Lautenberg Plans TSCA Update Bill For 113th Congress
This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet
Executive Summary
Introducing a bill to modernize the 36-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act is a priority for Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., in the 113th Congress.
Arguing that the existing Toxic Substances Control Act limits the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., says he plans to reintroduce legislation to overhaul the 36-year-old law to help protect consumers from potentially hazardous chemicals.
The senator initially introduced the Safe Chemicals Act in April 2011, and while the bill advanced out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in July 2012, it did not come to a vote on the Senate floor (Also see "In Brief" - HBW Insight, 30 Jul, 2012.).
The Safe Chemicals Act would put the burden of chemical safety substantiation on manufacturers, and could have an impact on the cosmetics industry (Also see "Lautenberg Unveils TSCA Reform Bill, Putting Safety Burden-Of-Proof On Industry" - HBW Insight, 18 Apr, 2011.).
In a Jan. 4 release, Lautenberg emphasizes his commitment to modernizing the existing TSCA.
“EPA is still seriously limited under existing law, and we must reform TSCA if we ever hope to truly protect American families from toxic chemicals,” he says.
The senator suggests that EPA is now largely unable to take action when it identifies a toxic chemical that could impact public health.
“It’s like a doctor making a diagnosis, but being unable to write a prescription,” he says.
Lautenberg and his recast of the Safe Chemicals Act may face opposition from Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who reportedly plans to introduce his own industry-backed bill to modernize TSCA.
Vitter is now the ranking Republican on the EPW committee. He voiced disapproval of Lautenberg’s Safe Chemicals Act during a Senate TSCA hearing in November 2011 and advised against modeling TSCA too closely after the European Union’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (Also see "Industry Cautions Against Modeling TSCA Reforms After REACH" - HBW Insight, 21 Feb, 2011.).
He argued that a REACH-style program "would threaten to kill innovation in the U.S. and is a real recipe for hamstringing small and medium-sized manufacturers in particular."
Working Within TSCA As Is
EPA isn’t completely powerless under the current TSCA, and continues to operate within the regulation’s confines.
On Jan. 4, the agency released draft risk assessments for five chemicals for public comment, including fragrance ingredient HHCB (1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8,-hexamethylcyclopenta-[γ]-2-benzopyran).
According to the report, HHCB is a synthetic musk and is used as a fragrance in perfumes, cosmetics, shampoos, lotions, washing and cleaning agents.
“HHCB is considered one of the more important compounds to the fragrance industry because it imparts unique odor properties [and] has the ability to improve the fixation of fragrance compounds,” according to the report.
EPA says that use of HHCB has been growing. While the ingredient is not produced in the U.S., it was imported at a rate of 1 to 10 million pounds annually from 1990 to 2006.
After evaluating potential aquatic and terrestrial hazards of HHCB, EPA says it expects the “risks to be negligible.” The agency previously evaluated the human health risks associated with the substance, finding that it presented “minimal concerns.”
Public comments on the draft risk assessments will be accepted for 60 days. After the comment period, EPA will submit the reports for “independent scientific peer review.” The assessments are slated to be finalized in the fall of 2013, according to the agency.
The five chemical assessments released Jan. 4 mark the first group of ingredients considered under the TSCA Work Plan, which seeks to assess chemical “impacts on people’s health and the environment.”
Released in March 2012, the Work Plan identifies 83 chemicals as candidates for review over the next few years. Four fragrance chemicals are slated to be assessed in 2013/2014 due to concerns over aquatic toxicity: ethanone, 1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-octahydro- 2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl)-; ethanone, 1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-octahydro- 2,3,5,5-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl)-; ethanone, 1-(1,2,3,5,6,7,8,8a-octahydro- 2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl)-; and ethanone, 1-(1,2,3,4,6,7,8,8a-octahydro- 2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl)-.
Lautenberg applauded the agency for acting under the current TSCA, but stressed the need for the regulation’s reform.
NGO the Environmental Working Group offered a similar view.
“The risk assessments released today are an important step forward for consumer health, and we commend EPA for its efforts,” EWG Senior Scientist Renee Sharp says Jan. 4. “At the same time, they underscore the need for true chemical policy reform. Children, workers and consumers will never be truly protected until chemicals are tested for safety before they are put on the market.”