Congress Takes Steps Toward Stronger Chemicals Regulation

Two pieces of federal legislation introduced in April 2010 would, if passed, radically update the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the federal law giving the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate new and existing chemicals that may pose an environmental or health risk.

Action is warranted, according to Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, sponsor of the Safe Chemicals Act, because EPA has been able to require testing for only 200 of the more than 80,000 chemicals currently registered in the U.S. and has been able to ban only five dangerous substances.

The Safe Chemicals Act and the corresponding discussion draft for the House, introduced by Representatives Henry Waxman of California and Bobby Rush of Illinois, have some differences between them, but both bills would:

• require manufacturers to supply a minimum data set for every chemical on hazard, exposure, and use, and establish a public database of safety information;

• place the burden of proof on chemical manufacturers to prove a chemical’s safety or “reasonable certainty of no harm” before introduction on the market (the burden currently lies with EPA to prove “unreasonable risk” before regulation); base the evaluation of safety on the most vulnerable populations;

• and prioritize chemicals for evaluation and action based on the degree of risk.

This effort to update the chemicals law appears to have more traction than proposals introduced in 2005 and 2008, with both the chemical industry and environmental health advocacy groups now in favor of reform. The chemical industry is seeking uniform national regulation to replace the current patchwork of state laws. Industry groups are concerned with a clause included in the proposed bills that would allow states to set stricter standards, the feasibility of the standard of proof used to determine the safety of chemicals, and the proposed expedited review and action process for high-priority chemicals like formaldehyde.

Meanwhile, green advocacy groups are concerned with a provision that would allow new chemicals that passed a preliminary screening to enter the market before comprehensive testing and review (all chemicals must have a minimum safety data set by 15 years in the Senate version, and 5 years in the House version), and are seeking clearer authority for EPA on the immediate restriction of known hazards as well as the adoption of National Academy of Sciences’ recommendations to incorporate the best and latest science when determining the safety of chemicals.

– Jennifer Atlee

For more information:

The Senate bill (pdf)

The House Energy and Commerce Committee discussion draft (pdf)

April 29, 2010

DISCUSSIONS