Hearing Summary - S. 1009, The Chemical Safety Improvement Act (2013)

U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee Hearing Chemical Safety Improvement Act, S.
1009
Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy Hearing Summary & Testimony Review
Hearing Summary – S. 1009, The Chemical Safety Improvement Act
On November 13, the Environment and the Economy Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce
Committee held a hearing titled, “S. 1009, The Chemical Safety Improvement Act.” The hearing brought together
stakeholders, Jim Jones, an assistant administrator from the Environmental Protection Agency, and Senators Vitter
and Udall. Earlier this year the subcommittee had held several TSCA 101 type hearings and this was the fourth
relating to TSCA reform held by the subcommittee this year. A background memo authored by committee’s
majority staff was also made available in advance of the hearing. The benefits, negatives, and areas of S. 1009
needing reform were discussed by Mr. Jones and the other hearing panelists.
S. 1009, the Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA) was introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senator Vitter and the
late Senator Frank Lautenberg. Although the bill is bi-partisan and has 25 co-sponsors, this legislation is at an
impasse in the Committee on the Environment and Public Works due to the CSIA’s pre-emption requirements.
Senator Barbara Boxer, the Chair of the EPW Committee, believes that California’s strong chemical protections
should not be pre-empted by federal law.
The failures of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) were discussed at length by the participants who took part
in the hearing. It was noted by Congressman Dingell that the few successes of TSCA were under President Ford
and others noted that TSCA has only been used successfully six times. Mr. Jones also said that although TSCA was
used to regulate asbestos in 1989, due to the weaknesses in the legislation, the agency’s action was overturned by
the courts. Although there are now over 84,000 known chemicals, only a few hundred have been evaluated by the
EPA at this time.
There are several positives and strengths of S. 1009. One of the most important changes afforded by the bill that
was noted by Mr. Jones is that every new chemical introduced would need affirmative approval by the EPA in
order to enter the market. The bill would also shift analysis from a cost-benefit approach to one more focused on
exposure and toxicity. Furthermore, Mr. Jones noted that this legislation would give the EPA the ability to generate
health and safety findings using order authority, which would save the agency time and resources. In these ways, S.
1009 strengthens TSCA and places a greater emphasis on human health.
Several issues and themes were addressed by the panelists such as, the need to protect confidential business
information, pre-emption, cost-benefit analysis, order authority, agency deadlines, protection of vulnerable
populations, the time needed for implementation, and agency resources.
 Confidential Business Information: Mr. Jones testified that the bill contains protections and while
information would be shared with health officials and local and state government agencies, it would
still remain confidential. Others panelists representing industry testified that more must be done in the
bill to protect confidential business information.
 Agency Resources: The Chemical Safety Improvement Act contains no new authorization for the EPA
and does not include the provision of additional resources. Without additional resources and given the
tens of thousands of chemicals that would need review, Mr. Jones testified that the EPA’s ability to
meet expectations would be limited.
 Timeline for Implementation: One issue with reform is that implementation would take a considerable
amount of time. Although creating a list of priority chemicals to evaluate would take several months, it
would take two or three years to conduct a safety assessment and years to complete a final regulation.
1
U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee Hearing Chemical Safety Improvement Act, S. 1009
 Deadlines: One issue that was discussed was whether or not the bill should contain deadlines for the
EPA to meet. Mr. Jones testified that in the case of pesticide chemical reviews, the EPA met certain
benchmarks because of deadlines that were set for the EPA. Mr. Dooley expressed concern that
deadlines imposed by Congress would be arbitrary and Mr. Jones cautioned that deadlines could
encourage the EPA to work on the easiest chemicals in order to meet requirements.
 Protection of Vulnerable Populations: Concern was noted by Congresswoman Capps that vulnerable
populations are only mentioned twice in the bill and that these protections may not go far enough. Rep.
Cassidy expressed concern that a subgroup may always be adversely affected leading to overregulation.
 Pre-Emption: Pre-emption was a major topic of discussion and the timeline was concerning to Rep.
Waxman and other panelists. Specifically, Mr. Jones testified that while the pre-emption requirements
would kick in after prioritization by the EPA, it might take considerable time for the EPA to address
such chemicals. Rep. Barrow noted that if the federal government is going to regulate and pre-empt
state law, it must be effective. Dean Garfield, President of the Information Technology Industry
Council, testified that it would be harmful to industry to have both a federal standard and 50 separate
state standards.
 Cost-Benefit Analysis: Section Six of TSCA requires cost-benefit analysis, while S. 1009 changes that
standard to a health-based approach. Chairman Shimkus and others expressed some support for a CBA
based approach.
Although Mr. Jones said that TSCA reform is a priority for the administration, the Environmental Protection
Agency has not taken a position on the Chemical Safety Improvement Act. Mr. Jones was asked this question and
replied that this legislation needs serious changes in order to be workable and effective. Panelists presenting at the
hearing also agreed that while the mission is important, changes were needed to improve on this CSIA and TSCA
reform legislation. Many participants in the hearing stressed the bi-partisan nature of TSCA reform. Mr. Jones also
discussed the importance of stakeholders in this process. Senator Vitter concluded that ultimately, the involvement
of stakeholders and the EPA is needed to craft a balanced and bi-partisan bill that will create regulatory certainty
and protect human health.
2
Opening Statements
 Rep. John Shimkus, Subcommittee Chairman, Environment and Economy (Full Statement)
 Rep. Fred Upton, Committee Chairman, Energy and Commerce Committee (Full Statement)
 Congressman Paul Tomko, Subcommittee Member, Environment and Economy
Representative Tomko said that agreement about the need for reform is not necessarily agreement on CSIA. He
noted that the federal law is ineffective and therefore, states have stepped in individually. However, state action is
not uniform to all citizens therefore; there is no national standard or regulatory certainty. He said that the Chemical
Safety Improvement Act offers a chance at reform and broad participation is needed. He also maintained that this
bill does not address many TSCA shortcomings and takes us backwards through pre-emption. He urged that there is
no need for pre-emption and that states should retain the rights to address the concerns of their citizens and state.
He also said that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot evaluate the safety of chemicals without
sufficient information and does not know enough about some chemicals. He said that S. 1009 only partially
addresses this challenge.
 Rep. John Dingell, Chairman Emeritus, Energy and Commerce Committee
Representative Dingell said that EPA has not been able to tackle most dangerous substances and chemicals. He
noted that there has only been a few successes of TSCA and those were under President Gerald Ford. He said that
there are only a few chemicals that have been able to be removed from the chain due to the TSCA. He also said that
overhaul must include broad support from industry and other groups. The Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990 took
13 years, a lot of hard work, and a lot of time. He said that there will be a lot of concerns but that we need industry,
consumers, and citizens to come together.
3
Panel I
 Senator David Vitter, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Senator Vitter said that the bill involves solid bi-partisan compromise. However, he also said that neither himself
nor Senator Lautenberg had believed that the bill was perfect. He said that he will meet with others to find a bi-
partisan way forward and that while some issues raised are legitimate, others are not. He said that anyone interested
in achieving meaningful and legitimate bi-partisan compromise must work with stakeholders such as the EPA in
order to achieve a final version that creates business certainty and protects the vulnerable. He said that we must
make certain that the EPA has the tools needed to guarantee that chemicals are safe. He also noted that Vice
President Biden called S. 1009 “a bi-partisan breakthrough.” He said that S. 1009 is a legacy bill for the late
Senator Lautenberg. Finally, he noted that this bill escapes the partisanship of past legislation and was crafted
through bi-partisanship.
 Senator Tom Udall, Member, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Senator Udall said that it had been wonderful working with Senator Vitter and stakeholders on something that can
be passed through the Senate and then received by the House of Representatives. He said that the bill has been the
center of debate and discussion and that he co-sponsored it because it addresses key flaws in TSCA. He also said
that he had been moved by the spirit of compromise and bi-partisanship. He noted that S. 1009 is not perfect and
has some key issues that must be addressed. He said that many in the environmental community do not believe the
bill should move forward as it is. However, he said that in addition to elements needing reform, the bill has strong
elements as well. He said that we must: 1) ensure that the EPA will have tools it needs to protect and will be able to
review the 84,000 known chemicals 2) protect private rights of action to hold companies accountable – should not
pre-empt private claims 3) protect rights of states to safeguard their citizens.
He further noted that Senator Barbara Boxer, Chair of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public
Works, has been a tireless advocate for California, our country, and other states that play a key role in creating
safety standards. He concluded by saying that he urged his colleagues to work together on a bi-partisan and bi-
cameral basis.
4
Panel II
 The Honorable Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Full Statement)
Mr. Jones said that we all agree on making sure that chemicals are safe and that this administration believes we
need to modernize and strengthen the TSCA. He said that the EPA is committed to working with Congress, the
chemical industry, the environmentalist community, and the public to update TSCA. He also noted that compared
to 37 years ago, we have a much better understanding of the health effects of chemicals. He said that unlike laws on
drugs and pesticides, there is currently no mandatory program allowing the EPA to review existing chemicals.
Mr. Jones said that TSCA was an important step forward but has proven an inadequate law. He noted that it is
difficult to ban or take action on chemicals. For example, in 1989 the EPA banned asbestos but that rule was
overturned because it did not meet TSCA law. In that time only 6 chemicals have been regulated and the EPA
needs the tools to protect the American public. He said that the administration believes that the EPA must be able to
quickly obtain information from manufactures and have the authority to take action when chemicals do not meet the
risk standard.
He said that the EPA has no position on this legislation but believes that legislation should provide the EPA with
the authority needed for risk safety standards and the authority needed to take action, consider economic costs,
children’s health, and other factors. He said that the EPA needs a sustained source of funding for implementation of
this legislation. He also took issue with the bill’s “unreasonable risk” language, which he said would be responsible
for “paralysis by analysis.” He also said that legislation should provide the EPA with tools needed to ensure a level
playing field for companies that are in compliance.
 Q&A With Jim Jones:
Chair Shimkus: Does S. 1009 strengthen the law on new chemicals? Mr. Jones: Existing law does not require EPA
to make an affirmative finding of safety on existing chemicals and this law does.
Chair Shimkus: Do you consider S. 1009 an improvement for EPA? Mr. Jones: TSCA is one of the most poorly
implemented laws. This bill has shortcomings as well.
Chair Shimkus: Section 5… S. 1009 makes changes to section 5… are they appropriate? Mr. Jones: Changes to
affirmatively approve chemical to say that they are safe before going to market is a good thing.
Chair Shimkus: Do these changes harm innovation? Mr. Jones: No. People do not want the innovation of unsafe
things.
Chair Shimkus: Some have said that the EPA needs more info on chemicals – section 4? Mr. Jones: Right now the
agency must go through a complex rule to find health and safety data on a chemical and this can take 5 years – S.
1009’s order authority to generate data without a rule would be very helpful. The EPA has order authority under
pesticides now.
Chair Shimkus: When you say equity concerns… what do you mean? Mr. Jones: When you are protecting it is
important to understand where the costs fall – must understand the costs and benefits of a decision.
5
Chair Shimkus: When you define sensitive populations, what do you mean? Mr. Jones: Will be looking at highly
exposed individuals in the workplace, etc. based on use and are there certain parts of the population that are more
sensitive such as children or elderly and there are individuals or groups that might have more sensitivity.
########
Rep. Tonka: Would an approach that takes into account cost with the safety standard be consistent with EPA
principal? Mr. Jones: When we are looking at how to mitigate a risk, those considerations are considered.
Rep. Tonka: Historically TSCA has had an unreasonable cost consideration, is that correct? Mr. Jones:
Unreasonable risk and the least burdensome requirement in section 6 create paralysis by analysis. This ultimately
prevents the EPA from being effective.
Rep. Tonka: Does the bill use this standard? Mr. Jones: Stakeholders believe unreasonable risk can only mean cost
benefit balancing and others believe the language around it matters more – there is no common understanding.
Other language like the least burdensome requirement leaves endless analysis needed.
Rep. Tonka: Should EPA abandon the unreasonable risk standard? Mr. Jones: We need to agree on an
interpretation whatever is done.
Rep. Tonka: Where are we at with the resource issue? Mr. Jones: Under existing funding, it would be limited. A
sustained source of funding needed beyond current funding.
########
Rep. Gingrey: Were S. 1009 enacted, what would be the guidance? Would need to issue new regulations? Mr.
Jones: Existing regulations would carry on but would need to look case by case to see if we need new language to
conform.
Rep. Gingrey: How could S. 1009 be integrated so not disrupt TSCA? Mr. Jones: The bill allows the EPA to
designate current chemicals being worked on – they would become high priority chemicals.
Rep. Gingrey: Does the know-how and experience of the US in regulation chemicals compare to other nations? Mr.
Jones: In pesticides context, we evaluate every chemical. However, we are struggling now because TSCA makes it
difficult to apply that experience.
Rep. Gingrey: The United States is currently exploring a US trade agreement with EU. Will there be any impact on
domestic regulations? Mr. Jones: The EPA will participate with the United States Trade Representative and at EPA
in order to try to identify areas where there are unnecessary barriers to trade, while making sure that health and
domestic laws are upheld and enforced. Sometimes laws can be harmonized without changing domestic law in the
United States and that is how we will approach the issue.
Rep. Gingrey: Could the free trade negotiation impact U.S. law? Mr. Jones: The Obama administration has been
clear that we are taking a risk based approach that is what has been advocated in a reform of TSCA and the current
approach. It would be unusual to change that approach.
########
6
Rep. Waxman: There’s two issues: deadlines and pre-emption. First, deadlines –In 37 years the EPA has only been
able to require testing on 200 chemicals out of 84,000 in four decades. This history demonstrates the law is not
working and TSCA reform should include meaningful deadlines. Does the bill address this issue? Mr. Jones: I do
not believe that the bill creates meaningful deadlines. A past bill on pesticides mandated that pesticide residues
chemicals must be evaluated in 10 years. Rep. Waxman: Did the deadline effect implementation? Mr. Jones: Yes,
that is why we met the deadline.
Rep. Waxman: States have implemented laws and under this bill EPA determines if chemical is high or low
priority. California EPA thinks dozens of state laws can be pre-empted during prioritization and then may take the
EPA many years to address. Mr. Jones: State laws could be pre-empted while federal action takes years. Existing
state requirements could be pre-empted while the federal government makes a safety determination – if EPA makes
a safety determination but does not issue a regulation – especially without deadline, it could be years.
########
Rep. Pitts: On page 5 you refer to social benefits. What does that mean? Mr. Jones: This relates to health benefits.
Rep. Pitts: On page 6 you refer to sound science, how is this defined? Mr. Jones: The agency has a fair amount of
guidance on what science should include. For example, all available information, peer review, etc.
Rep. Pitts: How long would it take you to impose first regulations? Mr. Jones: It would take 3 years for final
regulation on a chemical that had been assessed. It would take several months to identify the highest priority
chemicals. A Safety assessment would take two or three years based on the complexity of the chemical.
Rep. Pitts: What’s assessment like? Look at data on hazard…. Would you have communication with the chemical’s
manufacturers? Mr. Jones: In the last year and half we have done some and made them open and available to
everyone. If manufacturer has data for us to consider, we encouraged them to bring it forward.
########
Rep. Green: Does the safety standard strengthen the ability of the EPA to regulate? Mr. Jones: There were some
issues with the safety standard in the drafting of S. 1009. It requires degree of analysis to find alternatives to
chemicals and we could find EPA in endless analytical loop. Maybe we would not be able to finish the chemical
analysis.
Rep. Green: Are some of the issues with TSCA addressed by S. 1009? Mr. Jones: The most effectively addressed
issue is the ease of being able to generate health and safety data. The removal of least burdensome requirement has
been replaced with a different kind and a lack of deadlines will prevent EPA from succeeding.
Rep. Green: Will pregnant women and children be protected adequately? Mr. Jones: There is movement in that
direction in this law
Rep. Green: What happens when new chemicals come on the market? Mr. Jones: The EPA does not need to
affirmatively say yes, just not say no. This bill requires affirmative approval.
Rep. Green: How does S. 1009 protect confidential information? The bill would allow EPA to share confidential
information with emergency response officials.
7
Rep. Green Are business secrets protected? The bill would require state and local recipients of information to
maintain confidentiality.
########
Rep. Latta: I represent a district with 60,000 manufacturing jobs – when out at home and this issue comes up,
people want to know what is happening in Washington. Would the new categories in this bill negatively impact
specialty chemical manufacturers? Mr. Jones: No. New decisions would be made quickly – there would be 90 days
to evaluate chemicals and the EPA can extend this period twice for up to 90 days total.
Rep. Latta: Confidential business information? Mr. Jones: Working hard as government to make sure that claim is
eligible for confidential – making sure that the asserted claim meets confidential criteria and making sure that
companies keep files accurate on CBI claims. There’s a grandfathering in on CBI claims.
Rep. Latta: How has coordination been with interagency testing committee? Mr. Jones: Other agencies are not big
users – it allows agencies to ask EPA to generate health and safety data – this bill continues this – but we cannot
predict how much this will be used but it authorized again by 1009.
########
Rep. DeGette: 60,000 chemicals were grandfathered in in 1976 and there’s no trigger for EPA to review existing
chemicals. The bill would lead to them being prioritized but given the number, support prioritization but the EPA
needs to have information to make informed decisions on how to prioritize. If EPA wants to trigger a review, they
have to promulgate a review. EPA would be required to prioritize existing chemicals in commerce but will need a
lot of data they don’t have? Mr. Jones: Correct.
Rep. DeGette: Is there a minimum set of information that will be had for each chemical? Mr. Jones: We will tailor
prioritization and data needs based on chemical makeup. Some chemicals are based on characteristics that would
need less data.
Rep. DeGette: Are there standards for data needs in bill? Mr. Jones: It gives EPA wide discretion in data
Rep. DeGette: Does it give criteria for high priority chemicals? Mr. Jones: Yes.
Rep. DeGette: 80 or 90% of new chemical applications have no data now. No affirmative determination by EPA
NOW. But under S. 1009, the EPA will make a determination – but will the EPA have data? Mr. Jones: Models
would be used to predict hazard and will allow EPA to make determination. Predictive models will be very
instructive.
########
Rep. McKinley: First, will the bill require the expansion -- in the absence of additional resources, the number of
chemicals that will be moved through process? Mr. Jones: FTE will be needed for the numbers expected of the
agency.
Rep. McKinley Second, some of criticism is that EPA has to make first step and determine need for health and
safety data. Mr. Jones: Agency is well equipped and has expertise to know if health and safety data is necessary.
8
Rep. McKinley Do you think this bill is an improvement? Mr. Jones: We are looking at if this bill gives tools to
address safe chemicals in U.S. The answer is that it needs some improvement. There are aspects moving in the right
direction and others that are not.
########
Chairman Shimkus: Under the new law 1009 – there will be two lists – actively in commerce list – and inactive –
and companies can go inactive by noticing EPA.
########
Rep. Capps: It is critical that vulnerable populations protected. This is only mentioned in bill twice. Could a
chemical meet the safety standards even if unreasonable risk to subpopulation. Should this be? Mr. Jones: No.
Rep. Capps: Should a chemical that poses a serious risk be acceptable under reformed TSCA? Mr. Jones: No
Rep. Capps: Should risk management action under reformed TSCA show that substantial risk to vulnerable be
addressed? Mr. Jones: Yes.
Mr. Jones: We think the improvements needed would ensure – That there are deadlines for the EPA, the safety
standard should be risk based, and we need a balanced approach to pre-emption. He also said that currently,
analysis is bogged down because of least burdensome requirement and this should not be replaced by additional
analysis.
########
Rep. Johnson: Should congress require a minimum number of chemicals be acted on each year? Mr. Jones: This
would be positive progress but negative at the same time – if we would not meet the standard, we might need to
work on easier chemicals to get the work done.
Rep. Johnson: Would 1009 allow EPA to assess bio cumulative and bio toxic chemicals? Mr. Jones: The bill allows
the agency to do so but does not give any explicit requirement to prioritize them
########
Chairman Shimkus: Risk is defined as hazard plus exposure. What is difference between substantial and
unreasonable? Mr. Jones: It really depends on others words used in statute. Unreasonable risk does not mean that
the agency has to conduct a CBA – but courts say those words in conjunction with others mean CBA.
########
Rep. McKearney: How would affirmative standards be enforced in the new law? Under existing law there is 90
days to evaluate and only if a problem is identified, the EPA can prevent introduction. Mr. Jones: S. 1009 makes
agency provide affirmative finding before can be used. Stakeholders need to be brought to the table so that there is
an understanding that the words being used are what people think they should mean.
Rep. McKearney: The EU has made progress on 60,000 chemicals? Would S. 1009 allow EPA to collaborate with
EU? Mr. Jones: The fundamental problem is that manufacturers must generate a lot of health and safety data and
9
companies have to agree to the release of the information. Sometimes many companies involved with one chemical
and all would have to agree.
Rep. McKearney: Would the EPA have the resources for rulemakings? Mr. Jones: The number of assessments
possible under existing resources would be inadequate. There are models in the FDA and pesticides program. There
is no funding source in S. 1009. The administration would like a sustained source of funding.
########
Rep. Pitts: Does S. 1009 require chemicals to be prioritized? Mr. Jones: Yes.
Rep. Pitts: S. 1009 laws out framework for prioritizing existing chemicals – does a reformed TSCA need these set
out as four separate steps? Mr. Jones: There are lots of framework requirements – it would be possible to collapse
them and not lose drafters intent – to streamline and make more straightforward. The bill has chemicals separated
by high and low priority. Low priority decisions are not subject to judicial review and this is not a good for
government.
########
Rep. Cassidy: No risk may be in the eye of the beholder – what would this law require? Asses risk and see if it
meets the safety standard. Is the safety standard nebulas? Mr. Jones: There is a long record of how the EPA
calculates risk and how it determines risks such as lifetime cancer risk and other kinds of effects between exposure
level and when adversity occurs.
Rep. Cassidy: EPA’s current level does not have a threshold effect or take into account? Mr. Jones: The vast
majority of chemical assessments are based on the threshold model.
Rep. Cassidy: Won’t there always be a subpopulation impacted? Mr. Jones: The EPA would go through process of
identifying subgroups and ask for public guidance. The EPA would also use factors to take into account variation.
########
Rep. Barrow: Are there any areas of the bill that are better than current law? Mr. Jones: Positives: 1) Giving EPA
ability to generate health and safety findings using order authority and 2) requiring to be evaluated before entering
market. Negatives: 1) Pre-emption 2) If funding for EPA is inadequate, will there be effective regulation if we pre-
empt state and leave it to underfed government.
Rep. Barrow: Does a nationwide standard with a poorly funded regulator potentially harmful – challenging
dynamic where absence of action by federal government – move ball forward and states feel like they don’t need to
regulate – also, what happens if there’s 51 regulators – isn’t that a challenge to industry? It’s untenable to sell a
product in U.S. when there are 51 requirements. Mr. Shimkus: Many states have no capability to do testing at level
of EPA.
10
Panel III
 Mr. Calvin M. Dooley, President and CEO, American Chemistry Council (Full Testimony)
 Mr. Ernie Rosenberg, President and CEO, American Cleaning Institute (Full Testimony)
 Mr. Denison, Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund (Full Testimony)
 Dean Garfield, President and CEO, Information Technology Industry Council (Full Testimony)
 Mr. Andy Igrejas, National Champaign Director, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families (Full Testimony)
 Wendy Wagner, Professor, The University of Texas School of Law (Full Testimony)
 Question and Answer:
Mr. Shimkus: Are changes to TSCA section 5 needed and why?

Mr. Dooley: We need the EPA to make an affirmative determination and it is an obligation to industry and
manufacturer to provide that information.
Mr. Rosenburg: The EPA has asked for data for hundreds of chemicals. The deficiencies in Section 5 go to where
you end up, which is section 6 which has the least burdensome alternative hurdle – which is unmanageable.
Changes in Section 5 do what we are looking for by creating a more credible program.
Mr. Garfield: In reality the way this works is that when you come up against the deadline must ensure that progress
continues to be made.
########
Mr. Tonko: We heard that CBA should not play a role in determining safety – some advocate for RISK
standard not CBA – determination of meeting chemical safety standard should not involve CBA.
Mr. Dooley: If you look at our policy and the Chemical Safety Improvement Act, there is not a cost benefit analysis
requirement for prioritization and if there is some intended use – such as mercury in a florescent bulb – that is a key
component – that the EPA could ban because it is hazardous – but without CBA – would result in bad regulation
and bad public policy. Safety determination needs to be a health based and risk based determination based on the
science. Need to make that demarcation quite clear –
Mr. Ingeras: Least burdensome – concerns health is not separated from CBA – and should be separate
Ms. Wagner: Is the heightened standard of review in this case unusual? It is usually arbitrary and capricious but
substantial evidence is used in this case and on balance a higher burden.
########
Mr. Green: Do you believe this legislation is an improvement?

 Most panelists answered yes with improvements
 Mr. Garfield answered yes and no
 Ms. Wagner answered no
Mr. Green: Does this change EPA’s current authority to test chemicals?
 Mr. Dooley: Grandfathered chemicals will be subject to safety assessment – and it would facilitate access
to data to determine if chemicals meet the safety standard. Under the new Chemical Safety Improvement
Act the safety standard of unreasonable risk to human health does not in any way require a cost benefit
analysis as required under existing law. This is a significant difference.
########
Committee Member: Would deadlines be helpful?
11
Mr. Dooley: From an ACC perspective, there is no objective to deadlines but we believe they need to be
reasonable. We need information from the EPA on how many is appropriate in order for this to be assessed and
determined.
Committee Member: What is a reasonable timeframe?

Mr. Dooley: What is difficult for members of Congress is developing arbitratrary deadlines. Bill puts onus on EPA
to set deadlines that they are prepared to meet.
Committee Member: How would you determine if a chemical is safe?

Mr. Denison: The details are left to EPA and not discussed in the bill in any detail.
Committee Member: How does this differ from current law – order vs. rule?
Mr. Dennison: An order can be issued in 5 months versus 3 years for a regulation.
########
Mr. Palone: We can all agree that the status quo is not working – The EPAs lack of authority to limit chemicals and
the least restrictive requirement prevented the EPA from regulating asbestos. Mr. Dennison, does designating
chemicals as high or low authority, and then preventing states from regulating, come too early in the process?
Mr. Denison: Yes, the restriction on states ability needs to be at the end of the process not kicking in at the start.
The incentives for dragging out length of time from prioritization to regulation would be huge because of pre-
emption. Want to talk about a difference timeline? Yes, this need to occur at the final action of the EPA.
Mr. Palone: In NJ we have a large number of chemical facilities and a high population, you mention that intent and
language do not match, how should we protect children living near those facilities?
Mr. Igrejas: It should be clearly defined and explicitly protected by risk management measures and included in the
safety determination. It should be defined with clear language that they are in the assessment phase and in the risk
management measures.
12
Closing Statement
Chairman Shimkus said that this legislation and something is better than nothing. He noted that TSCA is 37 years
old and that throughout the bill’s history, it is not an effective piece of legislation. He said that that there is an issue
with a risk based approach – that a chemical may not be used that benefits mankind -- that some people think using
mercury has big environmental benefits and therefore, a risk-based approach can be helpful. He also said that the
committee will want to continue talking about the deadline issue in the future.
13

Hearing Summary - S. 1009, The Chemical Safety Improvement Act (2013)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Hearing Summary - S. 1009, The Chemical Safety Improvement Act (2013)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee Hearing Chemical Safety Improvement Act, S.

Hearing Summary – S. 1009, The Chemical Safety Improvement Act

 Rep. John Dingell, Chairman Emeritus, Energy and Commerce Committee

 Q&A With Jim Jones:

Mr. Shimkus: Are changes to TSCA section 5 needed and why?

Mr. Green: Do you believe this legislation is an improvement?

Committee Member: Would deadlines be helpful?

Committee Member: What is a reasonable timeframe?

Committee Member: How would you determine if a chemical is safe?

You might also like