U.S Supreme Court Decision Threatens Toxic Chemicals Reform

Ruling against EPA undermines key features of new legislation, legal scholars warn

Getty Images/iStockphoto/Thinkstock Images (MARS)

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

As Congress works to reform the outdated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that governs U.S. chemicals, more than 30 legal experts and public interest lawyers are warning that a Supreme Court decision last year could undermine any new law passed. They argue that a 2015 supreme court ruling, which blocked the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulation of mercury emissions from power plants, could ‘unintentionally reassert’ the agency’s obligation to detail the expenses involved in regulating a chemical.

TSCA reform legislation approved by the House and Senate contain provisions to reduce the EPA’s consideration of compliance costs. The intent of the language in those bills is for the agency to focus only on the risks that a chemical poses to public health and the environment.

In the 2015 Supreme Court decision the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away in February, said it is not appropriate for the EPA to ‘impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits’. He said the EPA ‘must consider cost—including, most importantly, cost of compliance—before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary.’ In their letter, the legal experts argue that such cost consideration requirements would ‘unduly burden’ the EPA, even in the face of credible threats from toxic chemicals.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


This article is reproduced with permission from Chemistry World. The article was first published on April 6, 2016.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe