TSCA Reform Bill Headed to Full Senate

/in ,

TSCA Reform:

On July 25, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works passed a 174-page, substantially revised version of Senator Lautenberg’s 2011 Safe Chemicals Act (S.847).  The bill was approved along party lines, with all Republicans voting against it.  It will now move to the full U.S. Senate for consideration.  Since the bill moved out of committee, we are aware of no meaningful progress toward passage of the bill on the floor of the full Senate.  Moreover, it is unlikely that a companion bill will be passed in the U.S. House of Representatives prior to the November election.  Therefore, we continue to anticipate meaningful TSCA reform efforts in 2013, but not before then.  We also expect this amended bill to remain a focal point of future negotiations in both houses.

  • Summary of Proposed Changes – Although the bill would make significant revisions to the current TSCA statute, the law’s scope would remain largely unchanged in terms of persons and chemicals subject to regulation, as well as the range of risk management measures available to EPA.  Compared to the existing statute, the bill would increase the regulatory burden of “processors,” making them subject to requirements similar to those imposed on manufacturers (e.g., notifications, risk management).  Compared to the prior version of the bill, this version places greater reliance on existing information before requiring new data and information to be generated in a targeted manner as part of a tiered evaluation process.  It limits the number of substances that must undergo a full safety determination.  It also provides greater protection for confidential business information than the last version.  Below is a short summary of some of the more noteworthy changes.
    • Inventory Reset – Manufacturers and processors would submit declarations of current or potential commercial interest in “existing” chemical substances (i.e., those on the current TSCA Inventory), and EPA would use the declarations to establish an “Active” and an “Inactive” Inventory.  The Active Inventory would list substances for which EPA received declarations of current commercial interest (basically manufacturing/ processing at the time of the new law’s enactment).  The Inactive Inventory would list substances that might be used as a substitute for a substance currently manufactured or processed.  Substances would be eliminated from the Inventory if no declaration was submitted.
    • New Chemicals Notification and Categorization – Pre-manufacturing notices (PMN) would be required for substances not on either the Active or Inactive Inventory.  (Certain exemptions would be available, but it does not appear the “articles” exemption would be based on its absence in the prior version or the current amendment.  Many of the exemptions would require some form of notification to EPA.)  More substantial data and information requirements would apply than under the current statute, even though “existing information” would be used initially.  EPA would “categorize” substances and impose data generation requirements on substances in some of the categories. The five categories are listed below.
      • Substances in the “SVHC category” would be PBTs and those that are “highly hazardous.”  They could not be manufactured or processed except under very limited circumstances requiring an exemption application (e.g., critical uses).  These would not be added to the either Inventory.
      • “Substances to Undergo a Safety Determination” would be set into one of three “Priority Classes” and then undergo a risk assessment to confirm that their manufacturing, processing, use (including in articles), etc., would meet the safety standard discussed below.  Risk management measures could be imposed in order to meet the standard.  These substances would be added to the Active Inventory while awaiting assessment because it’s anticipated that they would satisfy the standard.
      • “Substances of Very Low Concern” are not subject to risk management, and would not undergo further evaluation unless new information arose indicating a change was necessary.  They would be added to the Active Inventory.  They would be considered to have “intrinsic low-hazard properties.”
      • “Substances with Insufficient Information” would need certain data submitted and could not be manufactured or processed until the EPA had re-categorized the substance into one of the other categories.
      • “Substances Unlikely to Meet the Safety Standard” could not be manufactured or processed except under very limited circumstances requiring an exemption application. These would not be added to the either Inventory.
    • Existing Chemicals Notification Requirements – Existing chemicals would be subject to certain advance notification requirements.  Again, the “articles” exemption appears unavailable.
      • Substances on the “Inactive Inventory” would require certain limited data and other information to be submitted before manufacturing or processing could occur. 
      • Substances on the “Active Inventory” that had not undergone a safety determination would require advance notification before (1) engaging in a use not ongoing at the time of the law’s enactment or (2) substantially increasing the volume of a substance.  A submission akin to the current significant new use notification (SNUN) would be required – again certain existing data, etc., would be provided to EPA beforehand. 
      • Substances on the “Active Inventory” that had undergone a safety determination would require advance notification before undertaking a use that was not included in the determination.  The applicant would have to establish with data that the use would also comply with the standard.  EPA would impose any new risk management measures that might be necessary to meet the standard.
    • Existing Chemicals Categorization – Every five years, EPA would select a “batch” of approximately 6,000 existing chemicals.  It would then place them into “categories” very similar to the ones identified above for new chemicals.  Substances identified for safety standard determinations would be placed into one of three different “priority” classes and then reviewed. EPA might require data generation to categorize or a substance or to conduct the safety standard determination.  Risk management measures could result – again, SVHCs would be subject to expedited and highly restrictive risk management, but certain limited exceptions would be available.  Other substances unable to meet the safety standard would be banned except for under limited circumstances (e.g., critical uses).
    • Safety Standard – The safety standard proposed remains very rigorous and controversial.  It’s the same standard found in the Food Quality Protection Act.  Based solely on considering human health and the environment, including vulnerable populations, EPA must determine whether “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to human health or the environment from aggregate exposure to the chemical substance.”  The burden of proof rests on the company, however.  Use in “articles” must meet the standard as well.
    • Confidential Business Information – EPA would place information into one of three categories – (1) always eligible for protection, (2) never eligible, and (3) sometimes eligible.  Most eligible information would be protected for 5 years, with a possible extension for another five years.  Certain sensitive information would receive indefinite protection.  Severe penalties would be imposed for release of protected information or for claiming protections that were unwarranted.
    • Preemption of State Laws – the bill does not include a robust preemption provision. 

A copy of the amendment to the bill is available here Final-Amendment-to-S.-847[1].  The original version is available here BILLS-112s847is.  Senator Lautenberg’s summary is available here.  And a webcast of the committee hearing is available here.

Update on TSCA "Reform" – The Summer of Bipartisan Consensus?

/in , ,

TSCA Reform:

Whether you think the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) needs to be “reformed,” “modernized,” “updated” or simply left alone, you’re probably interested in knowing where Congressional efforts to amend the statute currently stand.  Here’s a short update, which is based on our latest understanding.  If others have additional details or insights, please feel free to share them with us here at Verdant Law.

Supposedly Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ) has agreed to set aside his current version of the Safe Chemicals Act (S.847) and attempt to achieve consensus with his Republic colleagues on the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee.  Although Senator Lautenberg introduced S.847 in 2011 and has not introduced a similar version in 2012, the bill has remained somewhat of a centerpiece in the negotiations with other EPW Committee members. 

While Senator Lautenberg is the leading Democratic negotiator, Senator David Vitter (R-LA) is leading the Republicans’ efforts.  Senators James Inhofe (R-OK, Ranking Committee Member), Mike Crapo (R-ID, Ranking Subcommittee Member), and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) are also playing key roles. 

Negotiations are supposed to continue over the summer.  Around Labor Day, the parties will decide whether to attempt a bipartisan markup of S.847 in Senator Lautenberg’s Superfund, Toxics, and Environmental Health Subcommittee, whether a markup is premature but negotiations should continue, or whether to terminate further negotiations for the remainder of the year.  Presumably if negotiations terminate, Senator Lautenberg might reintroduce S.847 and attempt passage in the last weeks of the current congress.  Republicans would probably oppose it, but may not be in a position to introduce a viable competing bill.

We at Verdant Law think it’s highly unlikely that consensus will be achieved and a bill passed and signed into law before the November election.  However, perhaps this summer’s efforts will point the parties in a direction that eventually leads to a workable solution.  (One can dream, right?)   Stay tuned.

EPA Announces More Muscular Use of TSCA Section 6

/in , ,

TSCA/Section 6 restrictions:

June 7, 2012 Jim Jones, Acting Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, announced that EPA plans to use TSCA §6 to ban or restrict the use of chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk.  This is an extension of the Administrator’s 2009 Comprehensive Approach to Enhance the Agency’s Current Chemical’s Management Program.  At that time, the Agency announced a renewed focus on identifying chemicals of concern and initiating appropriate risk management, including regulatory action to restrict or ban chemicals.  Jones’ Office explained that the agency intends to use its existing authority to the best of its ability until Congress enacts TSCA reform.  It noted that TSCA reform is one of the Administrator’s highest priorities.

Jones statement was made at the Environmental Council of the States’ State Environmental Protection in 2012 forum.  He spoke extemporaneously.  For further information, Jones’ Office recommends reviewing the Comprehensive Approach and the Administrator’s Essential Principles for Reform of Chemicals Management Legislation.  See also the Administrator’s September 2009 remarks announcing both efforts.

EPA Budget Would Increase Spending on Chemical Assessment and Control

/in , , ,

EPA Budget/Chemical Control

According to an EPA press release, today the Obama Administration proposed a FY 2013 budget of $8.344 billion for the agency. The budget is $105 million below the EPA’s enacted level for FY 2012, but it increases spending by $11 million, or approximately 16%, to “protect … Americans from harmful chemicals.”  This increase for chemical assessment and control signals a clear intention to promote regulatory TSCA reform and related efforts in the absence of legislative reform. 

The press release states – “EPA is proposing $68 million, an increase of $11 million from FY 2012, to reduce chemical risks, increase the pace of chemical hazard assessments, and provide the public with greater access to toxic chemical information. Funding will sustain the agency’s successes in managing the potential risks of new chemicals coming into the market and accelerating the progress to help ensure the safety of chemicals on the market that have not been tested for adverse human health and environmental impacts.”

A complete copy of the agency’s budget proposal is available here.

EPA Assistant Administrator Steve Owens Resigns

/in , , , , , ,

EPA Administration/Chemical Regulation:

On Tuesday, October 25, 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the resignation of Assistant Administrator Steve Owens.  Readers will recall that President Obama appointed Mr. Owens the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), which is the office implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Pollution Prevention Act, and other federal laws concerning chemicals management.  November 30, 2011, will be Mr. Owens’ last day in office before returning home to Arizona where he previously served as the Director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.  It is unclear at this time who will assume Mr. Owen’s responsibilities and what effect his departure will have on EPA’s various chemicals management initiatives.

Mr. Owens served the EPA during a two-year period in which Congress, the courts, and various stakeholders engaged in vigorous debate and litigation over the appropriate regulation of chemicals in the United States.  In a 2010 brown-bag session (available on podcast), sponsored by the American Bar Association’s Pesticides, Chemical Regulation, and Right-to-Know Committee, Mr. Owens discussed many of the initiatives the Agency was undertaking and some of the challenges it faced as it participated and attempted to shape the debate. 

In a letter to EPA staff announcing his resignation, Mr. Owens said:

“I am writing to tell you that, after more than two years of working closely with all of you to protect Americans’ health and environment, I have made the difficult decision to leave EPA. My last day in the office will be November 30, 2011.
 
As many of you know, my family has remained in Arizona while I have been working at EPA headquarters in Washington. Although I have been able to get home to see my family periodically, I have essentially been away from them for more than two years. After a lot of hard thinking, we have decided that it is time for me to come home. My wife needs her husband; my sons need their father; and I need them.
 
While I am very happy that I will be back with my family, I will miss all of you greatly. It has been a true privilege to work with so many incredibly talented and dedicated people who are doing so much to protect the health and safety of the American people and our environment.
 
I am extremely grateful to Lisa Jackson for her wonderful friendship and the remarkable vision and leadership she provides to this Agency. We are truly fortunate that she is EPA’s Administrator.
 
As I said earlier, I will continue working alongside you all through November 30. Administrator Jackson will share additional information about the transition process shortly.
 
In closing, let me thank you so much for the friendship and support you have given me during my time at EPA. Please know how much I appreciate you and all that you are doing for our country.”

 

Upcoming Event: Chemical Regulation in Canada – Lessons for U.S. Reforms

/in , ,

TSCA/CEPA:

Readers attending the ABA’s meeting in Toronto in August may be interested in the following event concerning the Canadian system for regulating industrial chemicals and lessons that system may offer the United States as it debates TSCA Reform.  A short description is embedded below, and more information about the annual meeting is available here.  The list of speakers is impressive, so the event should prove worth the time investment. 

3:45 p.m. to 5:15 p.m.

Chemical Regulation in Canada—Lessons for U.S. Reforms

Room 801A, 800 Level, MTCC, South Building

Everyone agrees that chemical regulation in the US needs to be updated. Industry, NGOs and the EPA all find fault with TSCA, the 1976 law that still governs the process. The EU and Canada are both implementing new, ambitious programs that provide models and cautionary experiences for US reforms. The EU’s REACH program has been widely criticized for needless expense and complexity and for producing slow results. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, by contrast, is frequently cited by stakeholders as a better approach. This program will focus on features of CEPA that make it apparently more efficient and productive, and explore how compatible those processes would be with US law and expectations regarding transparency, participation and due process.

Moderator:

James Conrad, Washington, D.C.

Panelists:

Joseph Castrilli, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Mark Duvall, Washington, D.C.

Robert Fishlock, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Karen Levins, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

Additional Sponsor:

Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources

 

Senator Lautenberg Continues in His Quest to Reform TSCA

/in ,

TSCA Reform:

Guest Columnist: 
Irene Hantman
University of Maryland Law Fellow
US EPA Office of Civil Enforcement
Waste and Chemical Enforcement Division

On April 14, 2011, Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey introduced the 2011 Safe Chemicals Act (2011 SCA), almost a year after he introduced a similar bill (S. 3209) that failed to garner sufficient Congressional support.  Senator Barbara Boxer of California, Senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken of Minnesota, and Senator Charles Schumer of New York co-sponsored the bill.  The 2011SCA is intended “to modernize the ‘Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976’ (TSCA) and protect Americans from exposure to dangerous toxins.”  Readers familiar with the bill introduced in 2010, S. 3209, will find many of the same concepts and requirements in the 2011 SCA.  Whether this latest bill will progress further than its predecessor is unknown, but there are many reasons to believe that it will not, despite support from the high-ranking Democratic Senators Boxer and Schumer.

According to Senator Lautenberg, the 2011 SCA addresses many of TSCA’s weaknesses identified by the US Government Accountability Office in its 2005 Report to Congress, Options Exist to Improve EPA’s Ability to Assess Health Risks and Manage Its Chemical Review Program.  It also adopts many of the recommendations for US Chemicals Management Policy advocated by the American Academy of Pediatrics, former EPA Associate Administrators for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, and National Institutes of Health officials.  Readers unfamiliar with those recommendations should know that they stressed that efforts to modernize TSCA must: (1) ensure that chemicals in commerce demonstrate reasonable certainty of no harm, at all stages of human development, and through all possible exposure routes; (2) provide EPA practical tools to assess the safety of chemicals currently in use; and (3) establish public access to chemical safety information.  Senator Lautenberg also emphasized that the 2011 SCA would require safety testing of all industrial chemicals, and put the burden on industry to prove that chemicals are safe in order to get on, or remain on, the market.  In contrast, current TSCA parameters generally do not require chemical companies to test new chemicals for toxicity or to gauge exposure levels before they are submitted for EPA’s review.

Again, the 2011 SCA has many conceptual similarities to legislation the Senator sponsored in 2010 (S. 3209), but there are differences in some of the details of implementation.   The 2011 SCA would:

  • require manufacturers to submit minimum data sets to allow the EPA to conduct screening-level risk assessments for new and existing chemical substances (see amended §4(a));
  • facilitate data sharing across federal agencies (see amended §4(f));
  • require manufacturers and processors to submit new chemical notifications for chemical substances (and mixtures upon certain EPA findings) that EPA could approve upon a finding that the substance meets the Section 6 safety standard or that the substance does not meet other criteria concerning production volume, release, toxicity, etc. (see amended §5);
  • require manufacturers to submit reports describing current manufacturing or processing (see amended §8(a)), including
    • chemical identity,
    • manufacturing and processing facility location,
    • known uses of, exposure to, and fate information, and
    • health and safety studies not previously filed with the Administrator;
  • allow the Administrator to order manufacturers to make supplemental information submissions (see amended §8(b)) to assist
    • in making safety determinations, and
    • any aspect of administering TSCA; and
  • establish an Internet-accessible database to provide public access to significant chemical safety information (see amended §§5(b)(2), 8(d)), including
    • premanufacture notices (PMNs),
    • safety testing, and
    • Agency decisions.

In addition to maintaining a number of the conceptual changes to TSCA proposed in 2010, the 2011SCA includes new authorities regarding safety standard determinations and confidential information.   For example, the amended Section 6 would establish a risk classification scheme for chemical substances currently in use.

  • Priority Class 1 would comprise chemical substances that are assessed by the Administrator as requiring immediate risk management.  Substances in Class 1 would be those that are degraded and metabolized into persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic substances with the potential for widespread exposure to humans or other organisms. Within 18 months of assignment to this priority class, the Administrator would be required to impose conditions on the manufacturing, processing, use, distribution in commerce, and disposal of the substance to achieve the greatest practicable reductions in human and environmental exposure.  
  • Priority Class 2 would include chemical substances, presently in commerce, for which the Administrator found a more-than-theoretical concern of uncertainty that they could meet the safety standard required for new chemicals.  Assignment to Class 2 would be conducted in order of risk presented to human health and the environment.  
  • Priority Class 3 would include only those chemical substances for which the Administrator determined no immediate action was required because the substance did not and would not, at any stage of the lifecycle, pose any risk of adverse effects to human health or the environment under existing, proposed, or anticipated levels of exposure to, or production or patterns of use of, that chemical substance.

No judicial review would be available for assignment to any priority class.

The 2011 SCA also specifies minimum considerations for safety standard determinations of both new and existing chemicals (see amended §6(b)).  The legislation would require the Administrator’s risk assessment to include consideration of scientific literature relating to the effect of cumulative exposure to chemical substances.  The Administrator would be permitted to find that a substance meets the safety standard only when there is a reasonable certainty that neither human health nor the environment would be harmed from aggregate exposure.  Judicial review would not available for determinations that manufacturers have not established that chemical substances meet applicable safety standards.

The 2011 SCA would limit protections for confidential business information.  Section 14 would also allow the Administrator to determine that particular information previously considered eligible for confidential treatment is no longer entitled to such treatment.

Lastly, 2011 SCA would have limited preemptive effect.  States and their subdivisions would remain free to adopt or enforce any regulation, requirement, or standard of performance that was different from, or in addition to, a regulation, requirement, liability, or standard of performance established under TSCA, unless it was impossible to comply with both, in which case the TSCA requirement would control.  Although the preemption provision was revised from the 2010 bill, Senator Lautenberg continues to prefer robust state involvement in chemicals management.

The website for Senator Lautenberg’s office provides summaries of and the text of the Safe Chemicals Act of 2010 and 2011 (2010 bill, 2010 summary, 2011 bill, 2011 summary).

* * * *

DISCLAIMER:  This work is not a product of the United States Government or the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the author is not doing this work in any governmental capacity.  The views expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily represent those of the United States or the US EPA.                       

Chemical Heritage Foundation Posts the Video from its TSCA Reform Event

/in , ,

TSCA/TSCA Reform:

The Chemical Heritage Foundation (CHF) posted the video from its recent event on the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the primary federal statute governing the safety of chemicals in U.S. commerce.  Readers less familiar with CHF should know that it is a Philadelphia-based non-profit that aims to foster an understanding of chemistry’s impact on society.  CHF is currently completing an oral history project on the statute’s evolution from legislative proposal through implementation and now reform.  The project has required CHF to interview various persons, including former EPA officials, responsible for key aspects of that evolution.  The March 3 event, entitled “TSCA: From Inception to Reform, a Public Dialogue,” was an outgrowth of the oral history project.

The event featured a panel of five former administrators in the EPA office responsible for implementing the statute at various times since its enactment in 1976. They included James V. Aidala, Charles M. Auer, Charles L. Elkins, Mark A. Greenwood, and Glenn E. Schweitzer.  Each panelist discussed the statute’s perceived strengths and weaknesses, major accomplishments achieved under it, and some of the ways in which Congress could address the perceived weaknesses in future legislative amendments.  Afterward, they answered questions from the audience.

The event was a terrific success.  For readers unable to attend, more information about CHF, its oral history project, and the video recording are available here.

Senate Subcommittee Holds Hearing on TSCA Reform

/in ,

TSCA Reform:

On Thursday, February 3, 2010, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics, and Environmental Health held a hearing titled “Assessing the Effectiveness of U.S. Chemical Safety Laws.”  Although the hearing’s title suggests that a broader discussion of US chemical control laws occurred, reforming the federal TSCA statute was the primary focus.  Representatives from industry, academia, the environmental community, and EPA testified on two different panels, and all witnesses supported TSCA reform.  The level of interest in the hearing seems to have surprised Subcommittee staff – the chamber was completely full, and with no room made available for overflow, the hall outside remained crowded for nearly the entire hearing. 

Readers will recall that the Subcommittee Chair, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), introduced a bill last year – the “Safe Chemicals Act of 2010” – that would have substantially revised TSCA.   Thursday’s hearing undoubtedly served to demonstrate the importance that Senator Lautenberg places on revising TSCA and his commitment to maintaining active debate on the topic.  Whether his commitment will enable the parties in both houses to reach consensus and pass legislation in 2011, or even 2012, remains to be seen.  There are plenty of reasons for skepticism; however, passage of a revised TSCA is likely to occur in the next few years. 

Senator Lautenberg began the hearing with a review of the testimony the Subcommittee received during the 111th Congress.  Other Subcommittee members, including Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Senator David Vitter (R-LA) also provided statements. 

In his statement, Senator Inhofe expressed hope that the parties could “reach an agreement to develop a workable bill, one based on the best available science, one that protects human health, and one that balances the need to protect jobs and economic growth.”  Senator Inhofe alluded to concerns in the House of Representatives about the potential impact on jobs and innovation that might result from a revised TSCA statute, concerns that could very well make passage of a revised statute difficult while fears of a double-dip recession still linger.  He also stated that modernization of TSCA should (1) be based on the best available science, (2) use a risk-based standard for chemical reviews, (3) include more rigorous cost-benefit requirements, (4) protect proprietary information, (5) reduce the likelihood of litigation, (6) avoid compelling product substitution, and (7) prioritize reviews for existing chemicals.

Senator Vitter offered six broad principles for the upcoming debate: (1) the need for EPA to update the TSCA Inventory to remove those chemicals which are no longer in commerce, which he estimated to be nearly three-quarters of the approximately 80,000 currently listed, (2) the unacceptability of adopting a program modeled after the European Union’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation since it would threaten innovation and US competitiveness, (3) the mistake of prematurely assuming REACH will become the global standard for chemicals regulation, (4) the need for any scientific studies to be repeatable when used by EPA to restrict or prohibit use of a chemical, (5) the need for peer review processes to be truly independent; and (6) the need for sound science, and not media attention, to provide the basis for any EPA decision to re-review a chemical prior to an established schedule. 

A total of six witnesses testified on the two panels, with EPA testifying exclusively on the first.  Again, all witnesses supported reforming or “modernizing” the TSCA statute.  They included:

  • The Honorable Steve Owens, Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), EPA;
  • Ms. Kelly M. Semrau, Senior Vice President for Global Corporate Affairs, Communication, and Sustainability, S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.;
  • Mr. Steven J. Goldberg, Vice President and Associate General Counsel, BASF Corporation;
  • Ms. Frances Beinecke, President, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC);
  • Mr. Cal Dooley, President, American Chemistry Council (ACC); and
  • Dr. Lynn Goldman, MD, MPH, Dean, George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services.

Mr. Owens summarized the Obama Administration’s principles for TSCA reform, first articulated in 2009.   In response to questions, Mr. Owens also expressed concern about the potential over-use of claims of confidentiality – i.e., confidential business information (CBI) – to protect the identity of chemicals listed on the TSCA Inventory.  According to Mr. Owens, approximately 17,ooo of the 84,000 listed chemicals have their identities claimed as CBI, affecting the ability to study and understand their potential effects. 

Ms. Semrau testified that S.C. Johnson supports the modernization of TSCA, but stressed the need to protect product innovation. She observed that although S.C. Johnson evaluates all chemicals used in its products, data gaps remain and revising TSCA would provide an opportunity to examine where data gaps occur and how they could be filled. She also expressed the company’s concern about chemicals being regulated on a state-by-state basis, noting the potential for the states to adopt different, and potentially conflicting, chemical management requirements.

Mr. Goldberg emphasized the need for Congress to act, so that chemicals are managed at the federal level rather than on a state-by-state basis. He noted that American Chemistry Council, the Consumer Specialty Products Association, and the American Cleaning Institute have circulated principles for TSCA modernization, which BASF supports. Interestingly, he also stated that he believed, after reviewing the principles articulated by the various stakeholders, that industry and the environmental community had more in common than is often assumed. 

Ms. Beinecke expressed appreciation for the Subcommittee’s decision to convene a hearing on TSCA reform early in the 112th Congress. She, like the other witnesses, noted that the states are adopting their own chemical regulations due to federal inaction. She observed that, in the last eight years, 18 states have adopted 71 measures concerning controls on the use of specific chemicals or classes of chemicals, and that some have adopted broader reform initiatives, most of which received strong bipartisan support.  She also noted that legislators in more than 30 states introduced or announced plans to introduce chemical control legislation this year, and that various industrialized countries around the globe are also undertaking efforts to reform or adopt chemical management programs.

Mr. Dooley agreed on the need for TSCA modernization.  He urged Congressional action so that the U.S. would remain competitive globally, seemingly anticipating objections that may come from some in the House of Representatives.  He also urged action to discourage states from passing their own laws. Mr. Dooley stated that ACC and a broad coalition of its “value chain partners” are calling for “good TSCA modernization.” According to Mr. Dooley, a revised TSCA should require scientific objectivity, prioritize to identify data needs, and use a risk-based safety standard that considers a chemical’s use when taking regulatory actions.

Dr. Goldman, a former Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) — currently called the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention — reviewed a paper recently prepared by an American Bar Association Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources Special Committee on TSCA Reform.  The Special Committee includes a bipartisan group of former EPA officials.  According to Dr. Goldman, the officials agreed on several points, including: (1) the necessity of a practical approach to amending TSCA because of the need for a flexible and a prioritized system to regulate chemicals, (2) the limited organizational capacity and resources currently available to EPA’s TSCA program, (3) the understanding that all chemicals are not created equal and therefore TSCA modernization should not become a “numbers game” where EPA is required to review a certain number of chemicals each year instead of first determining priorities for regulatory attention, (4) the need to preserve, but strengthen, much of the current chemical management system, (5) the availability and usefulness of other regulatory systems, in addition to REACH, that should be evaluated and potentially have elements incorporated into a revised TSCA, and (6) the need for Congress not to legislate how EPA should do the science since it can evolve quickly.

Whether Senator Lautenberg’s enthusiasm for reform will enable him to achieve a bipartisan and bicameral consensus remains to be seen.  Certainly, the calls for reforming TSCA are increasing among the various stakeholders.  However, as noted elsewhere, economic considerations are certain to affect the extent of any near-term progress.  Those considerations will influence not only the Congressional resources devoted to TSCA reform, but also the details of any legislative proposals.

TSCA Reform Likely to Be a Lower Priority in 2011

/in

TSCA Reform:

Chemical and Engineering News reports that representatives from several major US trade associations have stated publicly that they don’t expect modernization of the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to be a high priority for Congress in early 2011. Their statements are not surprising.  With fears of a double-dip recession still lingering, passage of a substantially revised TSCA seems unlikely in 2011, but with continued industry support, an improved economy, and a little bipartisan cooperation, it might occur in 2012.  (Assuming, of course, that the election doesn’t get in the way.  A big “if.”)

The Republican party controls the House of Representatives and it’s clearly stated its intentions.  Among other things, Republicans are determined to reduce the impacts on the deficit, national debt, and jobs that are associated with government regulation, including some forms of environmental regulation.  Adopting a more robust chemical control statute would likely require a substantial increase in EPA’s budget and it could have a significant ripple effect throughout the economy as downstream companies that don’t manufacture, but “process,” chemicals faced new requirements.  Also, at least some chemical manufacturers would need to generate expensive new health and environmental data.  And finally, there’s the risk that a new program could stifle innovation and affect the global competitiveness of the United States.

Notwithstanding support for reform coming from the American Chemistry Council (ACC), a trade association comprised primarily of chemical manufacturers, economic concerns – real or stated – could prove dissuasive in 2011 to a majority of Republicans in the House.  The Democratically-controlled Senate may be more inclined towards major near-term reform, but in the absence of sufficient support in the House, and with any Senate proposal likely less palatable to the chemical industry, such a goal seems unattainable.  At a minimum, the delay will give key members of the 112th Congress time to try to reach consensus on important points in the reform debate.

So, what will 2011 look like?  Unless there’s another crisis, such as tainted imported consumer products or an oil spill requiring the use of chemicals for which little safety information is publicly available, readers will probably see limited progress through 2011.  Closed-door meetings are certain to occur, a few hearings will take place and a bill may be introduced in the Senate – a bill may even be introduced in the House – but proposals are unlikely to advance significantly in the near-term.  Economic considerations will affect both the resources committed to the TSCA reform debate, as well as the details of any legislative proposals.  Efforts occurring in 2011 will be undertaken in the name of trying to adopt “sensible” reform that protects the environment and health without damaging the economy. 

With the Administration already taking steps to reconcile past differences with business leaders in preparation for the 2012 election, it seems unlikely that the White House will push for robust new legislation either.  So, don’t look for major legislative proposals coming from EPA anytime soon.  However, expect the ACC and others to try to persuade the Administration that TSCA Reform is a potential opportunity for bipartisanship. 

But what about the public’s and the states’ outcry for a more robust federal chemical regulatory program?  And what about the consensus among the chemicals industry, EPA, and environmental groups on the need for reform?  The outcry and the consensus are important and should not be dismissed for ultimately they will help ensure passage of a revised TSCA.  However, for the next year (and possibly longer), jobs creation, debt reduction, election politics, and efforts to reach consensus, are likely to delay reform.  In the interim, EPA will probably continue with its attempts to use existing authority to address chemical risks, despite promises of increasing Congressional oversight.