How the Senate and House TSCA reform bills stack up against the Administration’s Principles for TSCA Reform

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

In September 2009, the Obama Administration issued its Essential Principles for Reform of Chemicals Management Legislation “to help inform efforts underway in Congress to reauthorize and significantly strengthen the effectiveness of TSCA.”  These principles have guided EPA’s testimony and other statements relating to the Senate and House legislative proposals to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Now that the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 (H.R. 2576) has passed the House of Representatives, and the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S. 697) is expected to come to the Senate floor in the coming weeks, I’ll use this post to take a look at how each bill stacks up against the Administration’s principles.  

The Administration has itself weighed in on this question in a couple of instances, although it has not provided much detail.  A White House statement issued in response to the House’s passage of H.R. 2576 stated:

We are pleased with the ongoing, bipartisan efforts in the House and the Senate to reform TSCA, which seek to address the goals spelled out in the Administration’s Principles.  There are provisions in each bill that need modification to better align them with the Administration’s principles; as just one example, language in the House bill that could prioritize industry-requested chemical reviews at the expense of EPA’s priorities.

In recent testimony before a Senate committee, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy responded as follows to a question as to whether S. 697, as amended by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in markup, meets the Administration’s principles (cited in Environment and Energy Daily [subscription required]):

McCarthy replied that Jim Jones, EPA’s assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, had “identified a couple of areas where the bill fell short of the administration’s principles, but I also am pleased that the most recent amendments really addressed those issues, and I am encouraged that we’re moving forward with a bipartisan bill.”

Below is our take on the extent to which each bill aligns with the Administration principles (also attached as a PDF here).  For a more detailed comparison of the two bills, see our side-by-sides here and here.

While there are six principles, two of them have several pertinent parts, so we have scored each bill against each of 10 reform elements.

Here’s the overall finding:

Overall score              Senate bill:  8.5/10               House bill: 4.0/10

Analysis 

How the Senate and House TSCA reform bills stack up against the Administration’s
Principles for TSCA Reform

Sources:

• Essential Principles for Reform of Chemicals Management Legislation
• S. 697: The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act
• H.R. 2576: The TSCA Modernization Act of 2015

Overall score              Senate bill: 8.5/10                House bill:  4.0/10

[Note: There are 6 principles, but Principle #2 has 4 parts, and Principle #5 has 2 parts, for a total of 10 individual scores.]

√ = Meets principle (1 point)
+/- = Partially meets principle (0.5 point)
X = Does not meet principle (no points)

Principle No. 1: 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.

EPA should have clear authority to establish safety standards that are based on scientific risk assessments. Sound science should be the basis for the assessment of chemical risks, while recognizing the need to assess and manage risk in the face of uncertainty.

Principle No. 2: 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.

a. Manufacturers should be required to provide sufficient hazard, exposure, and use data for a chemical to support a determination by the Agency that the chemical meets the safety standard.

b. Exposure and hazard assessments from manufacturers should be required to include a thorough review of the chemical’s risks to sensitive subpopulations.

c. Where manufacturers do not submit sufficient information, EPA should have the necessary authority and tools, such as data call in, to quickly and efficiently require testing or obtain other information from manufacturers that is relevant to determining the safety of chemicals.

d. EPA should also be provided the necessary authority to efficiently follow up on chemicals which have been previously assessed (e.g., requiring additional data or testing, or taking action to reduce risk) if there is a change which may affect safety, such as increased production volume, new uses or new information on potential hazards or exposures. EPA’s authority to require submission of use and exposure information should extend to downstream processors and users of chemicals.

Principle No. 3: Risk Management Decisions Should Take into Account Sensitive Subpopulations, Cost, Availability of Substitutes and Other Relevant Considerations.

EPA should have clear authority to take risk management actions when chemicals do not meet the safety standard, with flexibility to take into account a range of considerations, including children’s health, economic costs, social benefits, and equity concerns.

Principle No. 4: Manufacturers and EPA Should Assess and Act on Priority Chemicals, Both Existing and New, in a Timely Manner.

EPA should have authority to set priorities for conducting safety reviews on existing chemicals based on relevant risk and exposure considerations. Clear, enforceable and practicable deadlines applicable to the Agency and industry should be set for completion of chemical reviews, in particular those that might impact sensitive sub-populations.

Principle No. 5: Green Chemistry Should Be Encouraged and Provisions Assuring Transparency and Public Access to Information Should Be Strengthened.

a. The design of safer and more sustainable chemicals, processes, and products should be encouraged and supported through research, education, recognition, and other means. The goal of these efforts should be to increase the design, manufacture, and use of lower risk, more energy efficient and sustainable chemical products and processes.

b. TSCA reform should include stricter requirements for a manufacturer’s claim of Confidential Business Information (CBI). Manufacturers should be required to substantiate their claims of confidentiality. Data relevant to health and safety should not be claimed or otherwise treated as CBI. EPA should be able to negotiate with other governments (local, state, and foreign) on appropriate sharing of CBI with the necessary protections, when necessary to protect public health and safety.

Principle No. 6: EPA Should Be Given a Sustained Source of Funding for Implementation.

Implementation of the law should be adequately and consistently funded, in order to meet the goal of assuring the safety of chemicals, and to maintain public confidence that EPA is meeting that goal. To that end, manufacturers of chemicals should support the costs of Agency implementation, including the review of information provided by manufacturers.