Vinyl Institute Statement on TSCA Risk Evaluations

EPA has emphasized the need to meet existing consent-decree deadlines, including deadlines established during the Biden Administration. EPN’s recent comments on ethylene dibromide and previous comments on 1,1,2-trichloroethane raise a discrete procedural principle with which VI agrees: meeting a court-ordered schedule cannot take precedence over the integrity of the TSCA risk-evaluation process.

On that fundamental point, VI agrees with EPN.

The principle itself is particularly important following the September 15 decision in East Fork Enterprises, Inc. v. EPA. The Fifth Circuit vacated EPA’s methylene chloride rule and its underlying unreasonable-risk determination, finding errors of law and a lack of substantial evidence. The court rejected EPA’s whole-chemical approach and held that EPA could not disregard actual use of personal protective equipment where supported by the evidence.

If EPA needs additional time to consider SACC findings that could materially affect an unreasonable-risk determination, as EPN argues, it should take that time. The same principle should apply when a federal appellate decision calls into question the legal methodology or evidentiary assumptions underlying those determinations. Scientific review, significant new evidence and significant legal developments all deserve appropriate consideration, regardless of the direction in which they may ultimately point.

EPA should consider whether decisions made in ongoing and recently completed Section 6 actions remain supportable under the legal and evidentiary standards articulated by the Fifth Circuit.

A consent decree should drive timely agency action, not force scientific or legal conclusions without adequate consideration. When significant science, evidence or law warrants additional consideration, the integrity of the TSCA process must come first. That principle should apply consistently, regardless of whether additional scrutiny ultimately points toward more regulation or less.