Republicans Schedule Three Hearings This Week to Limit EPA Authority on Clean Air Act

The Republican majority in the US House of Representatives, in particularly those chairing subcommittees of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has scheduled three hearings this week in their continuing attempts to limit EPA authority.  The ranking Democrat on the Committee, Henry Waxman, yesterday sent a letter to Republican Representatives Fred Upton, Ed Whitfield, and John Shimkus complaining that the Committee is not giving adequate notice to EPA officials of the hearings.

The result of this "insufficient notice" has been that EPA is unable to provide a witness for two of the three hearings.

The three hearings as noted in Waxman's letter and in the online Congressional newspaper The Hill are:

·        On Wednesday, April 13, the Energy and Power Subcommittee will hold a legislative hearing on draft legislation to amend the Clean Air Act as it relates to drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf.

·        On Thursday, April 14, the Environment and Economy Subcommittee will hold a legislative hearing on H.R. 1391, legislation to amend the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act to block an EPA proposal designed to ensure the safe disposal of coal ash.

·        On Friday, April 15, the Energy and Power Subcommittee will hold a hearing on five rulemakings under the Clean Air Act and one under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.  The Clean Air Act rulemakings address toxic air pollutants, including mercury, from a variety of different types and sizes of sources.  The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act rule addresses the definition of solid waste.  Draft legislation relating to these rulemakings is expected to be circulated during the week.

According to Waxman, EPA was not contacted about the hearing until after it was publicly announced, a trend that goes against historical practice in which the chair (including Waxman when the Democrats were in the majority) would reach out to relevant organizations weeks in advance of a hearing in order to allow time for them to prepare a response to any concerns.

Waxman also called for "a second legislative hearing on the Clean Air Amendment that will be examined by the Committee" in order to give EPA a chance to provide a witness to testify. 

The Hill article, including the full letter by Waxman to the Republican Chairs, can be read here.

Democratic Congressman Waxman Requests PBT Data from Chemical Companies

Democratic Representative Henry A. Waxman (CA), who is Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, is asking chemical manufacturers to provide information on "the production of chemicals that are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT’s)."  Waxman, along with Illionios Congressman Bobby Rush, introduced the House's version of the TSCA reform legislation in 2010.  Since those bills died at the end of the last Congress with no action, and little prospect of the Republican-led House introducing bill this year, Waxman seems intent on keeping the pressure on the chemical industry to reveal data.  According to the press release on the minority site for the House Committee on Energy & Commerce, Waxman states:

“These chemicals are of particular concern.  We need better information from manufacturers to understand what is already being done to protect the American people, and what more may need to be done through modernization of the Toxic Substances Control Act.”

PBTs are "highly resistant to degradation in the environment," "build up in the food chain and in the human body," and "cause adverse health effects in exposed individuals."  These persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic properties have been used by the EPA and other jurisdictions (including Canada and the EU) to prioritize chemicals of greatest concern for closer evaluation.

Waxman sent letters to the CEOs of 15 major chemical manufacturers, including 3M, DuPont, BASF, Huntsman, Chevron, PPG, and others requesting information on what they are doing to determine if a chemical they plan to start producing is a PBT, and if so, whether they would continue to develop the chemical for production.  He also asked what companies are doing to determine if existing chemicals they already produce are PBT, and if so, whether they plan to continue production.  In both cases, if the decision is to continue to place the PBT chemical on the market, what steps are they taking to adequately address "the risks posed by the chemical."

Rep. Waxman indicated that he "would appreciate a response to these questions no later than April 22, 2011."

House Republicans (but not Paul) Vote Three Times to Deny Science

House Republicans continued their denial of climate science today by voting three times against amendments offered by the Democrats in the Energy and Commerce Committee. The Committee, chaired by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), was considering amendments to its proposed bill that would politically repeal EPA's scientific endangerment finding on greenhouse gases.  The bill would in fact block EPA's ability to take any science based regulatory action on greenhouse gases. 

The first amendment was offered by Ranking member Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA):

"Congress accepts the scientific finding of the Environmental Protection Agency that 'warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.'"

It was defeated 20-31, with all Republican members voting to deny EPA's scientific findings.

The second amendment was offered by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) and read:

“’the scientific evidence is compelling’ that elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from anthropogenic emissions ‘are the root cause of recently observed climate change.’”

This amendment was defeated 21-30, again with all Republicans voting against the amendment.

The third amendment was offered by Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) and it said that human-caused climate change is a threat to public health and welfare. Again, the vote was 21-31 with all Republicans voting against the scientific consensus. 

It should be made clear that the US National Academies of Sciences last year noted that:

A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems….

In addition, recent studies have documented that very nearly all active climate researchers concur that the planet is warming and greenhouse gases are the predominant factor.  Also, the most recent IPCC report, the National Academies of all of the major countries of the world, and pretty much all of the major scientific organizations on the planet concur that the climate is changing and that human activity is the major cause.  The US National Academies called it "settled fact."  So when Republicans unanimously vote against basic scientific principles they are in fact voting to deny the science.

Read more about the vote in articles in The Hill and Politico.

Toxic Chemicals Safety Act Hearing TODAY in House (PLUS, A List of Key Changes from Discussion Draft)

A reminder that today, July 29th beginning at 10 am ET there is a hearing of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection on H.R. 5820, the “Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010.” The "legislation 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 invited witnesses at today's hearing include:

• Steve Owens, Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency
• Richard Denison, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund
• Calvin M. Dooley, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Chemistry Council
• Howard Williams, Vice President, Construction Specialties, Inc.
• Mark Mitchell, M.D., M.P.H., President, Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice
• Beth Bosley, Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, Inc.
• Ken Cook, President, Environmental Working Group

Most of these witnesses have testified before in the various House and Senate hearings on TSCA reform over the last 18 months.


A briefing memo, PDFs of the proposed bill, and "letters sent to witnesses to explain technical corrections" are all available on the Subcommittee hearing page. The "technical corrections" were to remove four words inadvertently included in the bill that should have been deleted. 

Most helpful is a brief (2-page) document that highlight "changes made to the discussion draft" first provided in April.  The changes include:

- Clarification of what they mean by "mixtures"
- Incorporation of suggestions related to the proposed "safety standard" to make it more workable
- Significant changes to the scope of the premanufacture notice requirement for new mixtures and new uses
- Provision of more detail about the "minimum data set" and the inclusion of a staggered reporting schedule based on production volume
- Creation of an exemption from core requirements for substances and mixtures that have been determined by the EPA to be safe based on intrinsic properties
- Improved process and requirements for approval of safer alternatives

More details after the hearing.

House Finally Introduces H.R. 5820, the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010

Finally. After releasing a "discussion draft" in April to coincide with Frank Lautenberg's Chemical Safety Act introduction in the Senate, Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Bobby Rush (D-IL) yesterday formally introduced H.R. 5820, the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010.

According to Waxman and Rush, "the legislation 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."

Key provisions of the Toxics Chemicals Safety Act of 2010 include:

* 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 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 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.

* Establishes an expedited process for EPA to reduce exposure to chemical substances that are known to be persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic.

* Creates incentives and a review process for safer alternatives to existing chemicals, promoting innovation and investment in green chemistry.

* Creates a workforce education and training program in green chemistry, promoting and ensuring long-term viability of American jobs.

* Encourages the reduction of the use of animals in chemical testing.

* Allows EPA to exempt chemicals already known to be safe from requirements of the Act.

* Promotes research to advance understanding of children’s vulnerability to the harms of chemicals.

* Directs EPA to address community exposures to toxic chemicals in certain “hot spot” locations.

* Requires EPA to engage in international efforts to control dangerous chemicals.

* Ensures that EPA actions are transparent, open to public comment, and subject to judicial review, without unreasonable procedural burdens.

* Gives EPA the resources needed to carry out this Act.

I'll have more after reviewing the 166-page document.  The big question is how much of the input from the various stakeholders meetings since the discussion draft have made it into the final bill.  And now that it has finally been introduced on the virtual eve of the August recesses and upcoming mid-term elections, what will become of it.

House TSCA bill release delayed until next week

On Wednesday I noted that the US House of Representatives was expected to release the formal version of their TSCA reform bill this week. But the full responsible committee was tied up in Mark Ups of other bills all day yesterday, so the formal release is now planned for next Thursday, July 22nd.

A committee hearing is tentatively scheduled for the following Thursday, July 29th, and will be officially announced when the bill is introduced.

In April the House had released a "discussion draft" to coincide with the introduction of Senator Lautenberg's Safe Chemicals Act of 2010 bill. As previously noted, a series of stakeholder meetings were held following the discussion draft, and all stakeholders will be very interested to see how much of their input was incorporated into the formal bill. A good faith effort to acknowledge stakeholder concerns will help passage of the bill.

Though when that will happen is anyone's guess. It is highly unlikely to happen this session of Congress with control of possibly both houses uncertain, as I noted in a previous commentary. But no matter which party is in control of Congress, there is at least public support from all stakeholders to modernize the 34 year old law - industry to avoid a patchwork of state regulations and advocacy groups to strengthen EPA's ability to require data be submitted.

House Chairman Presents "Must Haves" for TSCA Reform

Congressman Bobby Rush chairs the subcommittee that is in charge of developing the TSCA reform legislation in the US House of Representatives. Along with Henry Waxman, chair of the full committee, Rush introduced the House version of the Toxic Substances Safety Act in April. Recently he offered his views on what in his mind "must" be in the final legislation.

* First, revamped legislation must put the responsibility, and liability, for ensuring the safety of chemical substances squarely at the feet of the manufacturers who produce and sell the substances.

* The Federal government must have the ability to effectively monitor, test or otherwise oversee assorted industries through strengthened legislation.

* Legislation should protect populations that are the most vulnerable to ingesting or being exposed to environmental toxins, but are least able to obtain redress from their government.

* The Environmental Protection Agency should have greater oversight authority to allow it to quickly respond to evidence of environmental toxins.

* New chemical compounds should also pass rigorous safety standards before they are introduced to the marketplace.

The House has been holding meetings to hear from a variety of stakeholders on the discussion draft previously circulated. Apparently there has been cooperation across the aisle to come up with a workable bill to which both parties can agree. The hope is that the formal House legislation will be introduced this summer, but with only a handful of actual legislative days left in the term and a busy campaign season coming up, it's unclear if any action will take place in this Congress.

First Summary of New "Safe Chemicals Act of 2010" Introduced by Senator Lautenberg

Well, it's finally here. And it's a doozy. [That's a technical term, trust me] Senator Lautenberg on April 15th introduced the 169-page Safe Chemicals Act of 2010 (SCA) to replace the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Meanwhile Congressmen Rush and Waxman introduced a slightly less bulky "discussion document" version in the House. A first look suggests the House bill is pretty close, especially on the main provisions, so any section numbers mentioned below are based on the Senate version.

First thing to notice is that the SCA will require a baseline data set on all chemicals. Some of the major provisions include:

1) The SCA will require EPA to establish a "minimum data set" for all chemicals and mixtures [this mixture thing will need a closer look]. EPA will have the authority to require testing as necessary using rules and orders.

2) Like TSCA, the SCA would require a PMN-type notification, but the data requirements would be more demanding and notifiers would have to demonstrate that their chemical meets the new safety standard.

3) Chemicals would be prioritized based on risk (not just hazard), and EPA would be required to establish a "priority list" within 18 months of enactment of "not less than 300 chemicals" for which safety determinations will first be made. Chemicals can come off the list as they are deemed safe, and new chemicals will be added for priority review so that the list will always have at least 300 substances.

4) EPA would apply a standard of "a reasonable certainty of no harm" in their determinations of safety, for which they will have a 6 month period to complete.

5) EPA would have authority to take immediate action as necessary to deal with chemicals that are deemed to be of "imminent and substantial" hazard. Actions could include banning, stop sale orders, etc.

6) Section 9 requires that within one year all manufacturers and processers must provide a declaration of current production so that an accurate Inventory of chemicals in commerce can be maintained. With this declaration they will be required to submit existing health and safety studies, information on chemical identity, production volume, uses and exposures, etc., and the declaration must be updated every three years.

7) Section 14 allows EPA to require "substantiation" of all claims of confidential business information, and the EPA is required to set standards on what is eligible for CBI.

8) A new section 29 expedites action on chemicals of highest concern.

9) A new section 30 requires the establishment of a Children's Environmental Health Research Program within 90 days after enactment of the law.

10) Section 31 stipulates that great effort should be put into the reduction of animal testing to support data needs, including the use of QSARs, read-across, in vitro methods, etc.

11) Section 32 provides incentives for development of safer chemical alternatives and greener chemistry.

12) Section 35 creates a new section in which EPA is required to identify, assess and develop action plans to address the disproportionate exposures of certain populations and localities (i.e., environmental justice concerns).

13) The cooperation of the US with international efforts to reduce chemical risk is highlighted. Specifically mentioned (as I have noted here previously) are the Stockholm Convention, LRTAP POPs protocol, and Rotterdam Convention, all of which deal with persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals. The US has signed on to all of these in the past but never ratified them, which puts us in the awkward position of not being able to vote on what other countries want to do with chemicals used in the US.

There are many other sections and provisions, of course, that deal with the nuts and bolts and logistics of implementation. In the following days I will take a look at the reactions of NGOs, the EPA, and industry. I'll also dig into the details and see where the main areas of contention will likely be as the bills are discussed over the following months.

Representatives Rush and Waxman have indicated they expect to have a series of meetings with stakeholders over the next month and a half in an effor to fine-tune the bill. While Lautenberg still hopes that the bill will pass in this Congress, there is a general sense by many that it won't be possible given the incredibly busy Congressional docket and the likely contentiousness of this year's mid-term elections. So we'll have to see what happens. While I believe all stakeholders are interested in getting something passed, it could be that the next several months are focused on getting a bill that both protects human health and the environment and is workable.

Download the Senate bill here

Download the House bill here

Download a section-by-section summary of the House bill here

The Safe Chemicals Bill of 2010 is Now Introduced [UPDATED]

The Safe Chemicals Bill of 2010 was introduced minutes ago by Senator Frank Lautenberg.

A copy of the bill, which still does not have a Senate number, can be found here.

From Senator Lautenberg's press release:

“America’s system for regulating industrial chemicals is broken,” said Senator Lautenberg. “Parents are afraid because hundreds of untested chemicals are found in their children’s bodies. EPA does not have the tools to act on dangerous chemicals and the chemical industry has asked for stronger laws so that their customers are assured their products are safe. My 'Safe Chemicals Act' will breathe new life into a long-dead statute by empowering EPA to get tough on toxic chemicals. Chemical safety reform is not a Democratic or Republican issue, it is a common-sense issue and I look forward to building bipartisan support for this measure.”

And also:

The “Safe Chemicals Act of 2010” requires safety testing of all industrial chemicals, and puts the burden on industry to prove that chemicals are safe in order stay on the market. Under current policy, the EPA can only call for safety testing after evidence surfaces demonstrating a chemical is dangerous. As a result, EPA has been able to require testing for just 200 of the more than 80,000 chemicals currently registered in the United States and has been able to ban only five dangerous substances. The new legislation will give EPA more power to regulate the use of dangerous chemicals and require manufacturers to submit information proving the safety of every chemical in production and any new chemical seeking to enter the market.

Meanwhile, Representatives Waxman and Rush have released a "discussion draft" rather than a formal bill. Their version is called the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010.