Login

Forgot password?
Sign up today and your first download is free.
REGISTER

Homepage

EPA has sent for White House review a proposed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 6 rule to ban or restrict the sales or manufacture of trichloroethylene (TCE), the first attempt by the agency to use the section to restrict a chemical since its last effort -- seeking to ban asbestos -- was vacated by a federal appeals court in 1991.

The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), which represents many state environment agencies, has released a new guide for regulators on navigating EPA's policies for preempting some chemical regulations under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), underscoring the complex nature of the new law's preemption regime.

Environmentalists are fighting requests from EPA and pesticide producers to delay by up to one year a legally binding deadline for the agency to respond to advocates' 2007 petition seeking a ban on the commonly-used insecticide chlorpyrifos, saying the delayed response is already “egregious” and the substance is harming humans.

A top EPA budget official says the agency is waiting until after the presidential election to craft a fiscal year 2018 funding request even while facing uncertainty over whether Congress will approve a stand-alone EPA FY17 funding bill, though the official expects lawmakers to approve some FY17 funding measure ahead of a Sept. 30 deadline.

EPA is defending its rule forcing states to scrap certain Clean Air Act (CAA) emissions limit waivers from their federal air compliance plans, saying the rule -- which reversed prior approval of the exemptions -- clears a recently established Supreme Court test on deference to agency policy changes.

If Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton wins the 2016 election, the biggest environmental policy of her administration might be defending and implementing a slew of air, climate, water and other rules finalized by President Obama's EPA, observers say, as Clinton is not expected to break significantly with the president's energy and environmental platform.

In a landmark ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ruled against a broad interpretation of “disposal” under the Superfund law, finding that previous decisions by the same circuit effectively bound the panel to conclude that a smelter’s emissions of hazardous substances that settled many miles away on land or water do not constitute “disposal” under the law.