{"id":3199,"date":"2014-03-04T12:25:52","date_gmt":"2014-03-04T17:25:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=3199"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:01:34","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:01:34","slug":"house-tsca-reform-discussion-draft-major-problem-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2014\/03\/04\/house-tsca-reform-discussion-draft-major-problem-1\/","title":{"rendered":"House TSCA reform discussion draft: Major problem #1 \u2013 EPA regulatory hoops"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><em>Richard Denison, Ph.D.<\/em><em>,<\/em> is a Senior Scientist.<\/p>\n<p>Imagine the following scenario under a new TSCA based on the <a href=\"http:\/\/energycommerce.house.gov\/press-release\/shimkus-unveils-discussion-draft-chemicals-commerce-act\">House discussion draft issued last week<\/a>:\u00a0 A major consumer products company decides to expand its line of air fresheners with a new peppermint flavor.\u00a0 After introducing the new product, information surfaces indicating that one of the product\u2019s ingredients that imparts that aroma causes mutations in a standard genetic toxicity test.<\/p>\n<p>Based on the high hazard and exposure potential, EPA designates the chemical as high priority, requires additional data to be generated, and conducts its safety assessment, concluding the chemical is very likely to be a human carcinogen and poses significant risk when inhaled at levels associated with normal use of the air freshener.<\/p>\n<p>EPA\u2019s safety determination concludes the chemical \u201cwill result in an unreasonable risk of harm to human health,\u201d and so EPA initiates the requisite rulemaking to restrict use of the chemical.\u00a0 Under the House discussion draft (section 6(f)(4)), here\u2019s what EPA would have to prove in order to take any regulatory action:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>its restriction is \u201cproportional\u201d to the risk involved;<\/li>\n<li>the restriction \u201cwill result in net benefits;\u201d<\/li>\n<li>the restriction is \u201ccost-effective\u201d compared to all alternative restrictions;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>AND, here\u2019s the real kicker:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>there are \u201ctechnically and economically feasible alternatives that materially reduce risk to human health or the environment compared to the use proposed to be prohibited.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>In other words, before it could act, EPA would have to find a safer, ready-off-the-shelf alternative peppermint flavor for the consumer products company to use instead of the human carcinogen.\u00a0 And all of the burden of proof \u2013 of proportionality, net benefits, cost-effectiveness, technical feasibility, economic feasibility and comparative safety \u2013 would rest entirely on EPA and none of it on the company that markets the product or makes the chemical for that intended use.<\/p>\n<p>Something just doesn\u2019t smell right, wouldn\u2019t you say?<\/p>\n<p>These provisions of the House discussion draft would take what is arguably the most fatal flaw in current TSCA \u2013 EPA\u2019s inability to regulate dangerous chemicals due to an onerous and paralyzing cost-benefit analysis requirement \u2013 and actually make it worse.\u00a0 While the draft would strike TSCA\u2019s requirement that EPA show any restriction it proposes is the \u201cleast burdensome,\u201d it would replace it with evidentiary and analytic burdens that are even more onerous and paralyzing.<\/p>\n<p>There\u2019s a far better and fairer way to deal with the scenario I\u2019ve outlined:\u00a0 Give EPA the authority to grant exemptions for certain uses of an unsafe chemical \u2013 but only for uses that are critical or essential. \u00a0That would ensure EPA can effectively restrict non-critical or essential uses of dangerous chemicals.<\/p>\n<p>The seeds of this exemption approach are planted in the Senate\u2019s Chemical Safety Improvement Act (in section 6(c)(10)), although there are other major problems with those provisions of CSIA as introduced (happily, considerable progress toward resolving those problems has been made in the ongoing negotiations on CSIA).<\/p>\n<p>Here\u2019s how an exemption process should work:\u00a0 EPA would have authority to grant exemptions for uses of an unsafe chemical it finds to be critical or essential.\u00a0 And companies who believe their use of a chemical is critical or essential could seek such an exemption \u2013 but the burden would be on them to show there are no safer, viable alternatives.\u00a0 The exemptions would be time-limited, and renewable if the need for the exemption is demonstrated to remain.\u00a0 And EPA would have full authority to impose conditions on such uses needed to protect human health and the environment.<\/p>\n<p>But to force EPA \u2013 as the House discussion draft would do \u2013 to have to find for a company viable, safer alternatives to a dangerous chemical for each and every use of that chemical it proposes to restrict is simply preposterous.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist. Imagine the following scenario under a new TSCA based on the House discussion draft issued last week:\u00a0 A major consumer products company decides to expand its line of air fresheners with a new peppermint flavor.\u00a0 After introducing the new product, information surfaces indicating that one of the product\u2019s &#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":100,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[44,114108],"tags":[39148,40000,5019,39193,5017],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-3199","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-policy","category-tsca","tag-carcinogens","tag-chemicals-in-commerce-act","tag-consumer-products","tag-prioritization","tag-risk-assessment"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3199","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/100"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3199"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3199\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12701,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3199\/revisions\/12701"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3199"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3199"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3199"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=3199"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}