EPA Seeks Stronger Regulation of Chemicals

A scientist at the Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI) in Lowell, Massachusetts, tests chemicals. TURI helps companies find safer alternatives to toxic chemicals—the sort of alternatives EPA hopes to require.

On September 29, 2009, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson outlined broad goals for strengthening the federal regulation of chemicals through the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The act has changed little since its original passage in 1976. “Not only has TSCA fallen behind the industry it’s supposed to regulate,” said Jackson, “it’s been proven an inadequate tool for providing the protection against chemical risks that the public rightfully expects.”

Under TSCA, manufacturers currently aren’t required to demonstrate that a chemical is safe before it is introduced. “If EPA has adequate data and wants to protect the public against known risks,” said Jackson, “the law creates obstacles to quick and effective action.” Since 1976, EPA has regulated only five chemicals out of almost 80,000 that are in use. And even when the agency has taken action, as it did in banning asbestos in 1989 after years of study, the hurdles under TSCA are so high that such actions can be overturned in the courts—as occurred with asbestos.

Jackson’s remarks coincided with the EPA’s release of “Essential Principles for Reform of Chemicals Management Legislation,” a list of six principles to “help inform efforts underway in this Congress to reauthorize and significantly strengthen the effectiveness of TSCA.” These principles are as follows:

Chemicals should be reviewed against safety standards that are based on sound science and reflect risk-based criteria protective of human health and the environment. In her remarks, Jackson said that economics should not be a consideration relative to risks, a significant departure from past policies.

Manufacturers should provide EPA with the necessary information to conclude that new and existing chemicals are safe and do not endanger public health or the environment. This principle would shift responsibility for ensuring safety to industry, yet provide tools for EPA to require testing as needed.

Risk-management decisions should take into account sensitive subpopulations, cost, availability of substitutes, and other relevant considerations. Of particular concern are children, who are more vulnerable to chemicals and ingest chemicals at a higher ratio to their body weight than adults, according to Jackson.

Manufacturers and EPA should assess and act on priority chemicals, both existing and new, in a timely manner. “EPA must have clear authority to take action” when chemicals are considered a risk, according to Jackson. Being able to take timely action is considered important not only to protect health and the environment but to “provide business with the certainty that it needs in planning and investment.”

Green chemistry should be encouraged, and provisions assuring transparency and public access to information should be strengthened. In supporting research, education, and other efforts to produce safer chemicals and processes, transparency and the public’s right to know are high priorities, according to Jackson.

EPA should be given a sustained source of funding for implementation. Jackson proposed that industry should contribute “its fair share of the costs of implementing new requirements.”

Response from the industry to Jackson’s remarks and EPA’s six principles for reform of chemicals policy has been initially positive. In a press release issued the same day as Jackson’s speech, American Chemistry Council (ACC) president and CEO Calvin Dooley said, “We welcome the Administration’s leadership and its recognition of the critical need to modernize our nation’s 30-year-old federal chemical safety law. We must harness the advances in science and technology over the past three decades to develop a comprehensive law that puts the safety of the American consumer first while promoting the innovation that will lead to the development of essential new chemical products and new high-paying American jobs.”

The release went on to say that ACC “looks forward to working with the Administration, Congress, environmental and animal rights organizations, labor and others with a stake in this issue, to advance reforms that will promote public confidence in the safety of our products. We are encouraged by what appears to be a high level of alignment between our industry’s and the Administration’s principles for TSCA reform.”

How close the alignment will be once specifics are released about TSCA reform remains to be seen, but starting this process with clear and open dialog is clearly a step in the right direction.

– Alex Wilson

For more information:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
www.epa.gov/oppt/

American Chemistry Council
www.americanchemistry.com

November 1, 2009

DISCUSSIONS