The House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection held a hearing entitled “Prioritizing Chemicals for Safety Determination.” The hearing was intended to examine the options for prioritizing chemicals for safety determinations in the event that Congress passes legislation amending the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and reflects Congress’s sustained interest in chemical management reform legislation.
The hearing, which was hastily pulled together, was well attended by Subcommittee Members, both Republican and Democrat. This may indicate widespread political interest in TSCA reform, which could lead to eventual difficulties in resolving what are almost certain disagreements between the majority and minority Members. Among the Members who attended were Representative John Dingell (D-MI), former Chair of the full Committee, who in the past has taken some interest in TSCA matters, and Representative Ed Markey (DMA), another senior Member of the Committee. Markey seemed to ask the most pointed questions, most of which were critical of the current law and regulatory program. Representative George Radanovich (R-CA), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, seemed the most aggressive in questioning the premise that the current law is fundamentally flawed and unable to protect the public in its current form, and made repeated references to the potential adverse impact of ill-conceived legislation on jobs and the economy.
The questions and commentary of Members was mostly predictable and followed party lines. Democrats stressed the fundamental “failure” of the current law and the need for drastic revisions certain to increase greatly and enhance current TSCA requirements. Republicans stressed the need to modernize TSCA without imposing unnecessary costs to avoid newly imposed requirements that would place the chemical industry at an economic competitive disadvantage with little gain in reducing real risks (especially at a time of double digit unemployment and general economic recession). The testimony and the responses of Steve Owens, Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS), United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), did not break any new ground. His testimony was consistent with past public statements about the Obama Administration’s priorities and goals for TSCA reform. Owens did not offer or outline any more specifics about possible TSCA amendments being considered by the Administration, nor did he offer any newly specific plans for reinvigorating the program under current law.
TOP RELATED KEYWORDS