Trade Tells Senate Committee TSCA Reform Bill Must Protect CBI, Reduce Burden

(Lautenberg introduced similar legislation in 2010. (See ITT’s Online Archives 10072315 and 10042747 for summaries of S. 3209, the Safe Chemicals Act. In addition, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s introduced a TSCA reform bill in 2010, H.R. 5820, the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010. (See ITT’s Online Archives 10080610 for summary.)

Highlights of Senate Committee Bill

According to a brief summary by Senator Lautenberg’s office, the following are highlights of the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011:

Company submission of data on chemicals. The bill would require chemical companies to develop and submit a minimum data set for each chemical they produce. EPA would have full authority to require any data beyond the minimum data set needed to determine safety of a chemical. While EPA could access information more easily, the bill also contains provisions to ensure that no duplicative or unnecessary testing occurs, and that EPA accepts and encourages the use of rapid, low-cost, non-animal tests that provide high quality data.

EPA prioritization of chemicals based on risk. The EPA Administrator would have to conduct an initial evaluation of the safety of all chemicals and place those that meet certain criteria into one of three classes: immediate risk management, safety standard determination, and no immediate action. Prioritizing chemicals based on risk would focus EPA’s resources on the chemicals most likely to cause harm, while ensuring that all chemicals are reviewed for safety.

Expedited action for chemicals of highest concern. Persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals for which there is the potential for widespread exposure would be placed into the category of chemicals requiring immediate risk management. EPA would then impose conditions that would immediately reduce exposure.

Additional testing for chemicals of unknown risk. Chemicals that present uncertainty about their ability to meet the safety standard would be placed into the category of chemicals requiring a safety standard determination. EPA would then require additional testing and risk assessment. If the chemical could not meet the safety standard, it could not remain on the market. EPA, or industry on its own accord, could impose conditions on uses of a chemical that would reduce risk and allow the chemical to meet the safety standard.

Incentives for safer alternatives, innovation. The bill would require EPA to establish a program to develop market and other incentives for safer alternatives, and a research grant program targeted at priority hazardous chemicals for which alternatives do not presently exist. A network of research centers would be established to conduct green chemistry research and alternatives analyses, and to provide training, educational materials, etc. The bill would also allow some new chemicals onto the market using an expedited process for reviewing safety.

Public access to chemical information, less protection of CBI. EPA would have to establish a public database to house both chemical information submitted to EPA and decisions made by EPA about chemicals. The bill would narrow the conditions under which data submitted by industry could be claimed to be confidential business information (CBI), while still ensuring appropriate protections for legitimate CBI. It would provide access to CBI by workers and local and state governments so long as they protect the information’s confidentiality. EPA would also have to impose requirements to ensure that information developed and submitted, and advice received from advisory committees convened by EPA, is reliable.

Trade Says Bill Must Protect CBI, Reduce Reporting Burden, be Based on Science

The only witness representing the private sector, a representative of the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA), stated that the bill has started to move in the right direction in several key areas, such as EPA prioritization and the minimum data set. CSPA also recognizes the need for its members to provide EPA with information on the chemicals they use so the agency can make well-informed decisions on risk.

However, he cautions that such an approach needs to be based on sound science and be practical, objective and predictable in order to quickly narrow the large chemical universe to smaller, more meaningful subsets of chemicals that would receive further assessment.

In addition, CSPA has serious concerns about the provisions of the bill that would expand reporting requirements, including a “burdensome” declarations section. The association believes it is important to ensure information is collected as needed, without imposing an across-the-board requirement for every chemical, regardless of its potential for exposure and risk to human health or the environment.

CSPA is also concerned with the bill’s provisions that may limit the protection of confidential business information (CBI). As this is a company’s most valuable asset, the group believes that CBI information must be treated with appropriated safeguards

Senator Lautenberg info on S. 847, dated 04/14/11, available here and here.