Close this Advertisement

Rush and Waxman Release Toxic Chemicals Safety Act

  • Jul 23, 2010

On July 22, U.S. Rep. Bobby L. Rush, chair of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, and Rep. Henry A. Waxman, chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, introduced H.R. 5820, the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010 (pdf).

“The introduction of this legislation marks a major step forward in our efforts to bring to current industry standards an important statute that, once it becomes law, will permanently shine the bright light of public disclosure on a range of chemicals that consumers encounter in a diverse array of products they use each and every day,” said Rush whose subcommittee has jurisdiction over TSCA enforcement.

“I appreciate the tremendous work, testimony, analysis and public comments that a variety of stakeholders and consumer groups have shared as we’ve worked to craft a piece of legislation that both protects consumers while respecting the right of private industry to innovate while protecting businesses’ confidentiality, trade secrets and intellectual property rights," Rush added.

The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection will hold a hearing on this legislation on July 29.

Waxman explained the process: “Over the past few months, at the request of affected industries, Chairman Rush and I led a robust stakeholder process that involved a serious and candid exchange of views on TSCA reform. This process was extremely valuable and productive. Under this legislation, all chemicals will be reviewed for safety, dangerous chemicals will be restricted or eliminated, and new, safer chemicals will be developed more rapidly to move our economy toward a sustainable future.”

The Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010 would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 to ensure that the public and the environment are protected from risks resulting from chemical exposure. The bill:

  • establishes a framework to ensure that all chemical substances to which the American people are exposed will be reviewed for safety and restricted where necessary to protect public health and the environment.
  • requires the chemical industry to develop and provide to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency essential data, and improves EPA’s authority to compel testing where necessary.
  • ensures that non-confidential information submitted to EPA is shared with the public and that critical confidential information is shared among regulators, with states, and with workers in the chemical industry.
  • creates incentives and a review process for safer alternatives to existing chemicals as well as a workforce education and training program in green chemistry.
  • promotes research to advance understanding of children’s vulnerability to the harms of chemicals.
  • encourages the reduction of the use of animals in chemical testing.

For EPA, the bill establishes an expedited process to reduce exposure to persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic substances, allows exemptions for chemicals that are already known to be safe, directs the agency to address exposures in "hot spot" locations and to engage in international efforts to control dangerous chemicals.

According to the measure, EPA actions will be transparent, open to public comment, and subject to judicial review, without unreasonable procedural burdens.

Comments

Thu, Jul 29, 2010 Dan Connecticut

TSCA reform is needed. It is about time that we catch up to the rest of the world when it comes to regulating chemicals. As a chemcial formulator we encounter many hurdles to overcome if we want to sell our products into different countries. Many of these hurdles are laws enacted to regulate and monitor the chemicals that are being exported to these countries (REACH, SVHC, etc.). This allows these countries the opportunity to set strict regulations that have to be followed or an outright restriction of a chemical from going into the country because of the environmental, health and safety impacts. Our country only jumps on board after the danger of a chemical makes it into the public's eyes, one only has to look at BPA. Many of the standards and regulations within the U.S. are old, outdated or don't exist to protect the people, environment and communities within in our country. It's about time things change.

Wed, Jul 28, 2010 Joe Beard Jr., P.E. Reno NV

Non-animal methods of testing? Boohoo. Where will the human cells come from, MAX? What would the computer-based approaches use for raw data, MAX? Think it through..... If better test methods had been developed since "the 1930s," wouldn't they have been adopted by industry? I appreciate the attempt to present alternatives, but we need practical replacements, if we are to make a change! Why not use death-row inmates, or the poor? Too bad legislators have to include FEEL-GOOD language in what should be a sterile bill.......talk about tendencies toward social engineering! ....Joe

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 Mike Minneapolis

Does this bill regulate how transport of toxic chemicals will be handled? Railroads transport many many tons of hazardous materials daily. Language recognizing this and, perhaps, the appropriate regulatory agency that maintiains railroad transport of hazardous materials, should be included.

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 Buck

Everything is potentially a poison. The effect of toxicity is determined by both the receptor and the dose. Thus, deeming something “safe” is a relative definition. That being said, indeed, there are safer alternatives for many processes and products. But other factors include the overall life cycle impact of substitution, notwithstanding the potential economic burden of alternative design and reduced efficacy of function. In this respect a cost-benefit analysis should also be an integral part of the evaluation process.

Also, in referencing the historical MTBE debacle in California, good intentions do not necessarily translate into good results. Substitutions do not always come without adverse and sometimes unexpected consequences. Also, within the overseeing bureaucracy there can also be tendencies toward social engineering … and these have no place in the true distillation of science and fact that validate the process. As long as review and approval remains untainted by political or special-interest agenda, then the process can be legitimate. Of course, the greater worry is that the institutionalization of such broad authority does risk an over-reach of the precautionary principle at the cost of innovation.

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 Larry Wistuba Winchester Kansas

The EPA should be responsible for providing a MSDS number assigned with each MSDS sheet, that way all MSDS sheets could be filed numerically in every MSDS book . This would provide a uniform organization of this material across all industries and an accurate identification of the product container with the MSDS sheet. This would simplify finding the correct information quickly.

Tue, Jul 27, 2010 Walt

It is time that we hold companies who manufacture in other countries accountable to meet EPA and other standards that we have set in the United States for the safety of our people and our environment. EPA, FDA, etc., must watch imports to ensure their standards are met for health and safety. We have let our guard down. Put controls and safeguards in place to correct this serious deficiency.

Fri, Jul 23, 2010 Max

Making industrial chemicals safer is something we can all get behind. However, if we want safer chemicals and a safer environment then we must use nonanimal methods of testing.

Currently, many toxicity tests are based on experiments in animals and use methods that were developed as long ago as the 1930s; they are slow, inaccurate, open to uncertainty and manipulation, and do not adequately protect human health. These tests take anywhere from months to years, and tens of thousands to millions of dollars to perform. More importantly, the current testing paradigm has a poor record in predicting effects in humans and an even poorer record in leading to actual regulation of dangerous chemicals.

The blueprint for the development and implementation of nonanimal testing is the National Academy of Sciences report, "Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy in 2007." This report calls for a shift away from the use of animals in toxicity testing. The report also concludes that human cell- and computer-based approaches are the best way to protect human health because they allow us to understand more quickly and accurately the varied effects that chemicals can have on different groups of people. They are also more affordable and more humane.

These methods are ideal for assessing the real world scenarios such as mixtures of chemicals, which have proven problematic using animal-based test methods. And, they're the only way we can assess all chemicals on the market.

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above