Hearing of the House Environment and the Economy Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee - TSCA Modernization Act of 2015

Hearing

I am pleased to be here today to continue this Subcommittee's important work to reform
the Toxic Substances Control Act. Chairman Shimkus's new discussion draft, the TSCA
Modernization Act of 2015, is a thoughtful and innovative approach that has the potential to
move chemical regulation forward. The Chairman and the Majority staff have worked closely
with Democratic members and staff to improve this draft, and I am happy to say that our work is
ongoing.

I look forward to hearing from EPA, affected industries, and environmental stakeholders
this morning to plot a course forward and begin to strengthen this draft.

Improving the federal government's ability to identify and manage risks from the
chemicals manufactured and processed in this country is critical. For six years now, there has
been widespread agreement among industry, labor, and nongovernmental organizations that
TSCA needs to be reformed.

In 2009, the EPA Administrator said that TSCA had proven to be "an inadequate tool for
providing the protection against chemical risks that the public rightfully expects."
The American Chemistry Council said it wanted to work with "stakeholders, Congress,
and the Administration to make reform a reality."

And a coalition of public interest groups said that "By updating TSCA, Congress can
create the foundation for a sound and comprehensive chemicals policy that protects public health
and the environment, while restoring the luster of safety to U.S. goods in the world market."

At that time, stakeholders and policymakers pursued a vision of a fully reformed TSCA,
ensuring that no chemical would go on the market without being found to be safe. All chemicals
in commerce would be subject to minimum testing, and aggressive regulation would ensure to
the American public a reasonable certainty of no harm from the chemicals they are unwittingly
exposed to every day.

Six years later, that vision is still my goal. But the risks from toxic chemicals in our
environment and the products we use every day are serious and pressing, and progress toward
that vision has been elusive.

This new discussion draft does not attempt to realize the goal of a fully reformed TSCA
with assurances that all chemicals in commerce are safe. But it will give EPA tools to reduce
risk now, in a package that I think has the potential to become law. And it will give consumers
the ability to choose chemicals and products that have been reviewed for safety against a purely
risk-based standard.

Under this draft, EPA would have the ability to require testing through orders, rather than
just rulemaking. That is an important step forward, although it won't fix all of the problems in
Section 4 of the existing law.

The draft would also ensure that EPA's determinations of unreasonable risk under
Section 6 of current law will be made without consideration of costs and with explicit protections
for vulnerable populations. EPA would then be able to move forward with risk management
without the paralyzing requirement to select the least burdensome option. These too are essential
steps forward, although issues in Section 6 still remain.

Additionally, the draft would remove outdated limits on user fees to provide more
resources for EPA's activities under TSCA, although it could do more to ensure that EPA
actually receives those funds.

The draft also would direct EPA to update the TSCA inventory, providing better
information to consumers and policy makers on the universe of chemicals in commerce in the
United States.

And the draft would require substantiation of CBI claims in the future, preventing abuse
of CBI claims and ensuring greater transparency.

These are all positive changes that would empower EPA to offer greater protections for
human health and the environment.

Importantly, the draft also avoids some of the significant concerns that have been raised
about past proposals, such as limits on the ability of EPA to regulate articles and limits on the
ability of states to be partners in enforcement.

This bill reflects robust bipartisan outreach, which I hope to continue in the coming
weeks. Mr. Chairman, you deserve credit for a strong process so far, and a strong product.
Some important issues remain to be worked out, such as setting yearly targets for EPA
initiated risk evaluations, ensuring that private rights of action are protected, and targeting risks
from the worst of the worst chemicals, PBTs.

I hope we can come together to strengthen this proposal and produce a law. I welcome
the testimony from today's witnesses, which will point the way for further work.

Thank you.

Source