House Hearing on Chemicals in Commerce Act Shows Politics in Action, not TSCA Reform

Yesterday, March 12, 2014, the House Environment and the Economy Subcommittee held a hearing on its version of a TSCA reform bill. As noted last week, a discussion draft of the Chemicals in Commerce Act (CICA) was released on February 27th. The bill reflects the "business first" leanings of the House Republican majority, which shouldn't be surprising given how that majority lumped environmental issues with economic ones in naming their subcommittee.

It wasn't difficult to figure out which witnesses had been called by each political party. Some represented various corporations and trade associations of industry, while others represented worker unions and health advocacy organizations. All provided their input on the CICA discussion draft. You can read the full witness list and their written testimony, plus watch the video of their oral testimony at the hearing here. A background document and the full CICA discussion draft are also available. You can read analyses of the bill and hearing here and here. An NGO analysis of the bill can be read here. See my earlier article for other NGO and trade association feedback.

All the usual posturing occurred during the hearing. Industry representatives assured the subcommittee that industry wants the public to believe chemicals are safe. NGOs and health advocates expressed concern that neither CICA nor the Senate's CSIA would adequately protect public health and the environment. House members mimed their party's assigned positions.

If that sounds cynical, it is. But it accurately reflects the lack of seriousness by the House to address the problem. TSCA is broken. Everyone agrees that TSCA is broken. They may differ on how much and how best to proceed, but they agree that reforming TSCA is necessary, and that it should be done now. The Senate's Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA) at least tried to keep the main focus on fixing the inherent problems with the severely outdated and often ineffective existing chemical law. While the CSIA includes none of the pre-market testing originally advocated by health and environmental advocates, it does give EPA some additional flexibility and authority to ask for new data. The Senate's CSIA isn't perfect, but most stakeholders agree that it is a step in the right direction. And it's workable.

In contrast, the House's CICA doesn't even bother to pretend that its goal is to assure chemical safety. It's clear that the House CICA has three goals.

1) Roll back the very few industry concessions in the already industry-friendly Senate CSIA.

2) Further undermine EPA's authority to take action to protect human health and the environment.

3) Throw red meat to the most rabid supporters of the Republican party.

So cynical, yes. And that is a shame. The House held a series of hearings to "collect information on TSCA," so looked like it was taking this issue seriously. As shocking as it was to see the lack of knowledge by many members of the committee on issues in which it claims oversight, the draft bill that resulted from all those hearings is even more disturbing. It reflects an out-of-control partisan attack on the health and safety of all Americans. As such, industry should be rejecting CICA rather than giving it lip service. If industry wants to avoid the patchwork of state bills regulating chemicals, the renewed efforts by NGOs to enact those state and local bills, and the absolute loss of public faith in industry veracity, then industry should be telling the majority that runs the House to issue a new version of CICA more in line with the modified CSIA currently being negotiated in the Senate.

If TSCA isn't modernized this year, it won't be modernized. Ever. It's time for the House to stop playing political games and start doing their job. This is about public safety, not making political points.

House Hearing - The Chemical Safety Improvement Act - November 13, 2013

As noted previously, the House Environment and the Economy subcommittee is holding a hearing Wednesday, November 13, 2013 in Room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The hearing begins at 10:15 am and will be live-streamed for those who can't squeeze into the hearing room.

The hearing is focused on evaluation of the bipartisan TSCA reform bill introduced earlier this year in the Senate by the late Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and David Vitter (R-LA). Called the Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA), the Senate bill is likely to be the basis for any House bill offered in this Congress.

Background documents are available on the House committee website. Currently scheduled witnesses include Senators Vitter (R-LA) and Udall (D-NM), who are working together to bring the Senate bill to fruition. Udall stepped in for original sponsor Frank Lautenberg upon his death and as surrogate for Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA). Also, in a change from past hearings, Assistant Administrator Jim Jones will present EPA's thoughts on the bill.

In a far-reaching effort to get different viewpoints, other witnesses include some from industry and from NGOs: Cal Dooley of the American Chemistry Council, Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund, Ernie Rosenberg of the American Cleaning Institute, and Andy Igrejas of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, as well as Wendy Wagner of the University of Texas School of Law and Richard Goss of the Information Technology Industry Council. Other witnesses may also be called. Most notably missing is Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Group, which is one of the NGOs who are not quite as on board with the bill as ACC and EDF.

The fact that the House has moved from initial forays into how TSCA works in general to evaluation of a specific bill suggests that the House is willing to actually pass legislation at least close to what the bipartisan CSIA offers. That's likely a good thing as there really isn't any other opportunity for a TSCA reform bill other than the CSIA getting through Congress, and all parties agree that TSCA is severely outdated and must be reformed. That said, there are only a handful of legislative days left before Congress takes yet another break, so it's just unreasonable to think that a bill will be passed before next year.

Of course, next year is a mid-term election year, which creates a new dynamic. Whether that dynamic increases or decreases the likelihood of passage will be the topic of a future post.

For updates and more information on the hearing go to the hearing website.

Witnesses: 

Panel I:
The Honorable David Vitter

• Member
• United States Senate

The Honorable Tom Udall

• Member
• United States Senate

- See more at: http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/s-1009-chemical-safety-improvement-act#sthash.Y9dL1SLa.dpuf

Witnesses: 

Panel I:
The Honorable David Vitter

• Member
• United States Senate

The Honorable Tom Udall

• Member
• United States Senate

Panel II:

The Honorable Jim Jones

• Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• Washington, D.C.
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Panel III:

Calvin M. Dooley

• President and CEO
• American Chemistry Council
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Richard Denison, Ph.D.

• Senior Scientist
• Environmental Defense Fund
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Ernie Rosenberg

• President and CEO
• American Cleaning Institute
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Andy Igrejas

• National Campaign Director
• Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Wendy Wagner

• Joe A. Worsham Centennial Professor
• The University of Texas School of Law
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Richard E. Goss

• Vice President, Environment and Sustainability
• Information Technology Industry Council
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

- See more at: http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/s-1009-chemical-safety-improvement-act#sthash.Y9dL1SLa.dpuf

Witnesses: 

Panel I:

House to Consider Senate TSCA Reform Bill

The House Environment and the Economy subcommittee chaired by Representative John Shimkus (R-IL) is expected to begin specific evaluation of the bipartisan TSCA reform bill introduced earlier this year in the Senate by the late Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and David Vitter (R-LA). I'll link to the committee hearing page when it is listed, but right now it appears to be set for Wednesday, November 13, 2013.

The Senate bill, called the Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA), was a surprise introduction, coming only a month after Senator Lautenberg had introduced the latest version of his own TSCA reform bill. Lautenberg had been a staunch advocate for chemical safety, working tirelessly since 2005 to reform the 37 year old law. He died shortly after the CSIA was introduced, leading some to suggest that his was pushed into agreeing to a bipartisan bill that is clearly much more industry friendly than his own bill.

At least two dozen Senators - split roughly equally between Democrats and Republicans - have signed on as co-sponsors to the CSIA. Several hearings in the Senate and House occurred earlier in the summer but no action has been taken recently given distractions such as summer holidays and the arbitrary government shutdown.

The fact that the House will take up review of the bill suggests that there has been behind-the-scenes effort to move the bill along. Industry loves the bill because it avoids any significant across-the-board data requirements (such as those required in Europe's REACH program). Environmental and health advocates are split on the bill for that same reason and others, but most acknowledge that this bill does make improvements over the Toxic Substances Control Act it is designed to replace.

As the process moves forward I'll have more on the bill, its pluses and minuses, and its likelihood of passage. Right now it's the only game in town. The question remains - is it the right game?

One news report on the upcoming hearing is at The Hill. The hearing will be announced on the committee website.

House Holds TSCA Reform Hearing September 18, 2013

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is holding a hearing on TSCA Reform Wednesday, September 18, 2013. Starting at 2 pm EDT, the hearing will be held live in the 2123 Rayburn House Building hearing room. A live webcast can be viewed when the hearing begins.

The title of the hearing is: “Regulation of Existing Chemicals and the Role of Pre-Emption under Sections 6 and 18 of the Toxic Substances Control Act."

This continues a series of "fact-finding" hearings sponsored by the House. A TSCA reform bill called the Safe Chemicals Improvement Act will introduced by the late Senator Frank Lautenberg and Senator David Vitter. The bipartisan bill has substantial support on both sides of the aisle in the Senate, though EPW Chair Barbara Boxer is not one of them. One of the concerns raised by both parties are the preemption provisions. Boxer and the state of California (and other states) are concerned the current Senate bill's provisions will block any state action on toxic chemicals even if EPA does not take sufficient action to protect human health and the public. Hence the House focus on that issue in today's hearing.

The list of witnesses is below, along with links to their written testimony. The hearing is expected to be livecast on the committee's web page.

Panel One:

Mark A. Greenwood

Principal

• Greenwood Environmental Counsel PLLC
• Washington, D.C.
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Justin Johnson, Deputy Secretary

• Vermont Agency for Natural Resources
• Waterbury, VT 
• On behalf of the Environmental Council of the States
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

William K. Rawson

• Partner and Chair, Chemical Regulation, 
• Product Strategy & Defense Practice
• Latham & Watkins, LLP
• Washington, D.C.
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Jennifer Thomas

• Director, Federal Government Affairs
• Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
• Washington, DC
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Lemuel M. Srolovic 

• Chief, Environmental Protection Bureau 
• NYS Office of the Attorney General
• New York, New York
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Linda Reinstein

• President/CEO and Co-Founder
• Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization
• Redondo Beach, California
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Senate Passes Safe Chemicals Act out of Committee

The Senate committee charged with reforming the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has voted to send the bill proposed by Senator Frank Lautenberg to the full Senate for open debate and a possible vote. As expected after Tuesday's contentious hearing, the committee vote split along party lines with the ten Democrats voting for it and the eight Republicans voting against it.

Republicans argued that the vote on the bill introduced one and a half years ago was premature, and that there had not been time for the "bipartisan" discussions to reach fruition. Democrats countered that the bill had been substantially revised many times following dozens of hearings, stakeholder meetings, and private consultations with the Republican members. Senators Boxer and Lautenberg felt that it was important to get everyone's views out in the open so that their constituents could make judgments on whether to support the bill.

Indeed, the committee issued a 174-page Amendment that documents all of the changes to the original bill (S.847). They also issued a short summary highlighting the key changes.

Many of the changes incorporate the concerns of industry and the Republican minority. For example, the original bill introduced in 2005 would have required all chemical manufacturers to undertake a REACH-style data development in which all chemicals would need a substantial amount of health and safety data to be submitted prior to manufacture or in order to keep existing chemicals on the market. To incorporate industry concerns, the version passed by the committee yesterday "better focuses resources on priority chemicals" while continuing to require EPA to do most of the work of determining if a chemical is not safe. Existing chemicals would be evaluated in batches and screened through a prioritization process, then undergo safety determinations in order of priority.

The changes also require new information and testing "only when necessary." Data could be provided through means other than new testing when appropriate and defensible, for example, using QSARs, read-across, and non-animal studies.

Confidential business information (CBI) provisions have also been revamped to address industry concerns, and the new bill "better balances protection" of CBI versus the public's right to know about the chemicals to which they may be exposed.

As noted yesterday, it is highly unlikely that the Safe Chemicals Act will ever be passed by the Senate during this session of Congress, and even if it did come to a vote would likely never meet the 60-vote supermajority needed to even get to the actual up or down vote on the bill itself. And even if it somehow got that far, the House is highly unlikely to consider any bill at all. Facing this uphill battle the sponsors of the bill (Lautenberg and 21-cosponsors, all Democrats) felt it necessary to move the bill forward to all open expression of the conflicting views.

Information on the bill can be reviewed on the Thomas Library of Congress site.

Senate Moves TSCA Bill to Vote After Contentious Hearing

[Update: The Safe Chemicals Act has been approved by vote of the Committee on July 25, 2012] As noted yesterday, the Senate held a hearing on "EPA's authorities to control toxic chemicals." The hearing built on many previous hearings to gather information relevant to the reform of the TSCA chemical control law.  The hearing began fairly benignly but ended rather contentiously, with Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) preparing for a markup of the Safe Chemicals Act bill today, July 25, 2012.

The hearing ostensibly was in response to an investigative series published recently by the Chicago Tribune. The Tribune series argued that "two powerful chemical industries - Big tobacco and chemical manufacturers - waged deceptive campaigns that led to the proliferation" of flame retardant chemicals such as the PBDEs. Witnesses during the hearing included Dr. Heather Stapleton, an expert on flame retardant chemicals at Duke University, and Marshall Moore, Director of Technology, Advocacy and Marketing at Chemtura, a manufacturer of PBDEs and one of the companies specifically identified by the Chicago Tribune.

In their opening statements the Senators offered reiterations of their usual positions. Democrats focused on the toxicity, persistence and bioaccumulation of PBDEs in particular and chemicals in general. Republicans, in particular Senators James Inhofe (R-OK) and David Vitter (R-LA), expressed their disappointment that the Democratic majority of the committee was planning to bring Lautenberg's Safe Chemical Act bill to markup. Republicans felt that this meant the end of the "bipartisan" discussions in which Democratic and Republican members of the committee and their staffs had engaged for the year and a half since the introduction of Lautenberg's bill.

Democrats countered that the "bipartisan" discussions were going nowhere and it was time to get Republican views out in the open with a markup and committee vote on the bill. Lautenberg reminded his colleagues that he first introduced a version of the Safe Chemicals Act in 2005 and that over the last seven years there had been dozens of hearings, meetings, and consultations with Republicans on the best way to reform TSCA. All stakeholders have agreed publicly many times that TSCA is in dire need of reform, a position EPA acting Assistant Administrator Jim Jones reiterated in his testimony. Indeed, Lautenberg's Safe Chemicals Act bill has clearly migrated from a more NGO-approved (all data for all chemicals) approach in the original to a more Industry-friendly (prioritization) approach in the current version. The markup is an attempt by Democrats to put the Republican position on record given that passage of a TSCA reform bill is highly unlikely in this Congress, and perhaps impossible in the next Congress depending on the results of this fall's election.

Democrats were clearly frustrated with the Republicans during the hearing. This became especially evident during the second panel in which Senator Boxer repeatedly made it clear which witnesses were called by the majority party (Democrats) and which were called by the minority party (Republicans). Boxer also repeatedly praised the courage of mother and former Maine House leader Hannah Pingree, who had said during questioning that "the chemical industry does not always tell us the truth." Boxer similarly praised the work of fireman Tony Stefani, who heads a Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation, which he started after he and his fellow firefighters were found to have higher incidences of the kind of cancers that he claims "are usually seen in workers in chemical manufacturing."

In contrast, Boxer several times addressed chemical manufacturing representative Marshall Moore in ways that can euphemistically described as "direct." She told Moore that "he needs to apologize" for "grossly distorting" a study on which he relied for demonstrating effectiveness and safety of flame retardant chemicals. Boxer also told Moore that "take a course in ethics" because the industry had set up a "phony fire safety group" (based on the charges in the Tribune series). Moore was remarkably calm and respectful given Boxer's direct accusations and insisted that his company and others had conducted and provided to EPA dozens of studies to aid the assessment.


The hearing demonstrated that TSCA reform, despite the repeated public assurances by all stakeholders that modernization was necessary and desirable, is likely not going to happen. As noted, while the Republicans expressed their disappointment that the bill will go to markup and probably to a committee vote, Democrats expressed their continued desire to work on a bipartisan bill, which they now believe can better be accomplished by an open debate on the Senate floor where each individual Senator would be able to put their views on record.

Of course, even in the unlikely event that a bill could be passed in the Senate (virtually all bills now must pass 60 votes for cloture before they can even make it to the floor for a vote), there is essentially no chance that the Republican-controlled House would even take up a companion bill.


More information and downloads of the testimony can be found on the committee hearing page.

TODAY - Senate Hearing on Exposures to Toxic Chemicals

There will be a Senate hearing today, Tuesday, July 24, 2012 to hear witnesses on the topic "Oversight on EPA Authorities to Control Exposures to Toxic Chemicals." The hearing is being held by the Full Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and its Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics, and Environmental Health. The subcommittee is chaired by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) who has been working for several years to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) originally passed in 1976.

Lautenberg and other Democratic members of the committee are planning a markup and vote on his Safe Chemicals Act bill on Wednesday. Republican members immediately balked at the idea, noting that they were not given any warning of the vote. At the previous hearing by this subcommittee many months ago, Democrats had practically begged Republicans and industry to "give us a bill," i.e., rather than merely say the current bill was inadequate, actually propose a bill that Republicans and industry could live with given that all parties claim to want a workable modernization of TSCA. Republicans and industry declined to do so.

While the Safe Chemicals Act - TSCA reform - has been largely ignored during this election year, it has received renewed interest lately as the result of a Chicago Tribune investigative series that accused the chemical industry of misleading the public and regulators about both the effectiveness and safety of brominated flame retardants.

Today's hearing begins at 10:00 am ET in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate building. The hearing will be webcast. The full agenda and list of witnesses is below:

Opening Remarks

Panel 1

The Honorable Jim Jones Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Panel 2

Hannah Pingree Mother, Former Speaker of the Maine House of Representatives

Dr. Heather M. Stapelton Assistant Professor of Environmental Chemistry, Environment Sciences & Policy, Nicholas School of the Environment Duke University

Marshall Moore Director, Technology, Advocacy and Marketing Great Lakes Solutions, A Chemtura Business

William K. Rawson Partner, Chair, Environment, Land & Resources Department Latham & Watkins LLP

Tony Stefani President, Founder San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation

 

Poll Shows Most Americans Want to Update Chemical Control Law

A new poll conducted by Public Opinion Strategies, a leading Republican polling firm, shows that "voters are concerned about the effects of exposure to toxic chemicals in day to day life." The poll also shows that "most voters support 'stricter regulation of chemicals produced and used in everyday products.'"

POS conducted the national telephone survey of 800 registered voters on June 25-27, 2012. The overall margin of error is +3.46%. Interviews were distributed proportionally throughout the country. More information on the poll results and methods can be found here.

Poll results show that 77% of respondents support specific legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the law passed in 1976 for which all stakeholders (industry, NGOs, EPA, health and environmental advocates) agree needs to be modernized. Support for reform of the law was "wide-spread and broad-based," i.e., large majorities of all demographics surveyed agreed that the law was in need of updating.

POS concluded that "U.S. voters overwhelmingly support reform to regulations overseeing chemicals produced and used in everyday products, particularly when provided with specifics about what the reform might entail." Even when robust arguments on both sides of the issue were presented, "voters continue to side with supporters of reform."

TSCA reform has been the subject of many attempts by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and others to introduce legislation. Lautenberg's most recent effort, the Safe Chemicals Act, has languished in Committee without action. This might change this week, however, as Lautenberg says he expects to bring the bill to markup this week, which may lead to a Committee vote as early as Wednesday.

Meanwhile, the subcommittee and full committee of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday, July 24th to discuss Congressional oversight of EPA authorities related to TSCA. Of specific interest is a recent investigative series by the Chicago Tribune that suggested the brominated flame retardant industry had overstated benefits and understated risks of a class of flame retardants called PBDEs. This builds on a hearing held recently by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL).

Senate to Hold TSCA Safe Chemicals Act Hearing This Week

Maybe the idea of TSCA reform isn't quite dead for this Congress.  A hearing will be held on Thursday, November 17, 2011 in the US Senate to examine the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011, a bill introduced early in the year by Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg.  The hearing, to be chaired by Lautenberg and supported by ranking Republican member James Inhofe, includes both the full and subcommittees of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee (EPW).

The hearing follows on a series of five stakeholder meetings held between EPW staff and both industry and environmental advocacy groups.  It is the first sign in quite a while of potential movement in the seemingly futile attempt to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  The lack of movement is despite support for TSCA reform by both industry and advocacy groups.

Scheduled to provide testimony at the hearing are:

Mr. Ted Sturdevant
Director, Department of Ecology
State of Washington

Ms. Charlotte Brody Director of Chemicals, Public Health and Green Chemistry BlueGreen Alliance

Mr. Cal Dooley President and CEO American Chemistry Council

Mr. Robert Matthews McKenna Long & Aldridge

Dr. Richard Denison, Ph.D. Senior Scientist Environmental Defense Fund

More information on the hearing can be found on the EPW web site.

US House Hearing Today on Climate Science - With (Mostly) Actual Climate Scientists

Today, March 8, 2011, there will be a hearing of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power entitled "Climate Science and EPA's Greenhouse Gas Regulations."  The subcommittee is a part of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, now chaired by Republican Fred Upton.  Upton was responding to a request by former chair and now ranking member Democrat Henry Waxman requesting "a hearing on the science of climate change" prior to moving forward on Republican attempts to craft legislation restricting EPA's ability to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases.  Author and Blogger Chris Mooney points out that Democrats wanted even more scientists to testify, and that former subcommittee chair Bobby Rush had noted in the hearing Upton had called last month "Don't you find it strange that this hearing is being conducted with no scientists at all?" 

So unlike past hearings in which Republicans called as witnesses non-scientists like fiction writer Michael Crichton and professional speaker Lord Viscount Christopher Monckton, as well as industry scientists such as the Cato Institute's Pat Michaels, this hearing will have a full set of actual practicing climate scientists to testify.  While it is nice to see that the committee will rely on scientists for input on the science, the line up does tend to represent, as Joe Romm put it, "the usual suspects," presumably because the number of actual climate scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus is pretty limited.

The invited witnesses are:

Dr. John R. Christy
Director, Earth System Science Center
University of Alabama in Huntsville

Dr. Christopher Field
Director, Department of Global Ecology
Carnegie Institution of Washington
Stanford, CA

Dr. Knute Nadelhoffer
Director, University of Michigan Biological Station
University of Michigan

Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr.
Senior Research Scientist,
Cooperative Institute for Research in
Environmental Sciences
University of Colorado at Boulder

Dr. Donald Roberts
Professor Emeritus,
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
Bethesda, MD

Dr. Richard Somerville
Distinguished Professor Emeritus,
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego

Dr. Francis W. Zwiers
Director, Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium
University of Victoria
Victoria, British Columbia

While most are climate scientists, the inclusion of Dr. Roberts is rather puzzling since he is a medical doctor and retired professor of health sciences who is most notable for his writings supporting the use of DDT.  For the rest who actually study climate, all agree that the planet is warming and that human activity is a major factor, though perhaps some equivocate on the degree of human influence.

For those in Washington DC, the hearing will take place at 10:00 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.  A webcast will be posted on the Committee's web site.

TSCA Chemical Reform Hearing Going on Now (10:00 am EST)

As I noted a couple of days ago, the US Senate is holding a hearing today on TSCA reform.  Technically, the Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health is holding the hearing, which is called "Assessing the Effectiveness of US Chemical Safety Laws" and features some key players in the ongoing discussions to modernize the 34 year old law. 

PDF copies of their written testimony is now on the hearing web page and are linked to the witnesses below:

The Honorable Steve Owens Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances Environmental Protection Agency

Ms. Kelly M. Semrau Senior Vice President for Global Corporate Affairs, Communication, and Sustainability, SC Johnson

Mr. Steve Goldberg Vice President and Associate General Counsel BASF

Ms. Frances Beinecke President Natural Resources Defense Council

Mr. Cal Dooley President American Chemistry Council

Dean Lynn Goldman, MD, MPH Dean George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services

The Subcommittee hearing page has more information.

TSCA Chemical Reform Hearing in the US Senate Thursday February 3

TSCA reform may be dormant, but apparently not completely dead.  Since there appears to be little chance of the Republican-led House to initiate action this term, the Senate has decided to try to jump start the process again.  With this in mind, the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health will hold a hearing entitled "Assessing the Effectiveness of US Chemical Safety Laws" this Thursday, February 3, 2011. 

The subcommittee is part of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works chaired by Barbara Boxer.  Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey chairs the subcommittee, and as you probably remember he has been the one to introduce the various "Kid Safe" bills in recent years, including last year's Safe Chemicals Act.  Joining Lautenberg is ranking member James Inhofe, who while historically not prone to supporting environmental legislation, has indicated he is committed to work with Lautenberg to come up with a TSCA reform bill that protects human health and the environment while also not unduly inhibiting industry growth.

Witnesses at the hearing, some of whom have become familiar faces at these events, are expected to be:

Panel 1

The Honorable Steve Owens Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances Environmental Protection Agency

Panel 2

Ms. Kelly M. Semrau Senior Vice President for Global Corporate Affairs, Communication, and Sustainability, SC Johnson

Mr. Steve Goldberg Vice President and Associate General Counsel BASF

Ms. Frances Beinecke President Natural Resources Defense Council

Mr. Cal Dooley President American Chemistry Council

Dean Lynn Goldman, MD, MPH Dean George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services

The Subcommittee hearing page will include copies of testimony once given. It will begin at 10:00 am EST in the EPW Hearing Room 406 Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington DC.  As of this writing no indication of whether the hearing will be simulcast or not, but generally this is the case.