Chemical regulation revamp delayed, again

By Gayle S. Putrich
Staff Reporter

Published: April 29, 2014 7:36 pm ET
Updated: April 29, 2014 7:44 pm ET

Image By: Crain's Detroit Business U.S. Rep. John Dingell, on the likelihood of a new chemical regulation bill: “This legislation has been sitting around and sitting around and it will probably sit around until hell freezes over.”

Related to this story

Topics Public Policy United States
Companies & Associations

WASHINGTON — Of course Congress’ inability to get things done extends to plastics and chemicals.

Last spring, when co-authors Sen. David Vitter, R-La., and the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., introduced a compromise bill  to revamp the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), it seemed enthusiasm and urgency would easily pave the way for a more modern U.S. chemical regulation.

Then industry and environmental groups got involved, in favor and not. The House drafted its own version of the Vitter-Lautenberg bill. Letters were sent. Hearings were held. More letters were sent. Draft bills were redrafted.

Members of one party accused members of the other party of not allowing their input; members of the other party accused members of the first party of never actually submitting their input even though they were asked for it six weeks ago. Even the subcommittee chairman — and author of the bill — Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) said the whole “junior high process” is “a tad frustrating.”

And even with an updated draft of attempt to reform 1970s-era chemical regulation legislation, the complaints continue to sound more or less the same.

At the April 29 hearing on a revised version of the Chemicals in Commerce Act (CICA), Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) the longest-serving member of the House, put it best: “This legislation has been sitting around and sitting around and it will probably sit around until hell freezes over.”

Concerns voiced from some House Democrats and environmental groups in the seventh related hearing continued to focus on the same handful of issues as they have for months, including how chemical exposure for vulnerable populations like babies and pregnant women will be considered, the possibility that the patchwork of state regulations will be preempted by a new federal law, and what kind of cost-benefit analysis the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should use to determine if a chemical should be banned or restricted — and, sometimes, even if it should be called a “cost-benefit analysis.”

But some experts testified that the revisions were an improvement over the last version of the bill.

“The improvements to the testing provisions of TSCA will reduce EPA’s current regulatory burdens when new information is needed because available information is insufficient,” said Cal Dooley, president of the American Chemistry Council and a former member of the House. “The expansion of the EPA’s authority to mandate testing for prioritization purposes is a significant change that ACC can support.”

Beth Bosley, president of Boron Specialties, representing the Society of Chemical Manufactures and Affiliates (SOCMA) and testifying on TSCA reform for the third time, said risk evaluation and risk management are better defined in the revised version of the bill, making the former’s solely health-based standards clear.

“As for the risk management process, we support the bill’s requirement that restrictions on uses of chemicals be cost-effective. However, we are concerned that the bill would allow EPA to ban a chemical even when it concludes that there are no technically and economically feasible safer alternatives,” she said. “We are still vetting this change, but it seems to us that EPA should not be allowed to increase overall risk to public health by banning or substantially limiting a chemical."

Mark Greenwood, a former director of EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics who now runs Greenwood Environmental Council PLLC, said that if he had been given the choice between the bill he was faced with implementing as an EPA official in the 1990s and the current draft, he would choose the current draft bill.

Greenwood also warned against the growing patchwork of state regulations and outright bans on chemicals and products that have cropped up in the absence of effective federal legislation even in the face of a letter from 13 states attorneys general opposing the bill because of possible preemption of their laws.

 “If you are going to try to advance the interests of the United States and engage with the other parts of the world in trade, you have to have a consistent position. One country, one voice,” Greenwood said. “Our trading partners don’t want to have to negotiate with the individual sates of the United States. They expect that the federal government speaks for the entire country.”

Republicans and Democrats do agree that U.S. chemical regulations need to be updated, and some hopeful Democrats said they had not given up hope of a viable bill yet.

The latest draft bill is "moving the ball forward a little bit" said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), but there is still more work to be done and she intends to bring Democrats together to work out details disagreements on the bill within their own caucus and “submit some specific language to address specific concerns.”


Comments

Chemical regulation revamp delayed, again

By Gayle S. Putrich
Staff Reporter

Published: April 29, 2014 7:36 pm ET
Updated: April 29, 2014 7:44 pm ET

Post Your Comments


Back to story


More stories

Image

Getting a real feel for how 'vinyl saves lives'

March 27, 2015 6:00 am ET

While I'm certainly not shipping off to Africa anytime soon, I got a taste of what medical professionals go through in the fight against Ebola and...    More

Image

Johnson's political outlook shaped by a plastics business view

March 27, 2015 6:00 am ET

When Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) traded plastics for politics in 2010, he didn't leave his business sense behind. He carried the lessons of 30 years in ...    More

Image

Customs snafu snags Boy Machines

March 26, 2015 9:42 am ET

ORLANDO, FLA. — With apologies to poet Robert Burns, this year’s NPE in Orlando definitely proved that “sometimes the...    More

Image

NPE nudges attendees to recycle

March 24, 2015 1:47 pm ET

A public awareness campaign developed by Keep America Beautiful is receiving prominent display at NPE 2015 as part of the show's overall effort to...    More

Image

SPI launching recycling summit

March 23, 2015 5:10 pm ET

The Society of the Plastics Industry Inc. announced Monday at NPE 2015 that the plastics trade association will return to Orlando in 2016 for a brand ...    More

Market Reports

Flexible Packaging Trends in North America

North America represents about 30 percent of the global consumption of flexible packaging. Annual growth in this region is forecast at 4 percent during the next 5 years.

For more insight on growth opportunities, drivers of growth and the outlook for 2015, download this report.

Learn more

Plastics Recycling Trends in North America

This report is a review and analysis of the North American Plastics Recycling Industry, including key trends and statistics based on 2013 performance. We examine market environment factors, regulatory issues, industry challenges, key drivers and emerging trends in post-consumer and post-industrial recycling.

Learn more

Plastics in Mexico - State of the Industry Report

This report analyzes the $20 billion plastics industry in Mexico including sales of machinery & equipment, resins and finished products.

Our analysts provide insight on business trends, foreign investment, top end markets and plastics processing activity. The report also provides important data on exports, production, employment and value of plastics products manufactured.

Learn more

Upcoming Plastics News Events

June 2, 2015 - June 3, 2015Plastics Financial Summit - Chicago 2015

September 16, 2015 - September 18, 2015Plastics Caps & Closures - September 2015

More Events