View source for Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976

{{Short description|United States federal law}}
{{redirect|TSCA|the opera|Tosca||Tosca (disambiguation)}}
{{Use American English|date=June 2025}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2018}}
{{Infobox U.S. legislation
| shorttitle = Toxic Substances Control Act
| longtitle = An Act to regulate commerce and protect human health and the environment by requiring testing and necessary use restrictions on certain chemical substances, and for other purposes.
| acronym = TSCA
| enacted by = 94th
| effective date = October 11, 1976
| public law url = http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-90/pdf/STATUTE-90-Pg2003.pdf
| cite public law = 94-469
| cite statutes at large = {{usstat|90|2003}}
| acts amended = 
| title amended = [[Title 15 of the United States Code|15 U.S.C.: Commerce and Trade]]
| sections created = {{Usc-title-chap|15|53|I}} §§ 2601–2629
| sections amended = 
| leghisturl = http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d094:SN03149:@@@Z
| introducedin = Senate
| introducedbill = {{USbill|94|S.|3149}}
| introducedby = [[John V. Tunney]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]]–[[California|CA]])
| introduceddate = March 16, 1976
| committees = [[United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation|Senate Commerce]], [[United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce|House Commerce]]
| passedbody1 = Senate
| passeddate1 = March 26, 1976
| passedvote1 = [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/94-1976/s714 60-13]
| passedbody2 = House of Representatives
| passeddate2 = August 23, 1976
| passedvote2 = [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/94-1976/h1099 319-45], in lieu of {{USBill|94|H.R.|14032}}
| conferencedate = August 23, 1976
| passedbody3 = House of Representatives
| passeddate3 = September 28, 1976
| passedvote3 = [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/94-1976/h1240 360-35]
| passedbody4 = Senate
| passeddate4 = September 28, 1976
| passedvote4 = [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/94-1976/s1267 73-6]
| signedpresident = [[Gerald Ford]]
| signeddate = October 11, 1976
| amendments = P.L. 99-519 (1986); P.L. 100-551 (1988); P.L. 101-637 (1990); P.L. 102-550 (1992); [[No Child Left Behind Act]] of 2002;<br />[[Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act]], {{USPL|114|182}} (2016)
}}
The '''Toxic Substances Control Act''' ('''TSCA''') is a United States law, passed by the [[United States Congress|Congress]] in 1976 and administered by the United States [[United States Environmental Protection Agency|Environmental Protection Agency]] (EPA), that regulates chemicals not regulated by other U.S. federal statutes,<ref>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). [https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-R/part-710#p-710.3(d) "Chemical substance."] Compilation of the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory. ''Code of Federal Regulations,'' {{CodeFedReg|40|710|3|d}}</ref> including chemicals already in commerce and the introduction of new  [[chemical]]s.<ref>{{cite web |title=Learn About the Toxic Substances Control Act |url=https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/learn-about-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca |date=2024-10-04 |publisher=EPA}}</ref><ref name=":0">Auer, Charles, Frank Kover, James Aidala, Marks Greenwood. [http://www.epaalumni.org/hcp/toxics.pdf “Toxic Substances: A Half Century of Progress.”] EPA Alumni Association. March 2016.</ref><ref name="hanson07">{{cite journal |last1=Hanson |first1=David J. |title=Those Were The Days |journal=Chemical & Engineering News |date=15 January 2007 |volume=85 |issue=3 |url=https://cen.acs.org/articles/85/i3/Those-Days.html |publisher=American Chemical Society|doi=10.1021/cen-v085n003.p044 |url-access=subscription }}</ref> When the TSCA was put into place, all existing chemicals were considered to be safe for use and subsequently [[Grandfather Clause|grandfathered]] in.<ref name=LT>{{cite journal |last1=Trasande |first1=Leonardo |title=Updating the Toxic Substances Control Act to Protect Human Health |journal=JAMA |date=19 April 2016 |volume=315 |issue=15 |pages=1565–6 |doi=10.1001/jama.2016.2037 |pmid=26974705}}</ref> Its three main objectives are to assess and regulate new commercial chemicals before they enter the market, to regulate chemicals already existing in 1976 that posed an "unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment", as for example [[Polychlorinated biphenyl|PCB]]s, lead, mercury and [[radon]], and to regulate these chemicals' distribution and use.<ref name=objectives>{{cite web |title=Summary of the Toxic Substances Control Act |date=2024-09-09 |url=https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-toxic-substances-control-act |publisher=EPA}}</ref>

Contrary to what the name implies, TSCA does not separate chemicals into categories of toxic and non-toxic. Rather it prohibits the manufacture or importation of chemicals that are not on the TSCA Inventory or subject to one of many exemptions. Chemicals listed on the inventory are referred to as "existing chemicals", while chemicals not listed are referred to as new chemicals.<ref name="EPA TSCA about">{{cite web |title=About the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory |url=https://www.epa.gov/tsca-inventory/about-tsca-chemical-substance-inventory |publisher=EPA |date=2024-06-03}}</ref> The act defines the term "chemical substance" as "any organic or inorganic substance of a particular molecular identity, including any combination of these substances occurring in whole or in part as a result of a chemical reaction or occurring in nature, and any element or uncombined radical"<ref name="Speight 2016">{{cite book |last1=Speight |first1=James G. |title=Environmental Organic Chemistry for Engineers |date=2016 |publisher=Butterworth-Heinemann |isbn=9780128006689 |page=380 |chapter=3.9 Toxic Substances Control Act}}</ref> although TSCA excludes chemicals regulated by other federal statutes from the definition of a chemical substance.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/980346853|title=New TSCA : a guide to the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act and its implementation|date=2017|others=Lynn L. Bergeson, Charles M. Auer, Energy, and Resources American Bar Association. Section of Environment|isbn=978-1-63425-833-3|location=Chicago, Illinois|pages=12|oclc=980346853}}</ref>

Generally, manufacturers must submit premanufacturing notification to EPA prior to manufacturing or importing new chemicals for commerce. Exceptions include foods, food additives, drugs, cosmetics or devices regulated under the [[Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act]], pesticides regulated by the [[Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act]], tobacco and tobacco products regulated by the [[Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives]], substances used only in small quantities for research and development under Section 5(h)(3),<ref>{{cite web |title=Is a Filing Necessary for My Chemical? |url=http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/pubs/whofiles.htm |publisher=EPA |access-date=6 May 2014|date=2013-07-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Research and Development Exemption for New Chemical Review under TSCA |url=https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/research-and-development-exemption |date=2024-12-31 |publisher=EPA}}</ref> and radioactive materials and wastes regulated by the [[Nuclear Regulatory Commission]]. EPA reviews new chemical notifications and if it finds an "unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment", it may regulate the substance from limiting uses or production volume to outright banning it. In 2016, the [[Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act]] was the first major overhaul in many years.<ref>United States. Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. {{USPL|114|182}} Approved June 22, 2016.</ref>

== Overview==
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 mandated the EPA to protect the public from "unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment" by regulating the manufacture, processing, distribution, use, sale, and disposal of chemicals. This act does not address pollution, which is regulated through the [[Clean Air Act (United States)|Clean Air Act]], [[Clean Water Act]] and the [[Resource Conservation and Recovery Act]]. Instead, like FIFRA (the [[Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act]]), TSCA regulates commercial products.<ref name=":0" /> The act gave the EPA the authority to gather information on and require manufacturers (and importers) to test products, required the EPA to create a listing of existing chemicals and the industry to notify EPA of new chemicals being produced, and gave the EPA the ability to regulate chemical production and use.<ref name=":0" /> For example, in 2019 EPA banned the use of [[methylene chloride]] in consumer paint and coating removal products.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/regulation-chemicals-under-section-6a-toxic-substances | title=Regulation of Chemicals under Section 6(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act |publisher=EPA |date=2024-09-12}}</ref>

The types of chemicals regulated by the act fall into two broad categories: existing and new. The distinction is made because the act regulates the two categories of chemicals in different ways. Existing chemicals include any chemical currently listed on the TSCA Inventory under TSCA section 8(b). New chemicals are defined as "any chemical substance which is not included in the chemical substance list compiled and published under section 8(b)." This list included all chemical substances manufactured or imported into the United States prior to December 1979, which covered 99% of the EPA's mandate in the bill, including some 8,800 chemicals imported or produced at quantities above 10,000 pounds.

=== Sections ===
[[File:PCB-labelling.jpg|thumb|Labeling PCB-containing transformers]]
[[File:When buying a home, ask about lead - EPA 2017.jpg|thumb|EPA flyer on lead-based paint disclosure]]
The TSCA is found in United States law at [[Title 15 of the United States Code]], Chapter 53,<ref>{{Usc-title-chap|15|53}}</ref> and administered by EPA.

*Title of the TSCA, "Control of Toxic Substances", is the original substance of the 1976 act, establishes the core program, including regulation of [[polychlorinated biphenyl]] (PCB) products and bans certain activities with respect to elemental mercury.<ref>Toxic Substances Control Act. "Prioritization, risk evaluation, and regulation of chemical substances and mixtures." {{USCSub|15|2605}}</ref>
*Title II, "Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response", authorizes the EPA to set standards for [[asbestos]] abatement in schools, and requires  asbestos contractors to be trained and certified, enacted in 1986 under PL 99-519 and amended in 1990 under PL 101-637.<ref>Toxic Substances Control Act. "Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response." {{Usc-title-chap|15|53|II}}</ref>
*Title III, "Indoor Radon Abatement", requires the EPA to publish a guide about [[radon]] health risks and to perform studies of radon levels in schools and federal buildings, enacted in 1988 under PL 100-551.<ref>Toxic Substances Control Act. "Indoor Radon Abatement." {{Usc-title-chap|15|53|III}}</ref>
*Title IV, "Lead Exposure Reduction" requires the EPA to identify sources of [[lead]] contamination in the environment to regulate amounts of lead allowed in products, including paint and toys, and to establish state programs that monitor and reduce lead exposures, enacted in 1992 under PL 102-550.<ref>Toxic Substances Control Act. "Lead Exposure Reduction." {{Usc-title-chap|15|53|IV}}</ref><ref name=LindaImplementation/>

U.S. regulations implementing the TSCA are in 40 CFR Part 195 for radon,<ref>[http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_01/40cfr195_01.html 40 CFR 195]</ref> and in 40 CFR Parts 700 through 766 for other matters.<ref>[http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_01/40cfrv27_01.html 40 CFR 700-766]</ref>

Under 15 USC 2605(e) the TSCA specifically regulates PCBs.<ref>[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+15USC2605 15 USC 2605(e)]</ref> Subsection (2)(A) provides that after January 1, 1978, "no person may manufacture, process or distribute in commerce or use any PCB in any manner other than in a totally enclosed manner." It also authorizes the EPA to regulate PCBs disposal.

Acting under the TSCA and other laws, the EPA has set limits for PCB contamination of the environment. It has engaged in protracted negotiations with the U.S. [[General Electric]] company and other firms for remediation of sites contaminated with PCBs such as the upper [[Hudson River]].

== History ==
The TSCA was passed by the Congress and signed into law by President [[Gerald Ford]] on October 11, 1976 after years of negotiation between the government and chemical producers.<ref name=Historical>{{cite web |title=The Toxic Substances Control Act: History and implementation |url=http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/pubs/chem-pmn/appendix.pdf |publisher=EPA |date=1997 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140506115834/http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/pubs/chem-pmn/appendix.pdf |archive-date=2014-05-06}}</ref> A bill was first introduced in Congress in 1971, but it was opposed by industry and environmental groups, leading to a five-year stalemate.<ref name=":0" /> TSCA authorized the EPA to regulate new and existing chemicals.<ref name= Historical/> TSCA was in  response to Congress' growing concerns about the unreasonable risks that chemicals pose to human health and the environment.<ref name= Historical/> TSCA limits the manufacture, processing, commercial distribution, use, and disposal of chemical substances including PCBs, asbestos, radon and [[lead-based paint]].<ref name= Historical/>

===The 1971 Council on Environmental Quality Report===
In a 1971 report, the [[Council on Environmental Quality]] (CEQ) urged the Federal government to regulate toxic substances in the U.S.<ref name=LindaImplementation>{{cite report |last1=Schierow |first1=Linda-Jo |title=The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): Implementation and New Challenges |url=https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/policy/acsonthehill/briefings/tscareform/crs-tsca-implementation-2008.pdf |publisher=Congressional Research Service |access-date=2018-09-03 |date=July 28, 2009}}</ref> CEQ explained that existing regulations were insufficient to protect human health and the environment. For example, the existing law only took effect after the damages were done and did nothing to prevent future damage.<ref name=David>{{cite journal |last1=Markell |first1=David L. |title=An Overview of TSCA, its History and Key Underlying Assumptions, and its Place in Environmental Regulation |journal=Washington University Journal of Law and Policy |date=2010 |volume=32 |url=https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol32/iss1/11}}</ref> As [[John R. Quarles Jr.]], the EPA Deputy Administrator, later explained during congressional testimony in 1975, "While some authority exists to control the production of certain categories of toxic substances, such as pesticides, drugs, and food additives, most existing Federal authorities are designed to prevent harmful exposure only after the substances have been introduced into production."<ref>{{cite web |last1=Quarles |first1=John R. |title=Quarles Testifies on the Need for Toxic Substances Act |url=http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/quarles-testifies-need-toxic-substances-act |publisher=EPA |date=1975-07-10 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140506113108/http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/quarles-testifies-need-toxic-substances-act |archive-date=2014-05-06 |id=Press Release}}</ref> In order to adequately regulate what chemicals should enter the environment, CEQ recommended that the government create a more comprehensive chemical policy to identify and control the chemicals that are manufactured, produced, and used in the U.S economy.<ref name=LindaImplementation/> Specifically, CEQ recommended that TSCA strengthen government oversight by requiring the following measures: First, manufacturers should notify officials when they use or produce new chemicals, or plan to sell a significant volume of old chemicals. Second, producers should test their chemicals and report data to officials on the quantities, uses, physical and biological properties, and any other information is necessary for assessing hazardous materials. Lastly, with this information, the government should disclose any information about the health effects caused by dangerous chemicals to the public.<ref name=David/>

===Congress' response to CEQ and the drafting of TSCA===
Congress agreed with CEQ that additional authority was required to test chemicals to determine their effect, and responded to CEQ's recommendation by proposing many House and Senate bills between 1972 and 1973.<ref name=LindaImplementation/> Policy makers were also aware that the cancer mortality rate had increased and recognized that the cause of the increase was related to the rise of industrial chemicals in consumer products and the environment.<ref name=David/> As a result of these concerns, Congress concluded the risk of chemical exposure to the public were serious enough to warrant swift legislative action.<ref name=David/>

Three key assumptions informed Congress' approach to drafting a chemicals control policy. First, in order to limit the risks that chemicals pose to human health and the environment, it would be important to be proactive in understanding toxic substances and use preventive measures. Second, toxic risk should be approached in a "holistic rather than fragmented" manner. Third, it was important to collect as much information as possible about the toxicity of chemicals and the risks associated with them.<ref name=David/>

Although there was much support for policy to address public health risks from chemical exposure, the law was stalled at the last minute because of disagreement over the proper scope of chemical screening prior to commercial production.<ref name=LindaImplementation/> However, a series of environmental disasters, such as the [[Kepone catastrophe]] at [[Hopewell, Virginia]],<ref name=foster05>Richard Foster, [https://richmondmagazine.com/news/kepone-disaster-pesticide/ Kepone: The 'Flour' Factory], ''Richmond Magazine'' (July 8, 2005).</ref><ref name=hanson07/> and the [[pollution of the Hudson River]] "and other waterways by PCBs, the threat of [[stratospheric]] [[ozone depletion]] from [[chlorofluorocarbon]] (CFC) emissions, and contamination of agricultural products by [[polybrominated biphenyls]] (PBBs) in the State of Michigan" provided a clearer picture of the costs of weak regulation over toxic substances. Subsequently, the legislation passed in 1976.<ref name=LindaImplementation/>

Congress designed TSCA to empower EPA to collect more information on chemicals and their potential dangerous effect on human health and the environment.<ref>{{cite report | last= Schierow |first=Linda-Jo | date = March 3, 2009 | title = The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): A Summary of the Act and It Major Requirements | url = https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/policy/acsonthehill/briefings/toxicitytesting/crs-rl31905.pdf |publisher = Congressional Research Service |access-date = 2018-09-03}}</ref> As a result, TSCA's jurisdictional scope is extremely broad.<ref name=David/> Congress's definition of chemical substances includes "any organic or inorganic substance of a particular molecular identity", and "any combination of such substances occurring in whole or in part as a result of a chemical reaction or occurring in nature" as well as "any element or uncombined radical".<ref>15 U.S. Code Chapter 53 - Toxic Substances Control Act. Subchapter I: Control of Toxic Substances. § 2601: Findings, Policy, and Intent. {{USC|15|2601}}</ref> These chemicals are found in children's products (e.g., toys) cleaning products, furniture, electronics, building materials, and car interiors. The law attempts to oversee the manufacture (including import), processing, distribution, use and or disposal of such chemical substances.<ref name=David/> Prior to the enactment of the [[Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act]], TSCA directed the EPA to use the least burdensome method to reduce chemical risk to reasonable levels while taking into consideration the benefits provided by the chemical product or process.<ref name=LindaImplementation/>

===Implementation===
[[File:Asbestos abatement (5392910701).jpg|thumb|upright=0.7|Asbestos abatement]]
There have been many challenges in the implementation of TSCA. First, according to David Markell, Professor of Law at Florida State University, TSCA and preexisting regulations have "an after-the-fact focus" that fails to protect individuals before toxic substances are released in products and is media focused without addressing how to control pollution within communities.<ref name=David/>

Second, TSCA implementation is difficult because of the number of chemicals in the US market and high costs associated with fully assessing the toxic impacts of so many chemicals on human health and the environment.<ref name=David/> 62,000 chemicals on the market at the time were listed on the original TSCA Inventory of Chemical Substances.<ref>{{cite web |title=U.S. Chemical Management: The Toxic Substances Control Act |url=http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/confronting-toxics/chemical-management/ |website=Physicians for Social Responsibility |access-date=26 April 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140523231103/http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/confronting-toxics/chemical-management/ |archive-date=2014-05-23}}</ref> TSCA "grandfathered" these 62,000 chemicals, allowing these substances to remain on the market without first assessing toxic impacts. New chemicals, however, would be subject to review for health and environmental risks. Since then number of chemicals listed on the TSCA Inventory has grown to roughly 84,000.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Shweitzer |first1=Jenna |title=TSCA and the Proposed Chemical Safety Improvement Act |url=https://www.theregreview.org/2013/09/19/19-shweitzer-tsca-reform/ |website=The Regulatory Review |publisher=University of Pennsylvania Law School |access-date=2018-09-03 |date=19 September 2013}}</ref> The EPA has only required approximately 200 of these 84,000 chemicals to be tested, and of the 22,000 chemicals introduced since 1976, chemical manufacturers have produced very little data for the EPA on potential health and/or environmental impacts.<ref>{{cite report |title=Chemical Regulation: Actions are Needed to Improve the Effectiveness of EPA's Chemical Review Program |id=GAO-06-1032T |url=https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1032T |publisher=U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) |location=Washington, D.C. |date=2 August 2006}}</ref>

Third, even though TSCA gives authority to the EPA to test the existing chemicals through the EPA's own rule making process, the EPA has difficulty obtaining the data needed to determine their risks.  It is difficult to collect information from industries about the risks of chemicals and the EPA has concluded that conducting its own testing is too costly.<ref name=David/>

The EPA is authorized to require industry to perform testing of chemicals being produced in substantial quantities or if the EPA finds that the manufacturing, production or use of a chemical "may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment."<ref name=15U.S.Code2603>15 U.S. Code Chapter 53 - Toxic Substances Control Act. Subchapter I: Control of Toxic Substances. §2603 - Testing of Chemical Substances and Mixtures. {{USC|15|2603}}</ref>

The only information required from chemical producers is chemical identities, names, and molecular structures, categories of use, amount manufactured and processed for each category of use, descriptions of byproducts resulting from manufacture, processing, use, and disposal, environmental and health effects, number of individuals exposed, number of employees exposed and the duration of exposure, and manner or method of chemical disposal.<ref name=LindaImplementation/>

In order to obtain more information related to chemical risks, the EPA must ask chemical companies to do testing. This occurs either by (1) mutual agreement, or (2) voluntary industry efforts under the [[High production volume chemicals|HPV]] Challenge Program.<ref name=David/> The EPA has also created the Sustainable Futures (SF) Initiative model, which allows companies to voluntarily screen their products that might pose risks to human health or the environment. Through this initiative, the EPA hopes to enable manufacturers to better predict hazards and exposures of their products. The program is designed to enable companies to bring safer chemicals to the market.<ref>{{cite web |title=About Sustainable Futures |url=https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-futures/about-sustainable-futures |publisher=EPA |date=2018-04-25}}</ref>

== Regulation of existing chemicals ==
[[File:Existing chemicals review - TSCA - EPA.png|thumb|Existing Chemicals Review process]]
[[File:TSCA Risk Evaluation Process - Existing Chemicals - EPA 2023.png|thumb|Risk evaluation process for existing chemicals]]
Currently, existing chemicals on the market are listed in the TSCA Inventory.<ref name=gao/> Though tasked with protecting the public from dangerous and potentially carcinogenic substances, some 62,000 chemicals were never tested by the EPA because they were "grandfathered in and statutorily not considered an "unreasonable risk".<ref name="blastmagazine1976">{{cite web |url=http://blastmagazine.com/the-magazine/technology/earth/earthtalk-toxic-substances-control-act-of-1976-toilet-paper-rolls/ |title=EarthTalk: Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976? Toilet paper rolls? |publisher=Blastmagazine.com |date=January 1, 2011 |access-date=2011-05-26 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110426092757/http://blastmagazine.com/the-magazine/technology/earth/earthtalk-toxic-substances-control-act-of-1976-toilet-paper-rolls/ |archive-date=2011-04-26}}</ref>  Without testing, TSCA grandfathered the use of these chemicals into TSCA's list of "existing" (as opposed to "new") chemicals. For existing chemicals, manufacturers need to generate and report data on risk, manufacturing and processing, adverse health effects, published and unpublished health and safety studies, and "substantial risks". to the EPA<ref name=Applegate>{{cite journal |last1=Applegate |first1=John S. |title=Synthesizing TSCA and REACH: Practical Principles for Chemical Regulation Reform|journal=Articles by Maurer Faculty|volume=Paper 438 |url=http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/438 |format=pdf |date=2008}}</ref> Also, if a substance is subject of a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR), a company would have to submit and receive approval of a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN) prior to undertaking the significant new use(s) defined in the SNUR.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2014-10-24|title=Actions under TSCA Section 5 |url=https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/actions-under-tsca-section-5 |access-date=2021-12-30 |publisher=EPA}}</ref>

Under section 4, the EPA has the authority to require manufacturers to test existing chemicals, but in each case the EPA must make several formal findings, the first of which is subject to judicial review under the "substantial evidence" standard.<ref name=Applegate/> In particular, the requirement that the EPA determine that the chemical "may present an unreasonable risk" creates a regulatory "[[Catch-22 (logic)|Catch-22]]" as such a determination requires much of the very data that the EPA cannot access or cause to be generated without first making the determination.<ref name=Applegate/> This burden was one of the drivers for changes to Section 4 during the negotiations to reform TSCA.

In 1989, the EPA issued a final rule under section 6 to ban the manufacturing, importing, and processing of nearly all asbestos-containing products in the USA.<ref name="Bergeson, et al.">{{cite web|author1=Lynn L. Bergeson|author2=Lisa M. Campbell|author3=Lisa Rothenberg|title=TSCA and the Future of Chemical Regulation|url=http://www.lawbc.com/uploads/docs/tsca.pdf|publisher=EPA Administrative Law Reporter|access-date=2 May 2016|ref=Bergeson}}</ref> However, it had only limited success in using the authority granted under TSCA section 6 to control chemicals tested and deemed dangerous to public health.<ref name="Bergeson, et al." /> The EPA's failure to adequately regulate these chemicals caused strong debates over the legal burden the EPA bears in banning chemicals.<ref name="Bergeson, et al." /> The EPA has been successful in restricting five chemicals using section 6 authority (PCBs, chlorofluorocarbons, dioxin, asbestos, and hexavalent chromium) in its 38-year history,<ref>{{cite magazine |url=http://www.congressionaldigest.com/debate-topics/issue-detail.asp?id=333 |title=Controlling Toxic Substances: Chemical Safety and Technological Innovation |magazine=Congressional Digest |date=October 2010|volume=89|issue=8 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101121035259/http://congressionaldigest.com///debate-topics/issue-detail.asp?id=333 |archive-date=2010-11-21}}</ref> with the ban on asbestos being partially overturned in 1991.<ref>{{cite web |title=Asbestos Ban and Phase Out |url=http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/ban.html |publisher=EPA |date=1999 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110628184738/http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/ban.html |archive-date=2011-06-28}}</ref> EPA has restricting some existing chemicals using Section 5 SNURs.<ref>81 ''Fed. Reg.'' 30451</ref><ref>85 ''Fed. Reg''. 45109</ref>

{{As of| 2015}}, 250 of the more than 60,000 existing chemicals have been directly tested by the EPA.<ref>{{cite web |title=Reducing our exposure to toxic chemicals |url=http://www.foreffectivegov.org/reducing-chemical-exposure |publisher=Center for Effective Government |location=Washington, D.C. |access-date=12 April 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150429080950/http://www.foreffectivegov.org/reducing-chemical-exposure |archive-date=2015-04-29}}</ref> 140 of those chemicals were tested by regulatory order and 60 were tested after voluntary consent by the manufacturer.<ref name=Wilson/> Additionally, there are 3,000 high production volume (HPV) chemicals, produced or imported in quantities exceeding one million pounds per year<ref name=Wilson/> These HPV chemicals only constitute one third of existing chemicals, but their high volumes raise concern about the lack of basic hazard information.<ref name=Wilson/> Many environmental groups, such as [[Natural Resources Defense Council]], complain that the EPA is nearly powerless to take regulatory action against dangerous chemicals, even those known to cause cancer or other serious health effects.<ref name="blastmagazine1976"/> The HPV program lead to the generation of new or release of existing data on over 2,200 chemicals.<ref>{{cite web |title=Data Development and Information Collection to Assess Risks |url=https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/data-development-and-information-collection-assess |website=Assessing and Managing Chemicals under TSCA |date=2024-12-12 |publisher=EPA}}</ref>

== Regulation of new chemicals ==
[[File:New Chemicals - Active Cases Under Review - EPA 11-01-2022.png|thumb|Status chart of new chemicals being reviewed by EPA, November 1, 2022]]
Companies must notify the EPA of their intention to manufacture (or import) a new chemical (one not listed on the TSCA Inventory) by submitting a PMN at least 90 days prior to the first manufacture or import for a non-exempt purpose. Section 5 of TSCA does not require any toxicity testing before submitting a PMN<ref name=Wagner/> No safety information is required to be included in the PMN, so the EPA must rely on computer modeling to determine whether the new chemical "may present an unreasonable risk."<ref name="google1976">{{cite web |last1=Guth |first1=Joseph H. |title=Introduction To Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 |url=http://www.sehn.org/lawpdf/TSCASummary.pdf |website=Science & Environmental Health Network |access-date=2018-09-03 |date=30 April 2006}}</ref> In order to regulate new chemicals, the EPA must determine that the chemical "...may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment..." or show that the chemical "... is or will be produced in substantial quantities, and such substance either enters or may reasonably be anticipated to enter the environment in substantial quantities or there is or may be significant or substantial human exposure to the substance...."<ref name=Wagner/>

If the EPA does not satisfy these requirements, it cannot act to block the manufacture of the new chemical. The EPA has only 90 days from receipt of a PMN to act before the new chemical may be legally marketed and included in products.  In consequence, only 40 percent of acute toxicity and mutagenicity testing is ever completed, even less data on long-term effects or specific endpoints (including subchronic, neurotoxicological, developmental, reproductive, and chronic) is ever generated. Additionally, less than 5 percent of data on toxicity to aquatic organisms is submitted with a PMN. "<ref name=Wagner/> From 1979 to 1994 the EPA OPPT's new chemical program received over 24000 PMNs and sought to delay manufacture and require additional data for only 5000 of those submissions. Half of these nonetheless ultimately entered and are still on the market.<ref name="Bergeson, et al." />

EPA evaluation found that 85 percent of PMN data on health effects is deficient, and 67 percent of PMNs contain deficiencies on health or environmental effects of any kind.<ref name=Wilson/> In order to compensate for this deficiency of data, Section 5 of TSCA created The Structure Activity Team (SAT) along with structural-activity relations (SARs) to review PMN chemicals. SAT consists of a team of expert scientists and specialists who evaluate the potential environmental fate, and health and environmental hazards of new chemicals<ref name=Wagner/>

Since there is little to no data received with the PMNs, hazard assessments for chemicals depend heavily on models, SARs based on analogous chemicals, or, in some cases, data on the subject chemical retrieved from public databases or reference material such as Beilstein.<ref name=Wagner/> However, it has been argued that SARs and SAT's review process do not adequately evaluate risks associated with new chemicals.<ref name="Bergeson, et al." />  For instance, there is no minimum data set beyond information already in possession at the time they file the PMN. The EPA may regulate chemicals that enter the market only under the standards of TSCA and also carries the burden of proving the safety of existing chemicals<ref name=Wilson/>

==Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory)==
The TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory) is EPA's comprehensive list of confidential and non-confidential chemical substances.<ref>{{CodeFedReg|40|710|3|d}}</ref> The non-confidential inventory is provided in [[Microsoft Access]] and [[comma-separated values|CSV]] formats within [[ZIP (file format)|ZIP files]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.epa.gov/tsca-inventory/how-access-tsca-inventory |title=How to Access the TSCA Inventory |date=2025-01-17 |publisher=EPA}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=TSCA Inventory; Data Catalog |url=https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/tsca-inventory |website=Data.gov |publisher=EPA and U.S. General Services Administration |access-date=2025-02-08}}</ref> Inventory notification reporting is through an updated user interface in the Central Data Exchange (CDX) Chemical Safety and Pesticide Programs (CSPP) [[web application]] for company-authorized officials and their support; there is no role for the public to access the CDX CSPP web app.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cdx_registration_guide_v0_02.pdf |title=CDX Chemical Safety and Pesticide Programs Registration User Guide |pages=53–58 |date=3 April 2015 |publisher=EPA |access-date=2022-10-18}}</ref> The [[Toxics Release Inventory]] (TRI) is a different inventory for Superfund reporting.

== Criticism ==
TSCA had been severely criticized by non-governmental organizations, academics, scientists, and even government agencies for failing to regulate the safe use of chemicals affecting human health and environmental welfare effectively.<ref name=Wilson>{{cite journal |last1=Wilson |first1=Michael P. |last2=Schwarzman |first2=Megan R. |title=Toward a new U.S. chemicals policy: rebuilding the foundation to advance new science, green chemistry, and environmental health |journal=Environmental Health Perspectives |date=August 2009 |volume=117 |issue=8 |pages=1202–1209 |doi=10.1289/ehp.0800404 |pmid=19672398 |pmc=2721862}}</ref><ref name="Chemicals 2010">{{cite web |last1=Dahl |first1=Lindsay |title=Healthy States: Protecting Families from Toxic Chemicals While Congress Lags Behind |url=https://saferchemicals.org/2010/11/17/healthy-states-protecting-families-from-toxic-chemicals-while-congress-lags-behind/ |website=saferchemicals.org |date=17 November 2010}}</ref> Prior to the TSCA amendments in 2016, "the act has not been substantially updated."<ref name=Vogel>{{cite journal |last1=Vogel |first1=Sarah A. |last2=Roberts |first2=Jody A. |title=Why the toxic substances control act needs an overhaul, and how to strengthen oversight of chemicals in the interim |journal=Health Affairs |date=May 2011 |volume=30 |issue=5 |pages=898–905 |doi=10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0211 |doi-access=free|pmid=21555473}}</ref> Organizations concerned about product safety, "including the chemical industry, environmental and public health advocates, and the EPA"<ref name=Vogel/> have attempted to mitigate the effects of weak regulation. They argue that "the inability to function as intended results from a series of legal, organizational, and political challenges."<ref name=Vogel/> According to Wilson and Schwarzman, there are three gaps in US chemicals policy:
*"Data gap: Producers are not required to investigate and disclose sufficient information on the hazard traits of chemicals to government, the public, or businesses that use chemicals.
*"Safety gap: Government lacks the legal tools it needs to efficiently identify, prioritize, and take action to mitigate the potential health and environmental effects of hazardous chemicals.
*"Technology gap: Industry and government have invested only marginally in green chemistry research, development, and education."<ref name=Wilson/>

The EPA Office of the Inspector General said in 2010 that implementation has been "inconsistent and  presents a minimal presence."<ref name="autogenerated1">{{cite web|url=http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/88/i08/8808news2.html |title=Reforms Recommended For EPA Chemicals Program &#124; Latest News &#124; Chemical & Engineering News |publisher=Pubs.acs.org |access-date=2011-05-26}}</ref> The report criticized the process by which the EPA handles new TSCA cases, claiming it is "predisposed to protect industry information rather than to provide public access to health and safety studies."<ref name="autogenerated1"/> GAO suggests that concern for trade secrets is preventing effective testing. In come cases, toxicity studies do not include the specific identity of the test substance and cannot report any problems because "health and safety data are of limited value if the chemical the data pertain to is unknown."<ref name="autogenerated1"/>

===State regulation of toxic substances and chemicals===
Certain state governments have implemented "comprehensive regulatory programs"<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hogue |first1=Cheryl |title=States Ascend |journal=Chemical & Engineering News|date=21 March 2011 |volume=89 |issue=12 |pages=36–38 |doi=10.1021/cen-v089n012.p036}}</ref> for stricter control on toxic chemicals as a response to the failure of Congress to modernize TSCA.<ref name=LindaImplementation /> Some critics of TSCA note its inability to support meaningful action to prevent a patchwork of state policies as state lawmakers in 18 states have collectively passed 71 chemical laws since 2003.<ref name="Bergeson, et al." /><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bergeson |first1=Lynn L. |title=State chemical reform initiatives: Advocates press for change |journal=Environmental Quality Management |date=June 2011 |volume=20 |issue=4 |pages=73–80 |doi=10.1002/tqem.20301|bibcode=2011EnvQM..20...73B }}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine |last1=Franklin |first1=Charles |title=TSCA reform versus replacement: Moving forward in the chemical control debate|magazine=Trends |date=May 2013 |volume=44 |issue=5 |url=https://www.americanbar.org/groups/environment_energy_resources/publications/trends/2012_13/may_june/what_the_energy_industry_can_expect_from_president_obamas_second_term_and_a_new_congress.html |publisher=Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources of the American Bar Association |issn=1533-9556}}</ref> In states such as California, Connecticut, and Michigan diverse chemical policy actions were introduced favoring tighter regulation to protect vulnerable populations and the environment from exposure to dangerous chemicals.<ref name="Bergeson, et al." />

Critics favoring a federal reform of TSCA argue that the patchwork of state chemical management laws create "tensions between federal and state powers."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Franklin |first1=Charles |last2=Reynolds |first2=Allison |title=TSCA Reform and Preemption: A Walk on the Third Rail |journal=Natural Resources & Environment |date=2012 |volume=27 |issue=1 |url=https://www.americanbar.org/publications/natural_resources_environment/2012_13/summer_2012/tsca_reform_and_preemption_walk_the_third_rail.html |publisher=Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources}}</ref> Moreover, state law initiatives and rules to target chemicals have significant support from "the public demanding stricter chemical control."<ref name=Wilson/> Stringent state laws have successfully implemented more regulation on "BPA in plastic products and food beverage containers or flame retardants in furniture."<ref name=Wilson/> Campaigns focusing on increasing consumer awareness of chemicals in products have been able to educate the public about the potential risk of exposure to chemical products that can harm their health and the environment.<ref name=Wilson/> According to a poll conducted by the Mellman Group, 78 percent of Americans are seriously concerned about the threat to children's health from toxic chemicals in day-to-day life. The same poll reported that 33 percent of the respondents answered that everyday exposure to toxic chemicals is a serious issue.<ref name=Wilson/>

===Chemical industry's support for TSCA reform===
In 2009, chemical manufacturers stated that TSCA needs "modernizing"<ref name="Bergeson, et al." /> to offer better regulation of current and future chemical products available in the market. The chemical industry is frustrated with state-level restrictions because state policies on chemical products create "market disruption and impose unnecessary regulatory burdens, without necessarily improving public health."<ref name="Bergeson, et al." /> The chemical manufacturers "reluctantly" support a reform of TSCA, agreeing that it is necessary to avoid ambiguities. The chemical producers support implementation of more uniform and consistent regulations at the federal level that pre-empt state law.<ref name="Bergeson, et al." /><ref name=Denison>{{cite journal |last1=Denison |first1=Richard A. |title=Ten Essential Elements in TSCA Reform |journal=The Environmental Law Reporter |date=January 2009 |volume=39 |issue=1 |page=10020 |url=https://elr.info/news-analysis/39/10020/ten-essential-elements-tsca-reform}}</ref> The modernization of TSCA can give the chemical industry a standard to follow and allow them to market their products for domestic consumption or international sales without having to spend more money trying to comply with a myriad of individual state regulations.<ref name="Bergeson, et al." /><ref name=Denison/> Yet, environmental groups and state agencies argue that TSCA provisions "protect confidential business information" (CBI) preventing them from accessing information relevant to their task.<ref name="Bergeson, et al." />  However, chemical manufacturers and their trade associations would prefer a weaker version of TSCA that pre-empts state law, due to the more than 40 different state government regulations on toxic chemicals.  In addition, businesses would like a standard that can be applied uniformly, rather than having to report many different and overlapping sets of requirements to the individual states where the companies do business.{{citation needed|date=July 2013}} Chemical manufacturers have also automated quality processes by incorporating a quality management system in efforts to foster a better, safer industry.<ref>{{cite web|title=Will We Finally See an Update to TSCA this Fall?|url=http://blog.spartasystems.com/feed/will-we-finally-see-an-update-to-tsca-this-fall|publisher=Sparta Systems|access-date=11 August 2015}}</ref>{{better source|date=April 2016}}

===Consumer support for the reform of TSCA===
Growing public concern about exposure to dangerous chemicals in their everyday life has received attention from state and local agencies.<ref name="Bergeson, et al." /> Redefining is needed to respond to the consumer demand: "public policies governing chemical design, production, and use need deep restructuring in light of new science on the health and environmental effects of anthropogenic chemicals"<ref>{{cite journal | author = Schwarzman Megan R., Wilson Michael P. | year = 2009 | title = New science for chemicals policy | url = http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/68g6q17d| journal = Science | volume = 326 | issue = 5956| pages = 1065–6 | doi = 10.1126/science.1177537 | pmid = 19965413 | bibcode = 2009Sci...326.1065S | s2cid = 43245003 }}</ref>  For better management and control of chemicals "a string of high-profile campaigns focusing on chemicals in consumer products"<ref name="Bergeson, et al." />  has made consumers aware of "chemical exposures to everyday life"<ref name="Bergeson, et al." /> by releasing information on the hazards and outcome of chemical use. Labeling is an alternative solution to give the consumer the freedom to choose what products to buy "as a condition for entering or remaining on the market, using a standard that establishes a reasonable certainty of no harm."<ref name=Denison/> The private sector responded to the public concern of chemical exposure in everyday life by incorporating "screening mechanism(s) to diminish and/or prevent the marketing of products containing chemical substances that could potentially adversely affect human health and the environment."<ref name="Bergeson, et al." />  The demand for sustainable products can force the market to adopt more green chemistry.<ref name=Wilson/>

===Technological innovation and TSCA reform===
Opponents to TSCA reform proposals argue that stringent legislation can be seen as "job-killing".<ref name="Bergeson, et al." />  Nevertheless, the demand for sustainable products can increase innovation and investment in new products that can eventually replace toxic chemicals. Green chemistry is an innovative way to design chemicals to be less hazardous, with the goal of making chemicals and products "benign by design".[[California Green Chemistry Initiative|see CGCI]]<ref name=CGCI>{{cite web|last=California Green Chemistry Initiative|title=California Green Chemistry Initiative Final Report|url=http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/GreenChemistryInitiative/upload/GREEN_Chem.pdf|access-date=9 April 2014}}</ref>  According to the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Coalition, "18 states have collectively passed 71 chemical laws since 2003."<ref name=Chemicals>Chemicals, Safer. "Healthy Families/Safer States Coalitions,"Healthy States: Protecting Families from Toxic Chemicals While Congress Lags Behind," November 2010." 6</ref> Similarly, the state of California implemented the Green Chemistry Initiative (CGCI) in an effort to increase innovation and reduce or eliminate hazardous substances to human health and the environment. The CGCI responds to the demand by consumers and environmental groups advocating for greener products.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wilson |first1=Michael P. |last2=Chia |first2=Daniel A. |last3=Ehlers |first3=Bryan C. |title=Green Chemistry in California: A Framework for Leadership in Chemicals Policy and Innovation |journal=New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy |date=August 2016 |volume=16 |issue=4 |pages=365–372 |doi=10.2190/9584-1330-1647-136P |pmid=17317635|s2cid=43455643 }}</ref>

Green technology innovation introduced new products using nanotechnology available for consumption. The ultra fine nano particles can enter the human body via the skin, lungs or intestinal tract and may induce undesirable genetic changes as a side effect.<ref name=Albrecht>{{cite journal |last1=Albrecht |first1=Matthew A. |last2=Evans |first2=Cameron W. |last3=Raston |first3=Colin L. |title=Green chemistry and the health implications of nanoparticles |journal=Green Chemistry |date=2006 |volume=8 |issue=5 |pages=417–32 |doi=10.1039/b517131h}}</ref> The regulation of nano particles is another challenge for TSCA,  "there are no specific regulations on nanoparticles except existing regulations covering the same material in bulk form."<ref name=Albrecht/> However, if the bulk form of the nanomaterial is not listed on the TSCA Inventory, the nanomaterial is a new chemical substance that is subject to pre-market review.<ref>{{cite web |title=Control of Nanoscale Materials under the Toxic Substances Control Act |url=https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/control-nanoscale-materials-under |publisher=EPA |date=2017-11-30}}</ref> There is not enough knowledge about the potential risk of exposure while new nano material created at a rapid rate is incorporated into consumer products without testing the toxicity risk of exposure to human health and the environment.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Choi |first1=Jae-Young |last2=Ramachandran |first2=Gurumurthy |last3=Kandlikar |first3=Milind |title=The impact of toxicity testing costs on nanomaterial regulation |journal=Environmental Science & Technology |date=May 2009 |volume=43 |issue=9 |pages=3030–3034 |doi=10.1021/es802388s |pmid=19534109|bibcode=2009EnST...43.3030C |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wardak |first1=Ahson |last2=Gorman |first2=Michael E. |last3=Swami |first3=Nathan |last4=Rejeski |first4=Dave |title=Environmental Regulation of Nanotechnology and the TSCA |journal=IEEE Technology and Society Magazine |date=27 August 2007 |volume=26 |issue=2 |pages=48–56 |doi=10.1109/MTAS.2007.4295056|s2cid=12293219 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Fairbrother |first1=Anne |last2=Fairbrother |first2=Jennifer R. |title=Are environmental regulations keeping up with innovation? A case study of the nanotechnology industry |journal=Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety |date=July 2009 |volume=72 |issue=5 |pages=1327–1330 |doi=10.1016/j.ecoenv.2009.04.003 |pmid=19423165|bibcode=2009EcoES..72.1327F }}</ref> Technological creation of new chemicals is ahead of TSCA regulation for new chemicals. The U.S. chemical industry claims having tight regulations can interfere with their ability to compete.<ref name=Chemicals/> Nevertheless, in Europe new regulation motivated the chemical industry to innovate. For instance, the European parliament implemented a successful comprehensive reform of REACH by applying the "No data, no market" rule to pressure chemical manufacturers to submit safety data for both new and existing chemicals produced in or exported to Europe. This approach motivated the chemical industry in Europe to innovate, invest more in research & development and produce greener products.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hey |first1=Christian |last2=Jacob |first2=Klaus |last3=Volkery |first3=Axel |title=Better regulation by new governance hybrids? Governance models and the reform of European chemicals policy |journal=Journal of Cleaner Production |date=December 2007 |volume=15 |issue=18 |pages=1859–1874 |doi=10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.11.001}}</ref>

Other groups concerned with TSCA's lack of efficacy include the [[Physicians for Social Responsibility]], the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the [[Environmental Defense Fund]], the [[Lung Cancer Alliance]] and the [[Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization]] representing more than 11 million people nationwide.<ref name="blastmagazine1976"/>  These diverse groups, under the umbrella of the National Resources Defense Council however are displeased with the new draft bill written by deceased Senator Lautenberg in May 2013.  The group is calling for greater oversight and reporting of health hazards of chemicals contained in everyday products.<ref name="blastmagazine1976"/>

==TSCA and environmental justice==
TSCA can promote [[environmental justice]] in communities where minorities and low-income residents disproportionately bear great exposure to toxic chemicals increasing their risk to suffer from "chronic diseases and conditions such as prostate cancer, learning disabilities, asthma, infertility, and obesity."<ref name=Chemicals/> Public policy can transform and empower communities "fighting [[environmental racism]]"<ref name=Mohai>{{cite journal |last1=Mohai |first1=Paul |last2=Pellow |first2=David |last3=Roberts |first3=J. Timmons |title=Environmental Justice |journal=Annual Review of Environment and Resources |date=November 2009 |volume=34 |issue=1 |pages=405–430 |doi=10.1146/annurev-environ-082508-094348|doi-access=free }}</ref> associated with industrial facilities built near low-income neighborhoods. Communities from minority groups are disproportionately affected by "environmental threats from toxic contamination, [[locally unwanted land use]] (LULUs) to unsafe and substandard housing and natural-resource extractions" cannot wait for years until bureaucratic processes demonstrate their health has been at risk from living under these conditions.<ref name=Brulle>{{cite journal |last1=Brulle |first1=Robert J. |last2=Pellow |first2=David N. |title=Environmental justice: human health and environmental inequalities |journal=Annual Review of Public Health |date=April 2006 |volume=27 |issue=1 |pages=103–124 |doi=10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102124 |pmid=16533111|doi-access=free }}</ref> Studies have shown that "lower-income people were found to be significantly more likely than were higher income people to live near a polluting industrial facility."<ref name=Mohai/> The market dynamics responds to "the industry seeking to build their facilities where land is cheap and where industrial labor pools and sources of materials are nearby."<ref name=Mohai/> Eventually, industrial facilities may contribute to the depreciation of property in the neighboring areas affecting the value of housing because of noise, release of pollutants, and fear of health impact.<ref name=Mohai/> Wealthy communities will actively oppose the placing of industrial facilities near them but the low-income neighborhoods "and communities of color become an easier target"<ref name=Mohai/> as they are not well represented or well organized to fight against the industry and the government. Environmental disparities is a prevalent issue for low income-people as they become trapped in "housing discrimination"<ref name=Mohai/> living in polluted neighborhoods unable to relocate to a nicer area.<ref name=Mohai/>

===Populations vulnerable to toxic and chemical substances exposure===
Environmental justice groups can engage the community to impact local state and federal policy. TSCA regulation can protect public health by "limiting the market for hazardous chemicals and promote safe chemical production."<ref name=Chemicals/> Vulnerable population such as infants, pregnant women, the elderly and certain occupational workers bear a higher risk to diseases from exposure to toxic chemicals. The elderly are vulnerable from exposure to chemicals that may impair their weak immune system, and cause heart disease among other health issues from interactions with medication. Children are vulnerable to the health impacts of environmental injustice because their immune system is immature and they cannot handle the amount of chemicals in relation to the size of their body. To protect vulnerable groups the federal, state and local government could implement better policy to protect them from the increasing number of chemical exposure happening in daily basis.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Goldman |first1=Lynn R |last2=Koduru |first2=Sudha |title=Chemicals in the environment and developmental toxicity to children: a public health and policy perspective |journal=Environmental Health Perspectives |date=1 June 2000 |volume=108 |issue=s3 |pages=443–448 |doi=10.1289/ehp.00108s3443 |pmid=10852843 |pmc=1637825}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Koken |first1=PJ |last2=Piver |first2=WT |last3=Ye |first3=F |last4=Elixhauser |first4=A |last5=Olsen |first5=LM |last6=Portier |first6=CJ |title=Temperature, air pollution, and hospitalization for cardiovascular diseases among elderly people in Denver |journal=Environmental Health Perspectives |date=August 2003 |volume=111 |issue=10 |pages=1312–7 |doi=10.1289/ehp.5957 |pmid=12896852 |pmc=1241612}}</ref>  This concern is reflected in the [[Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act]], which includes a requirement that EPA evaluate risk to "potentially exposed and susceptible subpopulations".<ref>15 U.S.C. 2602(12)</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/980346853|title=New TSCA : a guide to the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act and its implementation|date=2017|others=Lynn L. Bergeson, Charles M. Auer, Energy, and Resources American Bar Association. Section of Environment|isbn=978-1-63425-833-3|location=Chicago, Illinois|pages=14|oclc=980346853}}</ref>

====Children's exposure to toxic chemicals====
Children are more susceptible to develop patterns of illness with longtime effect in their health for which chemical exposure can be contributing pediatric disease. The main health problems associated with environmental chemical pollutants are asthma, [[lead poisoning]] and obesity. It is estimated that "the annual costs of environmentally attributable diseases in American children due to lead poisoning amounts to $43.4 billion."<ref name=Landrigan>{{cite journal |last1=Landrigan |first1=PJ |last2=Schechter |first2=CB |last3=Lipton |first3=JM |last4=Fahs |first4=MC |last5=Schwartz |first5=J |title=Environmental pollutants and disease in American children: estimates of morbidity, mortality, and costs for lead poisoning, asthma, cancer, and developmental disabilities. |journal=Environmental Health Perspectives |date=July 2002 |volume=110 |issue=7 |pages=721–8 |doi=10.1289/ehp.02110721 |pmid=12117650 |pmc=1240919}}</ref> Toxic chemicals "threaten the health of the developing fetus, babies, young children and teens."<ref name=Chemicals/> It is important to protect children from chemical exposures as they "are less able than adults to break down and excrete toxic compounds."<ref name=Denison/> Children are exposed to newly invented chemicals used for consumer products, and is also found in "air, food, water, homes, schools, and communities".<ref name=Sinai>{{cite journal |last1=Landrigan |first1=Philip J. |last2=Rauh |first2=Virginia A. |last3=Galvez |first3=Maida P. |title=Environmental Justice and the Health of Children |journal=Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine: A Journal of Translational and Personalized Medicine |date=March 2010 |volume=77 |issue=2 |pages=178–187 |doi=10.1002/msj.20173|pmid=20309928 |pmc=6042867 }}</ref> Communities living near hot spots present health problems "associated with both social and environmental stressors",<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Morello-Frosch |first1=Rachel |last2=Zuk |first2=Miriam |last3=Jerrett |first3=Michael |last4=Shamasunder |first4=Bhavna |last5=Kyle |first5=Amy D. |title=Understanding the cumulative impacts of inequalities in environmental health: implications for policy |journal=Health Affairs |date=May 2011 |volume=30 |issue=5 |pages=879–887 |doi=10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0153|doi-access=free |pmid=21555471}}</ref> this can put a disproportionately burden on families. Therefore, "information on potential toxicity" can help parents to make better decisions about the products they purchase for the use of the children. Information about the toxicity is only available for about "two-thirds of the 3000 high production volume (HPV) chemicals".<ref name=Sinai/> Policy and regulation to protect vulnerable groups can reduce the exposure of children to toxic substances. For instance, in 2008, the state of Maine implemented the Kid-Safe Act to protect children from exposure to lead in toys "and bisphenol A (better known as BPA) in baby bottles"<ref name=Chemicals/><ref>{{cite web |last1=Ranslow |first1=Peter |last2=Becker |first2=Elizabeth |title=Report on the Development of a Candidate List for Designation as Priority Chemicals under Maine's Kid-Safe Products Act |url=https://www.ourhealthyfuture.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/maine_priority_list_report.pdf |publisher=Alliance for a Clean and Healthy Maine |access-date=2018-09-02}}</ref> In January 2016, the [[Center for Science in the Public Interest]] released a report entitled ''Seeing Red - Time for Action on Food Dyes'' which criticized the continued use of artificial food coloring in the United States.<ref>{{cite web |title=Seeing Red: Time for Action on Food Dyes |url=https://cspinet.org/resource/seeing-red-time-action-food-dyes |website=Center for Science in the Public Interest |access-date=2018-09-03 |date=19 January 2016}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=September 2018}} The report estimated that over half a million children in the United States suffer adverse behavioral reactions as a result of ingesting food dyes, with an estimated cost exceeding $5 billion per year, citing data from by the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]].  The report urges the [[Food and Drug Administration]] to take action to ban or curtail the use of such dyes.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Color Wars re: Artificial Food Coloring CSPI releases report criticizing use of artificial colors in food|journal=The National Law Review|date=21 January 2016|url=http://www.natlawreview.com/article/color-wars-re-artificial-food-coloring|access-date=22 January 2016|issn=2161-3362}}</ref> Readers are reminded that baby bottles and artificial food coloring are not regulated under TSCA jurisdiction, rather they are regulated under the [[Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act]]. However, other toxic substances that may be found in baby food  (e.g., bisphenol A), are under TSCA jurisdiction.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2014/10/28/EPA-adds-BPA-to-list-for-possible-action | title=BPA added to list of chemicals for assessment | date=October 28, 2014 }}</ref>

====Pregnant women's exposure to chemicals====
Pregnant women exposure to toxic chemicals in daily basis "can impact the reproductive and developmental health" during critical windows of development, this may lead to a higher risk for birth defects and childhood illnesses and "disability across the entire span of human life".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Woodruff |first1=Tracey J. |title=Bridging epidemiology and model organisms to increase understanding of endocrine disrupting chemicals and human health effects |journal=The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology |date=October 2011 |volume=127 |issue=1–2 |pages=108–117 |doi=10.1016/j.jsbmb.2010.11.007 |pmid=21112393|pmc=6628916 }}</ref> Health professionals can provide information to women planning to become pregnant or already pregnant to avoid potential hazards and exposure to environmental toxic chemicals. Eating healthy food can reduce the impact of toxic chemicals, for instance consuming organic food. Mothers who are breastfeeding can expose their child to toxic chemicals in their milk. When the diet of children is modified from "conventional to organic food, the levels of pesticides in their bodies decline", but low-income families have to prioritize their needs and buying organic food may not be possible because of a budget constraint<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sutton |first1=Patrice |last2=Woodruff |first2=Tracey J. |last3=Perron |first3=Joanne |last4=Stotland |first4=Naomi |last5=Conry |first5=Jeanne A. |last6=Miller |first6=Mark D. |last7=Giudice |first7=Linda C. |author-link7=Linda Giudice |title=Toxic environmental chemicals: the role of reproductive health professionals in preventing harmful exposures |journal=American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology |date=September 2012 |volume=207 |issue=3 |pages=164–173 |doi=10.1016/j.ajog.2012.01.034 |pmid=22405527 |pmc=4682569}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Byczkowski |first1=JZ |last2=Gearhart |first2=JM |last3=Fisher |first3=JW |title="Occupational" exposure of infants to toxic chemicals via breast milk |journal=Nutrition |date=1994 |volume=10 |issue=1 |pages=43–48 |pmid=8199422}}</ref> Readers are reminded that pesticides are not regulated under TSCA jurisdiction, rather they are regulated under the [[Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act]]. However, other toxic substances that can be transmitted through breast milk (e.g., per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)) <ref>{{cite book | url=https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/26156/guidance-on-pfas-exposure-testing-and-clinical-follow-up | doi=10.17226/26156 | title=Guidance on PFAS Exposure, Testing, and Clinical Follow-Up | year=2022 | pmid=35939564 | isbn=978-0-309-48244-8 | s2cid=251165576 }}</ref> are under TSCA jurisdiction.<ref>{{cite web |title=Risk Management for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) under TSCA |url=https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/risk-management-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas |date=2025-01-24 |publisher=EPA}}</ref>

====Occupational workers' exposure to toxic chemicals====
According to the [[Occupational Safety & Health Administration]] (OSHA) workers have the right to a safe workplace that do not pose a risk of serious harm. Occupational exposure to chemicals can happen through direct skin contact, inhalation, ingestion or eye contact. People working under certain occupations are more exposed to toxic chemicals that can have a negative longtime effect in their health. If the rate of exposure exceeds the capacity of the body to detoxify and eliminate them, it can accumulate in the body and potentially harm it. Male and female fertility can be compromised from exposure to toxic chemicals.<ref>{{cite web |title=Understanding Toxic Substances |url=https://www.lni.wa.gov/safety/topics/atoz/pdfs/toxicsubstances.pdf |publisher=Washington State Department of Labor and Industries}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ahlborg |first1=G Jr |last2=Hemminki |first2=K |title=Reproductive effects of chemical exposures in health professions. |journal=Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine |date=August 1995 |volume=37 |issue=8 |pages=957–61 |pmid=8520960|doi=10.1097/00043764-199508000-00012 |s2cid=44354713 }}</ref> Concerns for exposure to workers is reflected in the explicit inclusion of workers with the definition of "potentially exposed and susceptible subpopulations" in the [[Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act]].<ref>15 U.S.C. 2602(12)</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/980346853|title=New TSCA : a guide to the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act and its implementation|date=2017|others=Lynn L. Bergeson, Charles M. Auer, Energy, and Resources American Bar Association. Section of Environment|isbn=978-1-63425-833-3|location=Chicago, Illinois|pages=14|oclc=980346853}}</ref>

====Corporate support for mitigation of toxic chemical exposure====
Corporations can show social responsibility by removing products from the market and introducing similar alternatives that can benefit vulnerable groups.<ref>{{cite report|last1=O’Rourke |first1=Dara |title=Opportunities and obstacles for corporate social responsibility reporting in developing countries |url=https://nature.berkeley.edu/orourke/PDF/CSR-Reporting.pdf |publisher=The World Bank |access-date=2018-09-03 |date=March 2004|pages=39–40}}</ref> For instance, "Kaiser Permanente, a major medical supply purchaser, has a policy to avoid chemicals associated with cancer, reproductive problems and genetic mutations."<ref>{{cite web |last1=Chase Wilding |first1=Bobbi |last2=Curtis |first2=Kathy |last3=Welker-Hood |first3=Kristen |title=Hazardous Chemicals in Health Care. A Snapshot of Chemicals in Doctors and Nurses|year=2009|publisher=Physicians for Social Responsibility |url=https://www.psr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/hazardous-chemicals-in-health-care.pdf}}</ref> Corporation social responsibility (CSR) is the moral obligation of the firm "to create success in ways that honors ethical values and respect to communities while promoting sustainability and a good reputation."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Porter |first1=ME |last2=Kramer |first2=MR |title=Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. |journal=Harvard Business Review |date=December 2006 |volume=84 |issue=12 |pages=78–92, 163 |pmid=17183795}}</ref> Corporations can innovate and improve their image by responding to the increasing demand of green chemicals by consumers seeking better options to reduce their exposure to toxic chemicals.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Azapagic |first1=A. |title=Systems approach to corporate sustainability |journal=Process Safety and Environmental Protection |date=September 2003 |volume=81 |issue=5 |pages=303–316 |doi=10.1205/095758203770224342}}</ref>

==Reform bills==

===Prior to 2015===
On May 23, 2013, Senators [[David Vitter]] (R-LA) and [[Frank Lautenberg]] (D-NJ), introduced a TSCA reform bill, co-sponsored by a number of other senators at the [[United States House Energy Subcommittee on Environment and Economy]].<ref name="Gov.S.1009">{{cite web |title=Text of S. 1009 (113th): Chemical Safety Improvement Act (Introduced version) |url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s1009/text |website=GovTrack.us |access-date=2018-09-03 |date=22 May 2013}}</ref> The main focus of this effort was to amend TSCA's subsection S.1009, the [[Chemical Safety Improvement Act]] (CSIA). The [[Environmental Defense Fund]], felt it would have given the EPA many critical tools to strengthen the provisions on public health protection and improved TSCA.<ref name="Chemicals 2014">"Chemicals Policy Reform." Environmental Defense Fund. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Mar. 2014</ref>

The bill's key revision included "mandating safety evaluations for all chemicals in active commerce, requiring new chemicals to be deemed likely safe before entering the market, fixing the key flaws in TSCA's safety standard that led to the EPA's inability to ban asbestos, allowing the EPA to order testing without first having to show potential risk, and making more information about chemicals available to states, health professionals and the public by limiting current trade secret allowances."<ref name= Chemicals/>

The CSIA would have required states to co-enforce any requirements laid out by the EPA, i.e. to have funding and man-power to enforce all regulations that the EPA decided on, and causing a disconnect in partnerships between the state, federal government, and communities.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Denison |first1=Richard A. |title=The Chemical Safety Improvement Act of 2013 (S. 1009): How it seeks to address key flaws of TSCA, along with key tradeoffs and concerns |url=https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/edf-tsca-vs.-csia-analysis-v3.pdf |publisher=Environmental Defense Fund |access-date=2018-09-02 |date=November 2013}}</ref>

The [[2014 Elk River chemical spill|2014 West Virginia Chemical Spill]] created many controversies regarding CSIA. no data on the spilled chemical were available, including data on repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, specific target organ toxicity, and repeated exposure.<ref name=Achenbach>{{cite news |last1=Achenbach |first1=Joel |title=West Virginia chemical spill in Elk River poses a new test for lawmakers |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/west-virginia-chemical-spill-in-elk-river-poses-a-new-chemistry-test-for-lawmakers/2014/01/19/993d5a66-7ed7-11e3-93c1-0e888170b723_story.html |access-date=2018-09-02 |newspaper=Washington Post |date=19 January 2014}}</ref> On February 4, 2014, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held hearings on the CSIA right after the incident.<ref name="Gov.S.1009" /> In the aftermath of the spill, the House approved a bill 95-0 which provides safeguards for chemical storage tanks and public water supplies. It included new requirements on early detection technology and plans that protect against drinking water contamination.<ref name=Stanton>{{cite web |last1=Stanton |first1=Caitlin |title=West Virginia Responds to the Elk River Spill With SB373 |url=http://wordpress.vermontlaw.edu/environmentalhealth/2014/03/19/west-virginia-responds-to-the-elk-river-spill-with-sb373/ |website=environmentalhealth |publisher=Vermont Law School|access-date=2018-09-02 |date=19 March 2014}}</ref>

The CSIA was supported by the National Hispanic Medical Association, the Environmental Defense Fund], the [[American Academy of Pediatrics]], [[The Humane Society]], [[The New York Times]], the [[Washington Post]],<ref>{{cite news |title=A bipartisan effort to regulate dangerous chemicals |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-bipartisan-effort-to-regulate-dangerous-chemicals/2013/05/28/011bf8dc-c7d5-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_story.html |access-date=2018-09-02 |newspaper=Washington Post |date=28 May 2013}}</ref> the [[Chicago Tribune]], the American Alliance for Innovation,<ref>{{cite web |title=Business Alliance Comments on Bipartisan Chemical Safety Legislation in Senate |url=http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=5f5659bc-f07a-431a-bbcd-b30a109765cf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140505233445/http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=5f5659bc-f07a-431a-bbcd-b30a109765cf |archive-date=2014-05-05 |date=11 June 2013 |publisher=American Chemistry Council |location=Washington, D.C.}}</ref> the [[International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers]],<ref>{{cite web |last1=Buffenbarger |first1=R. Thomas |title=Letter |url=http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=310848c6-211d-419c-a958-b874de34a475 |access-date=2013-07-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141207105647/http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=310848c6-211d-419c-a958-b874de34a475 |archive-date=2014-12-07}}</ref> North America's Building Trades Union<ref>{{cite web |last1=McGarvey |first1=Sean |title=Letter |url=http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=b6178065-9873-42c7-9562-367ffe0b160d |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140506004925/http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=b6178065-9873-42c7-9562-367ffe0b160d |archive-date=2014-05-06 |date=24 July 2013}}</ref> SMART-Transportation Division,<ref>{{cite web |last1=Stem |first1=James A. Jr. |title=Letter |url=http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=8c2acd3e-8a57-4e49-b4cb-55e96c803caf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140505233342/http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=8c2acd3e-8a57-4e49-b4cb-55e96c803caf |archive-date=2014-05-05 |date=27 June 2013}}</ref>  [[International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers]],<ref>{{cite web |last1=Wise |first1=Walter W. |title=Letter |url=http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=0d98e0c7-b88d-45a6-b1ca-80a9f7cd50c9 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140506004552/http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=0d98e0c7-b88d-45a6-b1ca-80a9f7cd50c9 |archive-date=2014-05-06 |date=21 May 2013}}</ref> the [[American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine]]],<ref>{{cite web |last1=Loeppke |first1=Ronald R. |title=Letter |url=http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83af0ef8-6539-4098-b4f8-a8edd3341522 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141102015054/http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83af0ef8-6539-4098-b4f8-a8edd3341522 |archive-date=2014-11-02 |date=25 July 2013}}</ref> the [[International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers]]<ref>{{cite web |last1=Hill |first1=Edwin D. |title=Letter |url=http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=ffdbcf4c-8e6b-4071-9b8e-26fc5730d36e |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141102015059/http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=ffdbcf4c-8e6b-4071-9b8e-26fc5730d36e |archive-date=2014-11-02}}</ref> and [[Third Way]].<ref name=thirdway>{{cite web |title=Third Way Supports the Chemical Safety Improvement Act |url=http://www.reformtsca.com/Main/News/Third-Way-Supports-the-Chemical-Safety-Improvement-Act.pdf |publisher=Third Way |access-date=22 March 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140505233853/http://reformtsca.com/Main/News/Third-Way-Supports-the-Chemical-Safety-Improvement-Act.pdf |archive-date=2014-05-05 |date=30 July 2013}}</ref><ref name=support>{{cite web |title=Vitter Announces Growing Support for Bipartisan Chemical Safety Reform Bill |url=http://www.vitter.senate.gov/newsroom/press/vitter-announces-growing-support-for-bipartisan-chemical-safety-reform-bill |access-date=24 April 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140506100726/http://www.vitter.senate.gov/newsroom/press/vitter-announces-growing-support-for-bipartisan-chemical-safety-reform-bill |archive-date=2014-05-06 |date=15 April 2014}}</ref>

===2015===
In March 2015, Senator [[Tom Udall]] (D, NM) sponsored Senate bill 697, to amend and reauthorize TSCA, called the "[[Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act]]".<ref name=S697>{{cite web|title=All Bill Information (Except Text) for S.697 - Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/697/all-info|publisher=Congress.gov|access-date=13 April 2015|date=10 March 2015}}</ref> Environmental, health and labor organizations and several states criticized it, because "it would gut state chemical regulations",<ref name=sf>{{cite news|first1=David|last1= McCumber|title=Questions raised on authorship of chemicals bill|url=http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Questions-raised-on-authorship-of-chemicals-bill-6137823.php|access-date=13 April 2015|work=San Francisco Chronicle|date=March 16, 2015|quote=A Senate IT staffer told Boxer's office, "We can confidently say that the document was created by a user with American Chemistry Council.}}</ref> but officials from the EPA and Administrator Gina McCarthy have testified that the bill meets all of the Obama Administration's principles for TSCA reform and that the Administrator was "encouraged" by the bipartisan progress.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Shogren |first1=Elizabeth |title=Tom Udall tries to fix the nation's toxic chemicals law |url=https://www.hcn.org/articles/bipartisan-bill-may-prove-toxic-for-new-mexico-senator |access-date=2018-09-02 |work=High Country News |date=30 April 2015}}</ref> In addition, the [[Environmental Defense Fund]] supports S. 697, stating that it "will give [the] EPA the tools necessary to better ensure the safety of chemicals and significantly strengthen health protections for American families."<ref>{{cite web|title=Nation's toxic chemicals law fails to protect us|url=https://www.edf.org/health/nations-toxic-chemical-law-fails-protect-us|publisher=Environmental Defense Fund|access-date=2 May 2016}}</ref> Senate bill 725, introduced by Senator [[Barbara Boxer]] (D-CA) and Senator [[Edward Markey ]](D-MA), also called the "Alan Reinstein and Trevor Schaefer Toxic Chemical Protection Act", would enable the EPA to quickly assess the safety of more chemicals and allow new state policies.<ref name=sf/>

In June 2015 the House passed H.R.2576, the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015, and was referred to the Senate.<ref name=hr>{{cite web|title=H.R.2576 - TSCA Modernization Act of 2015|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2576|publisher=Library of Congress|access-date=26 June 2015|date=24 June 2015}}</ref>

On January 20, 2016, [[Gina McCarthy]], the EPA Administrator, sent a letter to Congress detailing the EPA's positions on S. 697 and H.R. 2576.<ref>{{cite web |last1=McCarthy |first1=Gina |title=Letter to The Honorable Frank Pallone Jr. |url=http://www.lawbc.com/uploads/docs/WhiteHouseJanuary2016Letter.pdf |access-date=2 May 2016}}</ref> The letter points out support and concern for a number of topics related to TSCA reform, including: Deadlines for action, elimination of the "least burdensome" requirement for Section 6 regulation, a sustained source of funding, existing chemical review prioritization, consistent applicability of a new TSCA safety standard for both new and existing chemicals, transparency and confidential business information, chemicals contained in articles, and state preemption.<ref>{{cite web|first1=Lynn L. |last1=Bergeson|title=TSCA Reform: Administration Letter Submitted to Congress on TSCA Reform Legislation|date=March 7, 2016 |url=http://www.lawbc.com/regulatory-developments/entry/tsca-reform-administration-letter-submitted-to-congress-on-tsca-reform-legi|publisher=Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.|access-date=2 May 2016}}</ref>

Congress passed a reconciled version of the reform bill, the [[Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act]], with bipartisan support in early June 2016. On Wednesday, June 22, 2016, President [[Barack Obama]] signed the bill into law, remarking that "even in the current polarized political process here in Washington, things can work." Lawmakers and industry groups were largely supportive of the new law, while environmental advocates offered more mixed reactions.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/06/22/obamatoxic/|title=The president just signed a law that affects nearly every product you use|first1=Darryl|last1= Fears|newspaper=Washington Post|date=22 June 2016|access-date=2018-09-02}}</ref>

== Comparison with EU chemical regulation ==
The [[European Union]] (EU) enacted similar laws called [[Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals]] (REACH) on June 1, 2007 to improve the former legislative framework on chemicals.<ref name=gao>{{cite report |title=Chemical Regulation: Comparison of U.S. and Recently Enacted European Union Approaches to Protect against the Risks of Toxic Chemicals. Report to Congressional Requesters |publisher=GAO |date=2007-08-17 |url=https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-825 |id=GAO-07-825}}</ref>

There are three main points to emphasize on the comparisons of REACH and TSCA.

===REACH vs. TSCA requirements on developing chemical information===
Developing a sufficient information is important for risk management and for prevention from potential hazardous substances.<ref name=Koch>{{cite journal | author = Koch Lars, Ashford Nicholas A | year = 2006 | title = Rethinking the role of information in chemicals policy: implications for TSCA and REACH | journal = Journal of Cleaner Production | volume = 14 | issue = 1| pages = 31–46 | doi = 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.06.003 | hdl = 1721.1/38476 | hdl-access = free }}</ref> Categories of information that are useful in risk management are first, scientific information including the composition of the chemical, secondly, technological information including monitoring, preventing or controlling, and finally, legal information including the rights and obligations of producers, consumers and general public .<ref name=Koch/> TSCA requires chemical companies to submit to the EPA any available human health and environmental data on the existing chemicals.<ref name=gao/> TSCA does not require chemical companies to conduct toxicity tests for new chemicals on their effects on human health or the environment,<ref name=gao/> but the companies can perform test on voluntary base.<ref name=Conrad>Conrad, James W. "Open secrets: The widespread availability of information about the health and environmental effects of chemicals." Law and Contemporary Problems 69 (2006)</ref>  In TSCA's section 5, companies are required to submit such data if the effect already exists when they submit a premanufacture notice (PMN) to the EPA.<ref name=Denison/> In order to compensate the gap of actual test data in section 5, a process involving structure-activity relationship (SAR) was created to assess hazardous risks.<ref name=Wagner>Wagner, Pauline M., J. V. Nabholz, and R. J. Kent. "The new chemicals process at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): structure-activity relationships for hazard identification and risk assessment." Toxicology Letters 79.1 (1995): 67-73</ref> Consequently, and according to information dating from the 1980s, slightly less than 50% of new chemicals submitted for evaluation by the EPA are accompanied by toxicity data, which mainly consists of local irritation (skin and eyes) or acute toxicity tests in laboratory animals.<ref name=Nabholz>{{cite report |last1=Nabholz |first1=J.V. |last2=Miller |first2=P. |last3=Zeeman |first3=M. |chapter="Environmental risk assessment of new chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act TSCA Section Five" |title=Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=90NEUIs1wEMC&pg=PA40 |date=1993 |publisher=American Society for Testing and Materials |location=Philadelphia, PA |page=40 |id=ASTM Special Technical Publication 1179. |isbn=0-8031-1860-0}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | doi=10.1289/ehp.9087183 | title=Mode of action and the assessment of chemical hazards in the presence of limited data: Use of structure-activity relationships (SAR) under TSCA, Section 5 | year=1990 | last1=Auer | first1=C. M. | last2=Nabholz | first2=J. V. | last3=Baetcke | first3=K. P. | journal=Environmental Health Perspectives | volume=87 | pages=183–197 | pmid=2269224 | pmc=1567831 | s2cid=573847 }}</ref> TSCA also requires data on the physical and chemical properties, fate, health and environmental effects of the chemical (hazard information) that the companies possess or reasonably ascertainable when they submit the intent of manufacturing notice to the EPA. The EPA compares new and existing chemicals by their molecular structures in order to determine if any health and environmental effects are available.<ref name=gao/> Authorized by TSCA section 8(d), the EPA may require manufacturers and importers of a given chemical to submit copies of unpublished health and safety studies including the chemicals produced in the ten years before the effective date of the EPA rule.<ref name=Conrad/> In 2021, EPA issued a data call-in rule under Section 8(d) to help inform EPA's assessment of dozens of chemicals that were either under evaluation or that EPA was considering for prioritization.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.tscablog.com/entry/data-on-20-high-priority-chemicals-and-30-organohalogen-flame-retardants-du | title=Data on 20 High-Priority Chemicals and 30 Organohalogen Flame Retardants Due September 27, 2021 &#124; TSCAblog | date=July 2, 2021 }}</ref>

Under REACH and [[European Chemicals Agency]] (ECHA) regulations, chemical companies are required to provide quantity of chemicals and depending on the quantity, the companies need to further develop data on human health and environment for both existing and new chemicals.<ref name=gao/> For example, at the one or more tonnage, chemical companies are required to register and submit information including chemical identity, production process, instruction of usage, safety guidance, summaries of physical and chemical properties, exposure and effects on human health and environment.<ref name= Ruden>{{cite journal |last1=Rudén |first1=Christina |last2=Hansson |first2=Sven Ove |title=Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) Is but the First Step—How Far Will It Take Us? Six Further Steps to Improve the European Chemicals Legislation |journal=Environmental Health Perspectives |date=13 October 2009|volume=118|issue=1|pages=6–10 |doi=10.1289/ehp.0901157 |pmid=20056573 |pmc=2831968|jstor=30249899}}</ref> At the 10 or more tonnage, the information for one or more tonnage must be included, additionally, chemical safety assessment, a physiochemical hazard, an environmental hazard, and chemical's persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic pollutant assessment information are required.<ref name=Allanou>Allanou, Remi, Bjorn G. Hansen, and Yvonne Van der Bilt. Public availability of data on EU high production volume chemicals. European Commission, 1999</ref> For 100 or more tonnage annually, [[bioaccumulation]], simulation testing, identification of degradation data, long term toxicity to fish and aquatic species, short term toxicity to terrestrial organisms and plants, two generation toxicity study, subchronic toxicity to mammals data are required.<ref name= Ruden/>

Under TSCA, EPA will rely upon models or analogs to fill data gaps for properties, toxicity, and fate if EPA has data gaps for the substance.<ref name="Wagner" /> Under REACH, ECHA requires that registrants fill data gaps, but registrants may do so with data on the substance or analogs, model output, or waivers (if justified).

===TSCA and REACH regulations on potential chemical risks===
Under the TSCA, the EPA needs to collect data to assess the potential risks of chemicals and requires developing substantial evidence in order to withstand judicial review and policy making.<ref name=gao/> Due to the section 6(a) of TSCA, the EPA has difficulty proving that certain chemicals pose unreasonable risks.<ref name=Denison/> In order to regulate those chemicals, the EPA must find reasonable basis including the effects of substance on human and environment, magnitude of exposure, benefits and uses of the chemical, and availability of the substance.<ref name="Bergeson, et al." /> The EPA also needs to determine the reasonably ascertainable economic consequences of the rule,  after considering the effect to the national economy and businesses.<ref name="Bergeson, et al." /> However, the section 6 is taken into consideration to amend in the 2013 reform.<ref name="Gov.S.1009"/> Section 6 also limits or restricts the production of PCBs, fully halogenated chlorofluoroalkanes, dioxin, asbestos, nitrosating agents, and hexavalent chromium.<ref name="Bergeson, et al." /> In addition for 160 existing chemicals, under Section 5a2, TSCA requires chemical companies to submit notices to the EPA prior to manufacturing, importing, or processing of the substance for new usage.<ref name="Bergeson, et al." /> TSCA also utilizes different models such as ecological risk assessment, quotient method for exceeding measurement endpoints,<ref name=Nabholz/> exposure assessment, PMN, assessment dose-response assessment, etc.<ref name="EPA 2000">{{cite web |title=Hazard Standard Risk Analysis Supplement -- TSCA Section 403. Risk Analysis to Support Standards for Lead in Paint, Dust and Soil: Supplemental Report |url=https://www.epa.gov/lead/hazard-standard-risk-analysis-supplement-tsca-section-403 |publisher=EPA |date=December 2000 |id=EPA 747-R-00-004}}</ref>

[[Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals|REACH]] requires chemical manufacturers, importers, and downstream users to ensure that the chemicals do not negatively affect human health or the environment and they should request authorization to produce or import hazardous chemicals and the companies to search for safer alternatives.<ref name=gao/> The authorization procedure involves first, the [[European Chemicals Agency]] to publish a candidate list of chemicals, secondly, the [[European Commission]] to determine the authorizations or exempts from candidate lists, and finally, if a chemical is deemed to require authorization, a chemical company will have to apply to the European Commission for the authorization.<ref name=gao/> If the chemical company can demonstrate the social and economic benefits outweigh the risks, the harmful chemical may be able to get authorization.<ref name=gao/> Likewise TSCA, REACH restricts chemicals that pose an unacceptable risk to health or environment. In order to restrict, REACH must demonstrate the chemical's risk to human health or the environment that needs to be addressed at the community wide level and identify the most appropriate set of risk reduction measures and safer substitutes.<ref name=gao/>

===TSCA vs. REACH disclosing information to the public===
Information disclosure gives an opportunity to the public to immediately react and avoid exposure to potential chemical hazards and risks for example by changing consumer behavior or applying pressure on the chemical firms etc. In the other hand, information disclosure also can motivate firms to search for safer alternatives.<ref name=Koch/> 
TSCA allows companies to claim their precise chemical volumes, components, chemical uses, and essentially any information provided to the EPA as business confidential except in the cases that chemical need health and safety studies.<ref name=Conrad/> In this extent of TSCA, the EPA' s ability is restricted to share information including the company's identities, the chemical's structures to any public groups except the designated contractors, or to law enforcement officials.<ref name=Denison/> It is important that the state and local environmental non-governmental agencies, environmental advocates and other public groups in obtaining chemical information in order to develop contingency plans and effective emergency responses in cases of highly toxic exposures. However, the EPA can only disclose confidential business information when it determines such disclosure is necessary to protect human health or the environment from an unreasonable risk.<ref name=gao/>
 
Similar to TSCA, REACH mandates chemical companies to disclosure of health and safety information that allows public to have an access to the basic chemical information, including brief profiles of hazardous properties, authorized uses, and risk management measures.<ref name=gao/> Also one of the main strength of REACH is in the extent to which the government intends to make the public receive as much as information possible, including identification of substances of a very high concern that are subject to authorization.<ref name=Denison/> REACH considers the full chemical composition, the preparation, the precise use, the detailed function or application of the chemical, the precise tonnage or volume of the chemical manufactured or placed on the market and the relationships between manufacturers, importers and downstream users as confidential for the industry's economic purpose.<ref name= Ruden/> For [[persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances]] (PBTs), very persistent and very bioaccumulative and toxic substances (vPvB), and other chemicals that are classified as dangerous, REACH requires firms to submit a safety data sheet<ref name= Ruden/> so that downstream users, manufacturers, retailers, and importers have the information required to safely use and handle the chemicals.<ref name=Fuhr>{{cite journal |last1=Führ |first1=Martin |last2=Bizer |first2=Kilian |title=REACh as a paradigm shift in chemical policy – responsive regulation and behavioural models |journal=Journal of Cleaner Production |date=January 2007 |volume=15 |issue=4 |pages=327–334 |doi=10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.10.003}}</ref> Unlike TSCA, REACH can share the firm's chemical information with state, government authorities and EU organizations under an agreement between the firm and the other responsible parties.<ref name=gao/>

===Comparison of TSCA and REACH's selected provisions===
====Number of chemicals covered in the inventory====
REACH: After enacting REACH in the European Union, the officials estimated approximately 30,000 cases that have produced or imported at a level of at least 1 metric ton chemicals.<ref name=gao/>
 
TSCA: Currently more than 82,000 chemicals are in the TSCA inventory and 20,000 of them were added after 1979 into the inventory after the EPA program started reviewing the existing chemicals.<ref name=gao/>

====Complete risk assessment requirements====
REACH requires chemical companies that produce at level of 1 metric tons per year to conduct risk assessment along with [[European Chemical Agency]]'s review and for the companies that produce more than 10 tons or more per years need to conduct chemical safety assessment for all the chemicals produced.<ref name=Ruden/>
 
TSCA does not require chemical companies to perform risk assessments on new chemicals. However, it allows companies to perform voluntary risk assessments on their new chemicals. For existing chemicals, companies are required to notify the EPA immediately of new unpublished information on chemicals that have potential risks but are not required to conduct risk assessments.<ref name=Conrad/>

====Production quantity disclosure====
REACH requires chemical companies to submit their registration yearly with the information on the overall quantity of production or importing of a chemical in metric tons per year in a technical dossier and immediately report if any significant changes occur in the quantity.<ref name=Allanou/>

TSCA: Chemical companies must provide the EPA a reasonable third year estimate for their new chemicals in total production volume at the time a Premanufacture Notices is submitted. For every 5 years, the existing chemicals on the TSCA inventory and produced at quantities of 25,000 pounds or more must be reported.<ref name=gao/>

== Example of chemical inventories in various countries and regions ==
* [[Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals|REACH - European Union Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006]]
* AICS - Australian Inventory of Chemical Substances
* DSL - Canadian Domestic Substances List
* NDSL - Canadian Non-Domestic Substances List
* KECL (Korean ECL) - Korean Existing Chemicals List
* ENCS (MITI) - Japanese Existing and New Chemical Substances
* PICCS - Philippine Inventory of Chemicals and Chemical Substances
* [[TSCA Inventory]] - US Toxic Substances Control Act
* SWISS - Giftliste 1
* SWISS - Inventory of Notified New Substances<ref>[http://www.cas.org/expertise/cascontent/regulated/substance.html Regulated Chemicals Information - American Chemical Society] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120310235625/http://www.cas.org/expertise/cascontent/regulated/substance.html |date=2012-03-10}}</ref>

==See also==
*[[Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals]] (REACH) - EU legislation
*[[Dangerous Substances Directive (67/548/EEC)]] - EU legislation
*[[Kashinhou]] - Japanese legislation
*[[Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards]] (CFATS) - Homeland security laws for chemical storage
*For additional information on TSCA, see [[NTIS]].

==References==
{{Refbegin}}
*EPA. [http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d10ed0d99d826b068525735900400c2a/db490ae06c402d7985257164005d4bcc!OpenDocument "Announcement of agreement with General Electric to conduct Hudson River dredging"], October 6, 2005.
*Schapiro, Mark, [http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041227/schapiro "New Power for 'Old Europe'"]. ''[[The Nation (U.S. periodical)|The Nation]]'', December 27, 2004, 11-16.
{{Refend}}
{{Reflist|30em}}

==Further reading==
{{Refbegin}}
* EPA Alumni Association (April 2020). [http://www.epaalumni.org/hcp/toxics.pdf "Toxic Substances: A Half Century of Progress."]
{{Refend}}

==External links==
* [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-53 15 USC chapter 53] of the [[United States Code]] from the [[Legal Information Institute|LII]]
* [https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title15/chapter53&edition=prelim 15 USC chapter 53] of the United States Code from the [[United States House of Representatives|US House of Representatives]]
* [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-895/uslm/COMPS-895.xml Toxic Substances Control Act] as amended ([https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-895/pdf/COMPS-895.pdf PDF]/[https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/COMPS-895/ details]) in the [[United States Government Publishing Office|GPO]] [https://www.govinfo.gov/help/comps Statute Compilations collection]
* 40 CFR [https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-R chapter I → subchapter R] (parts 700–799) in the [[Code of Federal Regulations]]
*[http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/a543211f64e4d1998525735900404442/c7860ed6d012f9df852576e7006365b0!OpenDocument EPA Makes Chemical Information More Accessible to Public For the first time, TSCA chemical inventory free of charge online (March 15, 2010)]

{{Presidency of Gerald Ford}}
{{US Environmental law}}
{{HealthIssuesOfPlastics}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Toxic Substances Control Act Of 1976}}
[[Category:Regulation of chemicals in the United States]]
[[Category:United States federal environmental legislation]]
[[Category:94th United States Congress]]
[[Category:Presidency of Gerald Ford]]
[[Category:1976 in American law]]
[[Category:1976 in the environment]]