was issued on July 20, 2016.
  • P-16-0301: Generic:  Propyl Silsesquioxanes, Hydrogen-Terminated.  EPA determined that “[t]he chemical substance is not likely to present an unreasonable risk based on low human health hazard and low environmental hazard.”  The decision was issued on July 20, 2016.
  • P-16-0302:  Generic:  Organic Modified Propyl Silsesquioxane.  EPA determined that “[t]he chemical substance is not likely to present an unreasonable risk based on low human health hazard and low environmental toxicity. Although EPA estimated that the new chemical substance would be very persistent, this did not indicate likelihood that the chemical substance would present an unreasonable risk, given that the chemical substance has low potential for bioaccumulation, low human health hazard, and low environmental hazard.”  The decision was issued on July 20, 2016.

 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

On July 18, 2016, Bloomberg BNA’s Daily Environmental Report reported on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new chemical notice process, and included insight from industry leaders at Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.’s (B&C®) July 14, 2016, webinar, The New TSCA: Impacts on New and Existing Chemicals Programs. 

B&C Managing Partner Lynn L. Bergeson was quoted as saying that premanufacture notifications, or PMNs, that chemical manufacturers must submit before they can produce or import a new chemical, and significant new use notifications, which companies must submit before they can make or use certain chemicals in new ways, “need to be much more strategic, thoughtful and detailed.”

Both the old and newly amended TSCA state the EPA's “authority over chemical substances and mixtures should be exercised in such a manner as to not impede unduly or create unnecessary economic barriers to technological innovation,” Bergeson stated, referring to Section 2601(b)(3).  The new law makes “very consequential changes” to the new chemicals provisions of TSCA as EPA will have to balance carefully the requirements imposed by different sections of the law.

Richard A. Denison, Ph.D., Senior Scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, stated that the changes the amended law makes to EPA's new chemicals program “are not trivial.”  Further, the changes will make it easier for the public to understand why EPA concludes that new chemicals may or may not enter commerce, what restrictions it may impose on the uses of those chemicals, and why.

BNA’s article, “Detailed New Chemical Applications Needed to Boost Market Chances: Attorneys,” is available online, through paid subscription.


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) has learned that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to convene a stakeholder workshop in Washington, D.C. on August 9-10, 2016, for a public dialogue on prioritization and risk evaluation.  We also understand that EPA may host an industry meeting on August 11-12, 2016, to consult on fees.  The dates and topics will be confirmed when EPA makes announcements in the Federal Register.


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

On July 14, 2016, the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) hosted an event in which the individuals and organizations critical to Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform, discussed the intricacies and challenges faced in drafting the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg), the amended law, and its ultimate enactment. 

The panelists included John Pendergrass, VP of Programs & Publications, ELI (moderator), Lynn L. Bergeson, Managing Partner, Bergeson & Campbell, PC (B&C®), Sarah Brozena, Senior Director, Regulatory & Technical Affairs, American Chemistry Council, Richard A. Denison, Ph.D., Lead Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund, David Goldston, Director of Government Affairs, Natural Resources Defense Council, James J. Jones, Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety & Pollution Prevention, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), David J. McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and  Senator Tom Udall, U.S. Senate (D-NM).

The overall consensus from the panelists was that the process undertaken in getting Lautenberg passed was challenging, but also inspiring and a true group effort on both sides of the aisle.  Some of the key points from the discussion included:

  • On June 23, 2015, when H.R. 2576 was passed by an overwhelming 398-1, there was a great spirit of bipartisanship in the House.  McCarthy observed that this spirit of bipartisanship was especially acute on June 23, a rare event in Congress these days.
  • Making a strong law that could be implemented by Jones and EPA was a high priority, and Jones’ role was “absolutely indispensable,” according to Udall who also stated, “[t]he one thing we wanted to make sure we did is not to produce a law that wasn’t going to work for [Jones] and his folks over at EPA.”  In answer, Jones stated that EPA Staff were “excited about implementation,” and have “hit the ground running.”  The law is strong, has great potential for serious reform and applicability, and is “an elegantly written, balanced and entirely implementable law that will make the world a better place,” according to Bergeson.
  • In terms of cooperation and momentum, finding champions with endurance, and rewarding that support with some compromise on bill provisions created the recipe for success.  As Udall stated “[y]ou need to find champions on your environmental bills that also have political will,” who are “will to do more than just introduce a bill.  They need to deal with every stakeholder.”  Denison followed with “to move the bill through the legislative process – to get people to engage, to make changes in exchange for their support, and broaden that” was the only way to get the bill passed, and these actions were “not only to build support, but to sustain momentum over more than one Congress to ultimately get it done.”

More information on the event can be found in the Environment & Energy Daily article “Architects of TSCA Compromise See Hope for Polarized Congress” available online, through paid subscription.  A video recording of the event and other materials from the event are available to ELI Associates on ELI’s website.  ELI Associates must login to see the materials.  A full analysis of Lautenberg is available in the B&C memorandum An Analysis of Key Provisions and Fundamental Shifts in the Amended TSCA.


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

The House’s Office of the Law Revision Counsel has posted the U.S. Code version of the Toxic Substances Control Act, as revised by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st  Century Act, Public Law No. 114-182.  The U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO) has not yet posted the official version of the public law, but is expected to soon.  The GPO version of the public law will be available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

On July 15, 2016, Bloomberg BNA Daily Environment Report quoted Lynn L. Bergeson, Managing Partner of Bergeson & Campbell P.C. (B&C®), in the article, “Give EPA Detailed New Chemical Notices, Attorneys Advise.”

Pre-manufacture notifications, or PMNs, that makers must submit before they can produce or import a new chemical, and significant new use notifications, which companies must submit before they can make or use certain chemicals in new ways, “need to be much more strategic, thoughtful and detailed,” Lynn Bergeson, managing partner of Bergeson & Campbell PC said during a July 14 webinar the firm organized.

[…]

Both the old and newly amended TSCA say the EPA's “authority over chemical substances and mixtures should be exercised in such a manner as to not impede unduly or create unnecessary economic barriers to technological innovation,” Bergeson said, referring to Section 2601(b)(3).

The new law makes “very consequential changes” to the new chemicals provisions of TSCA as the EPA will have to carefully balance the requirements imposed by different sections of the law, she said.


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

On July 15, 2016, Bloomberg BNA Daily Environment Report quoted Lynn L. Bergeson, Managing Partner of Bergeson & Campbell (B&C®), in the article “Give EPA Detailed New Chemical Notices, Attorneys Advise.”

Pre-manufacture notifications, or PMNs, that makers must submit before they can produce or import a new chemical, and significant new use notifications, which companies must submit before they can make or use certain chemicals in new ways, “need to be much more strategic, thoughtful and detailed,” Lynn Bergeson, managing partner of Bergeson & Campbell PC said during a July 14 webinar the firm organized.

Bergeson, Marrapese and Rosenberg discussed the implications of these new decisions and criteria and the impact they may have on the chemical industry's ability to innovate new products.

Both the old and newly amended TSCA say the EPA's “authority over chemical substances and mixtures should be exercised in such a manner as to not impede unduly or create unnecessary economic barriers to technological innovation,” Bergeson said, referring to Section 2601(b)(3).

The new law makes “very consequential changes” to the new chemicals provisions of TSCA as the EPA will have to carefully balance the requirements imposed by different sections of the law, she said.


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

On July 14, 2016, Bloomberg BNA Daily Environment Report included quotes from the B&C® and Chemical Watch webinar “The New TSCA Series Webinar 2: Impacts on New Chemical Programs.”

Chemical manufacturers and processors will need to give exposure and toxicity data to the EPA for it to evaluate the risks of new and existing chemicals as required by the recently amended Toxic Substances Control Act, said Charles Auer, who directed the EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics under multiple administrations. Auer spoke July 14 during a webinar organized by Bergeson & Campbell PC.

The webinar focused on changes the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. Law No. 114-182) made to provisions of TSCA that govern chemicals in commerce, called “existing chemicals,” and new chemicals, which manufacturers would like to make or import but have never been in U.S. commerce.

Health and environmental toxicity tests have been codified into law by the EPA, said Lynn Bergeson, managing partner of Bergeson & Campbell in Washington, D.C.

It can direct companies to use such tests to develop data using the order and other authorities provided under the Lautenberg Act, she said.

The agency does not have standard exposure tests, said Auer, a consultant with Charles Auer & Associates LLC.

“The need to develop those will slow things at least initially, but I'm confident EPA is up to the challenge,” he said.

Richard Denison, lead senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, said there are established methodologies for certain types of exposure tests that could provide EPA data.

These include environmental and biological monitoring equipment, Denison said. Monitors measure the presence of chemicals, for example, in the workplace, air, water or soil.

He agreed with Auer, however, that the agency will need to develop agreement on and issue guidance for other sources of exposure data. These include computer models that could generate exposure predictions, Denison said.


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

On July 1, 2016, Inside EPA published "Committee Jurisdiction Issues Blocked Green Chemistry From TSCA Reform," an article discussing the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) law and the lack of language from previous versions boosting federal support of green chemistry. The majority of the bill was reviewed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, but the green chemistry provision would have needed to be reviewed by the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, further complicating the fragile House and Senate negotiations. Inside EPA's source stated: "Nobody wanted to step on anybody's toes. [...] Pretty much everything else [was] in [Energy and Commerce's] jurisdiction or was sufficiently small enough [to not raise concerns.] There were a lot of concessions on all sides." The green chemistry provision was originally added to the Senate version of the TSCA Reform, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697), by Senator Chris Coons (D-DE), and was primarily focused on funding the research and development of green chemistry.

The green chemistry provision of S. 697 called for a study of how to best incentivize sustainable chemistry research and development, as well as support "economic, legal and other appropriate social science research to identify barriers to commercialization and methods to advance commercialization of sustainable chemistry." The bill also created a working group to coordinate federal sustainable chemistry activities that would be lead by EPA's research chief and the National Science Foundation (NSF) director, as well as an advisory council to coordinate with the working group. Although green chemistry language in S. 697 did not remain in the final version of the bill, there are still supporters in Congress who are prepared to work to get the programs outlined in S. 697 into law.


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link

An Environmental Law Institute Seminar and Webinar, Complimentary for members, $50 for non-members.

On June 22, 2016 President Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, amending the Toxic Substances Control Act for the first time since its passage in 1976. While environmental organizations, public health advocates, the regulated community, and EPA have all supported updating the law since at least 2009, political challenges seemed destined to prevent comprehensive reform. Nonetheless, dedicated advocates from various stakeholder groups and committed members of Congress and their staffs overcame the hurdles and passed the most significant federal environmental law in a quarter century.


How did stakeholders and elected officials negotiate the political gridlock surrounding most recent attempts at environmental legislation? How were major issues such as the preemption of state law and financing addressed? What other roadblocks were overcome, and what can environmental, public health, and industry advocates learn from the experience?


Join us to examine the unique history of TSCA reform, and hear from people and organizations critical to its ultimate success. Speakers will share insight from the road to reform and field questions from the audience.


Panelists:
John Pendergrass, VP of Programs & Publications, Environmental Law Institute (moderator)
Lynn Bergeson, Managing Partner, Bergeson & Campbell PC
Sarah Brozena, Senior Director of Regulatory & Technical Affairs, American Chemistry Council
Richard Denison, Lead Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund
David Goldston, Director of Government Affairs, Natural Resources Defense Council (invited)
Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety & Pollution Prevention, US EPA
David J. McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, House Committee on Energy and Commerce
Senator Tom Udall, US Senate (D-NM)

When:
July 14, 2016
2:30 PM to 4:00 PM ET


Where:
Environmental Law Institute
1730 M Street NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20036

And via webinar

Register: http://www.eli.org/events/story-tsca-reform

Environmental Law Institute | 1730 M Street NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20036 | 1.202.939.3800 | http://www.eli.org


 
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Share Link
 
Lynn L. Bergeson Comments On TSCA Implementation Featured In Bloomberg BNA Daily Environment Report Article “More Than 300 New Chemicals Snagged as EPA Implements Law”

On July 12, 2016, Lynn L. Bergeson, Managing Partner of Bergeson & Campbell (B&C®), was quoted in the Bloomberg BNA Daily Environment Report article “More Than 300 New Chemicals Snagged as EPA Implements Law.”

Lynn Bergeson, managing partner of Bergeson & Campbell PC, told Bloomberg BNA July 11 the number of new chemicals affected by the EPA's implementation of the newly amended Toxic Substances Control Act isn't large.

For an individual company, however, every day that delays its ability to bring a new chemical or a new use of a chemical to market is huge, Bergeson said. “Every day counts.”

Jim Jones, EPA assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, said June 28 he expects the EPA to use the Lautenberg Act's criteria to reach one of the new chemical decisions the law provides within a week to 10 days. Jones spoke at an American Bar Association forum about the TSCA amendments.

During that same forum, Bergeson said some of the clients her law firm represents had nearly reached the end of the agency's original 90-day review period just prior to the Lautenberg Act becoming law.

As of July 12, none of those clients had been told whether it can make or import those new chemicals, she told Bloomberg BNA.


 
‹ First  < 5 6 7 8 >