{"id":2745,"date":"2013-06-05T08:49:38","date_gmt":"2013-06-05T13:49:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/nanotechnology\/?p=2745"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:01:30","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:01:30","slug":"reality-check-on-tsca-reform-legislation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2013\/06\/05\/reality-check-on-tsca-reform-legislation\/","title":{"rendered":"Reality check on TSCA reform legislation"},"content":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D.<\/em>,<\/em> is a Senior Scientist.<\/p>\n

[NOTE:\u00a0 This post was mostly written before Monday\u2019s sad news of the death of Senator Lautenberg.\u00a0 I have decided to post it now, both out of admiration for his steadfast determination to advance meaningful reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act even in a tough political environment, and to clarify and elaborate on EDF\u2019s position supporting the introduction of the new legislation.]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Since the May 22 introduction of the bipartisan <\/span>Chemical Safety Improvement Act of 2013 (S. 1009)<\/span><\/a>, co-sponsored by the late Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Senator Vitter (R-LA) and <\/span><\/span><\/span>19 of their Senate colleagues<\/span><\/a>, stakeholders have offered various reactions, ranging from strong support to unqualified condemnation.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Among the latter are those who lament \u2013 and list \u2013 all that is \u201cmissing\u201d or has been \u201clost\u201d from Senator Lautenberg\u2019s earlier bill, the Safe Chemicals Act.\u00a0 That\u2019s the legislation that has been introduced in various forms in each of the last five Congresses, going back all the way to 2005. EDF and I personally were intimately involved in that legislation and worked hard to pass it all along the way.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

But now in 2013 we need to face some tough facts:\u00a0 Despite best efforts, that legislation was unable to garner support from a single Republican member of Congress, and never got further than a Senate committee\u2019s approval on a strictly party-line vote.\u00a0 That means there is simply no basis for talking about what has been \u201clost\u201d from the current bipartisan legislation \u2013 for the simple reason that you can\u2019t lose what you never had<\/em>.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In their rush to condemn the new bill (\u201cif the chemical industry supports it, it must be bad\u201d) and fault it for failing to channel the Safe Chemicals Act, these stakeholders also rush past what should be the real test of the legislation<\/em>:\u00a0 How it compares to the status quo<\/em>, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA).<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

As an <\/span>editorial that ran this past weekend in the New Jersey Star-Ledger<\/span><\/a> put it\u00a0[my emphasis]:\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

For the first time in 17 years, Congress has a real chance to pass a major environmental law. \u2026 [T]his is a breakthrough bill that deserves our support.\u00a0 Its flaws can be fixed, and it has opened up a path to reform that never existed before.\u00a0 As written, this compromise would be a substantial improvement over the status quo<\/em><\/strong>. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Just consider the alternative: a broken law that leaves EPA with no power to do its job, and only a handful of states trying to solve a serious national problem.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The legislation is clearly a compromise, one struck in part by focusing on amending the core provisions of TSCA.\u00a0 That means it does not include a number of provisions \u2013 which I have strongly supported \u2013 that would expand the scope and approach of the current law: \u00a0For example, giving EPA the authority to address \u201chot spots\u201d \u2013 geographic areas where residents face disproportionately high chemical exposures; and to require immediate reductions in exposure to chemicals we already know to be dangerous, such as so-called PBTs (persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals).\u00a0 If they are not included in the legislation, other ways will need to be found to advance these critical objectives.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

And even within its narrower scope, the legislation has flaws that need to and can be addressed as it advances through the legislative process. \u00a0A more predictable and accountable process for reviewing and acting on chemical risks is needed, and any pre-emption of state authority should be narrowed considerably and in a manner that preserves the rights of states to act until and unless EPA takes final action on a chemical.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

But what is noteworthy about the new legislation \u2013 and is ignored by its detractors \u2013 is how it directly addresses the major flaws of TSCA that have been repeatedly identified by experts.\u00a0 I am attaching a <\/span>more detailed side-by-side<\/span><\/a> that identifies these fixes as well as some trade-offs.\u00a0 Here are some highlights:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n