Beefin’ Up Toxic Substance Regulation (H.R. 2576)

What is H.R. 2576?

(Updated September 29, 2019)

This bill was enacted on June 22, 2016

This bill seeks to protect Americans from toxic substances by changing the law that regulates how chemicals are manufactured, imported, and processed. It also strengthens the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) powers to evaluate and regulate potentially hazardous chemicals.

New regulations on chemicals deemed hazardous by the EPA would be applied at the federal level, though states would also have the power to issue their own regulations. Companies that use chemicals in their products could also ask the EPA to assess them for risk. This assessment would include factors like exactly how dangerous a chemical is, and how much of the substance is necessary to pose a threat to people, animals, and/or the environment.

Once toxic substances have been identified, this bill sets rules for regulating those chemicals. Generally, before a final ruling is etched in stone, it would be opened for public comment. This bill is big on deadlines: the EPA has 90 days after calling a substance toxic to put a plan in place for regulating it, and 180 days to make everything final.

An exemption would also be created for substances that, if they were removed from use, would disrupt the economy. Exempted chemicals could be used for five years undisrupted, at which point the relationship between its importance and the damage it causes would be reexamined. 

This bill also holds the Administrator more accountable for banning a substance. If they choose to do so, they must put out a statement that explains the ban: what exposure does to people, the effect on the environment, potential benefits, economic consequences — that kind of thing. State laws would not be able to circumvent this, unless specific laws protecting the substance were passed before the act.

Nine months after this act goes into effect, the Administrator would have to publish a list of toxic chemicals.

Argument in favor

This bill would modernize U.S. legislation around toxic materials, making it more detailed and thorough. More legislation around potentially hazardous chemicals means more safety for people in the U.S.

Argument opposed

While this bill has been championed as a win for consumers, manufacturers, the environment and the EPA — this bill still doesn't give the EPA enough power or time to effectively manage toxic chemicals.

Impact

Companies that produce chemicals that could be toxic, and others that make products containing chemicals that could be toxic, anyone who uses those products, the natural environment, the EPA, and other relevant federal agencies.

Cost of H.R. 2576

A CBO cost estimate found that having the EPA conduct chemical evaluations and all the other requirements in this bill would cost roughly $143 million over the 2016-2025 period. However, because the EPA can charge some fees for their services and for non-compliance with chemical regulations, the CBO estimates that this bill would reduce federal deficits by $115 million, and increase revenues by $121 million over the 2016-2025 period.

Additional Info

In Depth: 

This bill has strong bipartisan support, passing through the House Committee on Energy and Commerce — of which Sponsoring Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) is the big boss — unanimously (well, except for one person who wasn’t there). This bill modifies the Toxic Substances Control Act, which was passed in 1976.

A similar bill was introduced in the Senate in the 114th session, but it doesn’t have the same protections for states’ rights that this one does. Critiquing the bill for it's seemingly close ties to the chemical industry. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) went as far as to say that:

"It was clear from the computer coding that the final draft originated at the American Chemical Council itself.”

Of Note:

This bill is geared at toughening up the TSCA, making its deadlines harder and its requirements more clear. But environmental groups still aren’t happy with it. According to the Environmental Working Group, its safety standards still aren’t clear, and it doesn’t give the EPA enough resources to assess chemicals under the given deadlines.

Media:

• House Committee on Energy and Commerce Press Release
  
• The Hill
  
• Law360
  
• National Law Review