A Tool in Need of Updating

• Author: Steve Owens
• Position: EPA Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
• Pages: 33-33

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2010 ❧ Page 33

Copyright © 2010, Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org.

Reprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum®, Jan./Feb. 2010

anoTher view

ity to impose risk-management

requirements upon downstream

businesses and upon chemicals in

products and articles, will plug a

signif‌icant gap in EPA’s authority.

However, other amendments are

needed for the agency to be able

to require companies to protect

health and the environment.

First, EPA should be authorized

to take a range of actions in order

to control chemical risks, choos-

ing from among a variety of risk-

management approaches the ones

that best f‌it particular situations.

us, the agency should be able

to forgo conventional command-

and-control actions when other

measures are more appropriate for

protecting particular populations

(whether human or environmen-

tal) from foreseeable exposures.

Such measures could include

minimizing exposure or phasing

out production and use, negoti-

ated with stakeholders and codi-

f‌ied in enforceable orders or rules

that apply to all similar businesses.

In other situations, EPA could

facilitate dialogues with compa-

nies throughout a chemical’s value

chain (possibly complementing in-

dustry product stewardship activi-

ties). ese could address hazard,

exposure, and risk prof‌iles of pos-

sible substitutes. And in limited

circumstances, the agency might

be able to play a role in judging the

hazard and risk prof‌iles of emerg-

ing products and technologies.

EPA’s authority to use risk

communication merits particu-

lar attention, because the agency

already does so outside the scope

of legislative mandates. Particu-

larly in light of EPA Administrator

Lisa Jackson’s announcement of

reforms to the agency’s process for

obtaining, assessing, and commu-

nicating information about health

risks from chronic exposures to

chemicals — the Integrated Risk

Information System — it is ap-

propriate to consider whether and

how the risk-management aspects

the agency. Reform is necessary to

ensure chemical safety in a rapidly

changing world and restore public

conf‌idence that EPA is protecting

the American people. Administra-

tor Lisa Jackson recently announced

a set of principles developed by the

administration to f‌ix the statute and

give EPA the tools it needs.

ese principles include the idea

that chemicals should be reviewed

against safety standards that ref‌lect

risk-based criteria, while the re-

sponsibility for providing adequate

health and safety data must rest on

industry. e agency should have

clear authority to take risk manage-

ment actions when chemicals do

not meet the safety standard. EPA

should also have clear authority to

set priorities for con-

ducting safety reviews.

In all cases, the agency

and producers must act

on priority chemicals in

a timely manner, with

f‌irm deadlines to main-

tain accountability.

We also must en-

courage innovation in

green chemistry and support activi-

ties that will lead to safer and more

sustainable chemicals and processes.

Finally, implementation should be

adequately and consistently funded,

with manufacturers supporting the

costs of implementation.

Congress is giving attention to

TSCA reform, and many key indus-

try and NGO stakeholders, as well

as states, also believe now is the time

for reform. EPA looks forward to

working with Congress and all inter-

ested parties to bring TSCA into the

21st century and ensure an ef‌fective

chemicals management system that

will protect children and families in

this country.

Steve Owe ns is EPA Assistant Adminis-

trator for Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic

Substances.

When the Toxic

Substances Con-

trol Act was passed

by Congress 34

years ago, it repre-

sented an important step forward

in how the United States would ad-

dress the risks from hazardous in-

dustrial compounds. But over the

years, TSCA has proven an inad-

equate tool for protecting against

chemical risks. Our toxics law is

the only major environmental stat-

ute that has not been reauthorized.

Its problems are so signif‌icant that

the Government Accountability

Of‌f‌ice has put the statute on its

“high risk” list of items needing

legislative attention.

When TSCA was enacted, it

grandfathered in, with-

out any evaluation, the

roughly 60,000 chemicals

that existed in 1976. e

statute never provided ad-

equate authority for EPA

to reevaluate these exist-

ing chemicals as new con-

cerns arose or science was

updated, and it failed to

grant adequate authority to require

companies to provide toxicity data.

As a result, in the more than three

decades since TSCA was passed, EPA

has only been able to require testing

on approximately 200 of the 80,000

chemicals produced and used in the

United States today.

Even if the agency has substantial

data and wants to protect the pub-

lic against known risks, TSCA cre-

ates obstacles to quick and ef‌fective

regulatory action. For example, in

1989, after years of study and nearly

unanimous scientif‌ic opinion, EPA

issued a rule phasing out most uses

of asbestos. Yet, a federal court over-

turned most of this action because

the rule had failed to comply with

the law’s requirements.

Because of these weaknesses,

TSCA reform is a high priority for

A Tool in Need of Updating

Steve Owens