This article focuses on one of many abrupt, and in some views, unlawful, EPA policy shifts frustrating lawyers and confusing the public. The EPA moved in 2021 from a “conditions of use” approach to evaluating chemical risk to a “whole chemical” approach. This seemingly modest change is a key reason why lawyers advising chemical stakeholders are struggling and why there may be a lot of TSCA litigation in the EPA’s future.

Chemicals are the foundational origin of just about everything we enjoy and cannot live without. The federal law that authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate industrial chemical substances is the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), an almost 47-year-old law significantly amended in 2016 by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg). Lautenberg’s passage was a bipartisan triumph marking the do-over of a law that many believed did not ensure chemical safety.

The past seven years are no cause for celebration, however, as the three different administrations that have occupied the White House since 2016 have made a mess of Lautenberg’s implementation. EPA’s recent move from a “conditions of use” approach in evaluating existing chemical risk to a “whole chemical” approach is one of many abrupt EPA policy shifts frustrating lawyers and confusing the public.  TSCA litigation is plainly in our future.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is tinkering with the Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (Green Guides). Given the growing appeal of “green claims” for a variety of products, it is fitting the FTC is refining and modernizing the Green Guides to help marketers avoid making environmental marketing claims that are unfair or deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act. Importantly, the FTC seeks to update the guides “based on increasing consumer interest in buying environmentally friendly products.”

On Nov. 16, 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a supplemental proposal modifying its 2021 proposed rule that would amend the 2018 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) fees rule. The EPA’s assistant administrator warned us to be prepared for sticker shock. The proposed increases are significant. This article discusses what you need to know.

In August, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced it is considering revisiting the Process Safety Management (PSM) standard. This column summarizes why OSHA is thinking of amending the standard and what you can do to engage in the process.

Given the passage of time since the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was enacted in 1976, the public’s growing awareness of the potential for exposure from chemicals in “articles,” or finished goods, during use, and greater focus on the implications of end-of-life product disposal, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulation of articles under TSCA has shifted significantly. Historically, EPA elected not to regulate articles for the most part. EPA’s more recent announcement of its intent to regulate chemicals in articles to a much greater extent has caught many off guard and reflects a significant shift in U.S. chemical regulation policy.

Cleanup costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) are about to get a lot more expensive. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on September 6, 2022, that it will propose to designate perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), two of the most widely used per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), as hazardous substances under CERCLA. The rulemaking would also require entities immediately to report releases of PFOA and PFOS that meet or exceed the reportable quantity (RQ). This article discusses the proposal.

The scope of what diligence is due in any corporate transaction has evolved greatly over the past decade, particularly with respect to transactions involving chemical products. Once upon a time, transactional due diligence involving chemical products, whether ‘neat’ (pure) chemicals, formulations or end-use products, typically consisted of a phase I or phase II environmental site assessment (ESA) focusing on identifying contamination derivative of chemical releases into environmental media as effluent, emissions, fugitive releases or waste, as well as quantifying the potential for such releases to pose litigation risks or regulatory enforcement, or require costly remediation. Increasingly, parties to corporate transactions now continue to focus on these liabilities and on the compositional elements of chemical products themselves as potential sources of liability and commercial disruption. This article explains why the transition to chemical product due diligence has been slow and offers a few tips to help assess what diligence is due in corporate transactions involving chemical products.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) offers tremendous unrealized potential to promote the development of more sustainable industrial chemicals. Despite the fact that Congress significantly amended TSCA in 2016 specifically to diminish the human health and environmental footprint of industrial chemicals, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is interpreting the revised law in ways that ironically discourage the commercialization of new chemicals and reinforce a “new chemical bias” that undermines the commercialization of greener, more sustainable industrial chemicals. This article explores the EPA policies and practices that blunt the commercialization of promising, more sustainable industrial chemicals and offers recommendations to optimize TSCA to achieve greener chemicals.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued two new documents for recipients of Section 4 test orders under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The good news is these documents offer relief to stakeholders who otherwise would be responsible for chemical testing costs for certain chemicals they produced or imported.