Fw: AAEM News:TEP: EPA News Release (HQ): Statement of P. Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Legislative Hearing on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works December 2, 200

[Guest guest]

AAEM News:TEP: EPA News Release (HQ): Statement of P.

Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Legislative Hearing on the

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Senate Committee on Environment and Public

Works December 2, 2009

CONTACT:

EPA Press Office

press@...

202-564-4355

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

December 2, 2009

Statement of P.

Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Legislative Hearing on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

December 2, 2009

WASHINGTON - Chairman Lautenberg, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe and

other members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak about how

we can improve our framework for assessing and managing chemical risks.

Understandably, the public is turning to government for assurance that chemicals

that are ubiquitous in our economy, our environment and our bodies have been

assessed using the best available science, and that unacceptable risks have been

eliminated.

But, under existing law, we cannot give that assurance. Restoring confidence in

our chemical management system is a top priority for me, and a top environmental

priority for the Obama Administration.

EPA is the agency tasked with ensuring that the chemicals used in the American

economy are safe. But, Mr. Chairman, the current law that gives EPA that

authority is outdated, and does not provide the tools to adequately protect

human health and the environment as the American people expect, demand and

deserve.

Chairman Lautenberg, I commend you for your long standing leadership on this

issue and look forward to working with you, Chairman Boxer and other Members of

this committee as you consider ways to improve the safety of chemicals.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was signed into law in 1976 and was

intended to provide protection of health and the environment against risks posed

by chemicals in commerce. However, when TSCA was enacted, it authorized

manufacture and use, without any evaluation, of all chemicals that were produced

for commercial purposes in 1976 or earlier years. Thus, manufacturers of these

" grandfathered " chemicals weren't required to develop and produce the data on

toxicity and exposure that are needed to properly and fully assess potential

risks. Further compounding this problem, the statute never provided adequate

authority for EPA to reevaluate existing chemicals as new concerns arose or as

new scientific information became available.

TSCA does provide some authority to EPA to mandate industry to conduct testing,

but even in these cases it has taken years to obtain data and information. As a

result, there are large, troubling gaps in the available data and state of

knowledge on many widely used chemicals in commerce.

TSCA also doesn't place any legal obligation on producers to conduct testing on

new chemicals being introduced into commerce. They are required only to supply

existing data to EPA and are not required to provide all the data necessary to

fully assess a chemical's risks.

In the rare cases where EPA has adequate data on a chemical, and wants to

protect the public against well-known, unreasonable risks to human health and

the environment, there are too many legal hurdles to take quick and effective

regulatory action

For example, in 1989, after years of study, EPA issued a rule phasing out most

uses of asbestos - a chemical whose health effects had been exhaustively studied

and demonstrated to cause lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis in humans.

Yet, a federal court overturned the rule because EPA failed to clear the many

hurdles imposed under TSCA before existing chemical risks can be controlled

Due to these legal and procedural hurdles in the law over the last 30 years, EPA

has only been able to require testing on around 200 chemicals produced and used

in the United States, and it has only issued regulations to control five

existing chemicals determined to present an unreasonable risk under Section 6 of

TSCA. Five from a total universe of more than 80,000 existing chemicals listed

on the TSCA Inventory. Though many of these chemicals likely pose little or

no risk, the story is clear---we've only been able to effectively regulate a

handful of chemicals and we know very little about the rest.

TSCA must be updated and strengthened.

Earlier this fall, I announced the Obama Administration's legislative principles

for how this law should be revised and modernized. Let me highlight the Obama

Administration's principles:

First, 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. Safety standards should be driven solely by scientific evidence of

risks. EPA should have the clear authority to establish safety standards that

reflect the best available science while recognizing the need to assess and

manage risk in the face of uncertainty.

Second, the responsibility for providing adequate health and safety information

should rest on industry. Manufacturers must develop and submit the hazard, use,

and exposure data demonstrating that new and existing chemicals under review are

safe. If industry doesn't provide the information, EPA should have the

necessary tools to quickly and efficiently require testing, or obtain other

information from manufacturers that are relevant to determining the safety of

chemicals, without the delays and obstacles currently in place, or excessive

claims of confidential business information.

Third, 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. EPA and industry must include special

consideration for exposures and effects on groups with higher vulnerabilities -

particularly children. For example, children ingest chemicals at a higher ratio

to their body weight than adults, and are more susceptible to long-term damage

and developmental problems. Our new principles offer them much stronger

protections.

Fourth, EPA should have clear authority to set priorities for conducting safety

reviews. In all cases, EPA and chemical producers must act on priority

chemicals in a timely manner, with firm deadlines to maintain accountability.

This will not only assure prompt protection of health and the environment, but

provide business with the certainly that it needs for planning and investment.

Fifth, we must encourage innovation in green chemistry, and support research,

education, recognition, and other strategies that will lead us down the road to

safer and more sustainable chemicals and processes. All of this must happen

with transparency and concern for the public's right to know.

Finally, 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.

I know that legislative reform may take time. Consequently, I have directed my

Assistant Administrator of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances, Steve

Owens, to utilize our current authority under TSCA to the fullest extent

possible, including Section 6 authority to label, restrict, or ban a chemical,

to ensure that we do everything we can to protect the American people and the

global environment from dangerous chemicals. While fundamental reform is needed

to fully protect against chemical risks, this is a step forward.

Specifically, EPA is currently evaluating an initial set of chemicals based on

available hazard, exposure, and use information, for potential action. We will

complete and make public " action plans " for the chemicals which will outline the

risks that the use of these chemicals may present and what steps we may take to

address those concerns. Following this, we aim to complete and make publicly

available a group of chemical action plans every four months. EPA intends to

engage stakeholders and dialogue with other federal partners, as well as the

public, in the discussion about prioritizing chemicals for future risk

management action over the coming months through public notices and public

meetings.

But let me be clear - this is no substitute for meaningful reform of the

underlying law. The need for fundamental TSCA reform has been recognized by

industry groups, including the American Chemistry Council, environmental groups,

public health groups, several States and cities, and many other groups who have

all called on Congress to Act. I too call on Congress to act on this issue and

give EPA the tools to adequately protect human health and the environment.

The time has come to bring TSCA into the 21st Century. EPA looks forward to

working with this committee on this very important issue.

Note: If a link above doesn't work, please copy and paste the URL into a

browser.

View all news releases related to pesticides and toxic chemicals

Sent by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency · 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW ·

Washington DC 20460 · 202-564-4355