Myth vs Facts Distributed During 3.18.15 hearing
Myth: S. 697 is worse than current law
Fact: S. 697 will make oversight of chemicals stronger, timelier and remove barriers that have made it
difficult for EPA to act by enacting significant changes including:
 Requiring a systematic review of all chemicals in commerce. Current law grandfathered
thousands of chemicals already on the market when TSCA was enacted, and the vast majority of
them have not been reviewed for safety.
 Making it easier for EPA to request additional testing or safety data from manufacturers.
Current law requires EPA to demonstrate an unreasonable risk of harm before it can require more
testing and data, a hurdle that is often too high without the very data the agency is seeking.
 Ensuring that safety evaluations of chemicals are only based on health and safety
information. Current law requires EPA to consider costs and benefits when determining if a
chemical is safe, a factor that should be irrelevant to a safety determination.
 Setting hard deadlines for EPA action. Current law does not hold EPA to deadlines,
contributing to lengthy delays and years of inaction.
 Strengthening protections for the most vulnerable including infants, children, pregnant
women, workers and the elderly. Current law does not mandate that EPA to consider exposures
to these vulnerable groups.
Myth: S. 697 will not address asbestos
Fact: S. 697 takes a very clear “worst-first” approach. EPA can move right away to prioritize and begin a
safety evaluation of asbestos.
Furthermore, S. 697 removes the two procedural hurdles in current law that prevented EPA from
regulating asbestos in the past: the requirement that EPA prove a chemical poses an unreasonable risk
before the Agency can request more data from a manufacturer; and the requirement that EPA adopt the
least burdensome regulatory requirement.
Myth: S. 697 strips states of their authority to co-enforce federal chemical regulations
Fact: Current TSCA does not give states power to enforce federal chemical regulations today and
enforcement of the federal chemicals program will remain at the federal level. In fact, no federal safety
program (like aircraft, automobile or pharmaceutical programs) gives states the ability to enforce the
federal standard because the all Americans using the same product face the same risks. Therefore a
uniform standard of safety and enforcement of it is needed. Fifty different enforcement programs would
ultimately be nothing more than 50 different regulatory programs. However, S. 697 does foster greater
cooperation and information sharing between state and federal regulators.
Myth: S. 697 doesn’t give EPA enough authority to regulate finished products that contain
chemicals. In other words, it “regulates the chemical, but not the couch” where dangerous
chemicals may be lurking.
Fact: S. 697 actually expands EPAs ability to review finished products (articles) that could be a
significant source of harmful exposure to chemicals and provides a streamlined regulatory process to
control or even eliminate those exposures. This authority is in addition to the existing oversight of the
Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is the primary regulator of consumer products.
Myth: S. 697 “eviscerates” state authority to regulate the most dangerous chemicals, even when
EPA has done nothing.
Fact: The only time that EPA action will supersede state restrictions is in the case of high priority
chemicals, once EPA has determined the scope of what it will review. States can continue to restrict uses
of high priorities that are outside of EPA’s review, and can APPLY FOR A WAIVER that would allow
state restrictions to remain in place while EPA conducts its review.
S. 697 preempt state regulations under air or water quality laws that affect chemical
substances, such as chemical monitoring requirements for emissions?
Fact: S. 697 makes it clear that state actions under air and water quality laws are not preempted
by EPA’s decisions under TSCA. The bill specifically says that S. 697 will not preempt any
“authority under the law of a State or political subdivision of a State related to water quality, air
quality or waste treatment or disposal” or that is, “adopted under the authority of, or authorized
to comply with, any other Federal law,” unless it directly relates to and contradicts an EPA
restriction on a specific chemical regulated under TSCA, which is rarely an issue. This language
makes clear that S. 697 will not preempt the enforcement of state air and water quality laws or
state actions taken under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act or other federal statutes.
Myth: Chemical manufacturers can pay to have their chemical designated as a high
priority in order to have state authority related to their chemical preempted, even when
EPA has done nothing to regulate it.
Fact: S. 697 provides manufacturers with an opportunity to request that EPA fully evaluate the
safety of a chemical and potentially apply regulations. EPA can review the requests; if
warranted, deny the request; and must ensure that no more than 15 percent of the chemicals
under review are the result of requests of manufacturers. These additional priorities are not
treated in the same manner as chemicals designated by EPA as high priorities. When EPA does
accept the request, manufacturers must pay 100 percent of the cost of the assessment, and
existing state restrictions on the chemical will not be preempted and states can enact new
restrictions on the chemical until EPA completes the assessment and applies any necessary
regulations.