TSCA: Nonrisk Factors

Until now, when the EPA was making a decision on whether or not a high-priority chemical presented an “unreasonable risk”, they were required to take into consideration costs and other non-risk factors. The new TSCA removes this requirement and actually states that the EPA shall not take costs or other non-risk factors into consideration. This will allow the EPA to make more sound decisions on whether certain chemicals need to be regulated and ensure that safety is the key factor in making these determinations. The Frank R. Lautenberg Act for the 21^st Century still holds chemicals to the same standard, meaning that they shall not present an “unreasonable risk” to health or the environment. The rule, however, does not more explicitly define this standard. Once the agency determines that a chemical may present a risk, a risk evaluation may be initiated. In conducting a risk evaluation, the EPA “shall not include information on cost and other factors not directly related to health or the environment” (H.R. 2576). Once it is determined that a chemical presents risk and should be regulated, the EPA must promulgate a rule to establish necessary restriction on said chemical. At this point, the agency may consider costs and benefits of the proposed regulations, based on reasonably available information. The EPA must also consider alternatives to the chemical in question, in order to find a more economically workable substitute, particularly in cases where the agency is anticipating imposing a full ban on a chemical.  This does not necessarily hinder the EPA from banning a chemical if a cheaper alternative is not found, but compels them to consider whether or not there are other options, and how this might affect industries that rely on using such chemicals.