Nov. 13 --Legislators crafting a bill to modernize the
Toxic Substances Control Act should ensure that the legislation includes
deadlines by which the Environmental Protection Agency must complete its
analyses of chemicals if they want the agency to make timely decisions about
whether those chemicals are safe or have risks that should be managed, a senior
agency official told a House subcommittee Nov. 13.
The firm deadlines
Congress included in the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, which regulated
pesticides used on crops, helped the EPA assess thousands of food-use pesticide
residue levels within the 10-year timeframe required under that law, Jim Jones,
assistant EPA administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, told
the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy.
Without meaningful legal deadlines, it could take EPA years between the time
it determines a chemical wouldn't meet a revised law's safety standard and any
regulation the agency could issue to manage identified risks, Jones said.
As the agency has for pesticides, the agency will need sustained funding to
implement new requirements TSCA-reform legislation is expected to impose, Jones
In a rare reach across the divide that often separates House and
Senate legislative activities, the House subcommittee held a hearing on S.
1009, the Chemical Safety Improvement Act, which Sen. David Vitter (R-La.)
and the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) introduced in May to overhaul the
Toxic Substances Control Act
The bill would require the EPA--for the
first time--to systematically review the safety of all chemicals in commerce
and to prioritize its work on chemicals to focus first on those posing the
greatest potential risk.
S. 1009 also
would give the EPA authority to order chemical manufacturers to provide
toxicity data and other information for those chemical reviews.
currently allows the agency to obtain data through regulations, but it can
take years for the agency to complete the analyses needed to meet the law's
burden of proof to proceed with regulations, and it takes additional years to
issue such regulations.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), who is championing S.
1009 in the Senate, and Vitter testified before the House subcommittee.
Each said the introduced version of the bill has shortcomings they are
working to address.
If all interested parties work together, Vitter
said, “we will achieve a compromise that not only enhances business certainty
and creates a strong federal chemicals management system, but also sets
meaningful deadlines, protects the most vulnerable among us, effectively
screens all active chemicals in commerce, guarantees Americans' access to
private rights of action and legal remedies, and makes certain that EPA has the
tools necessary to ensure the chemicals that we are all exposed to are
Udall told the subcommittee, “We have a historic opportunity
before us. Success is far from certain, but I am optimistic.”
Trade associations that have supported the legislation have
said a strong, updated federal chemicals law could increase consumers' trust
in the safety of chemicals in the products they use while decreasing the
incentives for states to regulate chemicals and for retailers and other
businesses to restrict certain chemicals or groups of chemicals.
addition to Jones, the subcommittee heard from the American Chemistry Council,
which represents chemical manufacturers; the American Cleaning Institute,
which represents companies that mix chemicals to formulate cleaning and other
products; the Information Technology Industry Council, which represents the
information and communications technology sector; the Environmental Defense
Fund; Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families; and a legal scholar who has long
analyzed federal agencies' use of science.
Cal Dooley, president and
chief executive officer of the American Chemistry Council; Ernie Rosenberg,
president and CEO of the American Cleaning Institute; and Dean Garfield,
president and CEO of the Information Technology Industry Council, all
supported S. 1009.
Dooley commented on the extensive work it required to
achieve a bill that not only has bipartisan support but also has been backed
by unions, retailers and other parties that traditionally haven't weighed in
on chemical issues.
The bill is not
perfect, and legislators should address legitimate concerns some environmental
and public health organizations are raising about the legislation, he
“We support efforts to find common ground and believe it is
achievable, but don't upset the delicate balance that has been established,”
Jones, who manages the EPA's chemicals and pesticide offices,
raised concerns about certain aspects of S. 1009, including its lack of
deadlines, its lack of sustained funding for the EPA to implement its
requirements and procedural requirements it would establish that could hinder
the agency's ability to make timely decisions about chemicals.
would complete its reviews of chemicals under deadlines S. 1009 would authorize
the agency to set based on resource availability, among other factors. The
Senate bill doesn't set deadlines for the agency to complete those reviews.
“It requires EPA to set deadlines, but it gives us unlimited opportunities
to change those deadlines,” Jones said.
Jones also urged legislators to
clearly define terms used in S. 1009.
For example, the bill would
require the EPA to determine whether chemicals meet a safety standard, which it
defines as meaning no “unreasonable risk of harm to human health or the
environment” would result from exposure to the chemical being evaluated.
The term “unreasonable risk” has distinctly
different meanings to different parties, Jones said.
Adding to the
problem of S. 1009's lack of deadlines and unclear use of important terms,
said Richard Denison, a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund,
are the numerous procedures the bill would require the EPA to follow and
guidance documents the agency would have to prepare before it could make
safety decisions about chemicals.
Those procedural requirements mean
that it could take the EPA more than seven years to complete its first
determination of whether a chemical is safe, Denison said.
procedural requirements also “would all but invite legal challenges by parties
unhappy with one or another aspect” of the EPA's implementation of the law, he
Wendy Wagner, a law professor at the University of Texas School of
Law, said S. 1009 would unduly restrict the types of scientific evidence that
the EPA could consider as it determines the safety of chemicals.
constraints of the legislation would be inconsistent with recommendations the
National Academies has made about the science the EPA should use to underly
its decisions on chemicals, she said.
“By my count, at least 40 pages
of Senate Bill 1009 are dedicated to developing these legislative constraints
on the types of evidence EPA may consider and how it must use this evidence,”
Those requirements would create
opportunities for some manufacturers to claim the agency failed to implement
the law correctly, Wagner said.
Jones said the numerous procedural and
analytic requirements in the bill could translate into “paralysis by analysis.”
Critics of TSCA have said the law needs to be overhauled to ease the agency's
ability to make its decisions.
The flaws witnesses identified in S. 1009
can be addressed, Denison said.
The bill “contains many elements of
effective reform but needs significant changes if it is to actually deliver
those reforms,” he said. “I am convinced the problems can be addressed while
retaining bipartisan support.”
In interviews on Nov. 12 and 13, Denison
told Bloomberg BNA he is optimistic that TSCA reform can be achieved in this
Three types of work are ahead, Denison said.
legislators need to clarify language subject to divergent interpretation, he
Second, procedural requirements need to be streamlined, he
Those two steps are manageable, Denison said.
but a critical step, will be for legislators and other parties interested in
updating TSCA to craft a balance on tough issues such as how to protect
confidential business information while providing the public access to
information on chemicals and how to craft a strong federal bill that also
provides states the right to protect their residents, he said.
Energy and Commerce Committee aide told Bloomberg BNA the subcommittee
anticipates holding another hearing on TSCA reform in early 2014.
To contact the reporter on this story: Pat Rizzuto in Washington at email@example.com
contact the editor responsible for this story: Larry Pearl at firstname.lastname@example.org
Information about the
hearing and links to testimony are available at http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/s-1009-chemical-safety-improvement-act.